ordinary meeting no. 43224322 - 23 april 2012 index a - confirmation of minutes 1. confirmation of...

Hunter 's H i l l Counc i l

Ordinary Meeting

No. 4322 23 April 2012 at 7.30pm

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Prayer

Attendance, Apologies,

Declarations of Interests

A Confirmation of Minutes

Civic Ceremonies

Reports from Staff

D Development & Regulatory Control

F Corporate Governance

G Customer & Community Services

J Committees

M General Business

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

4322 - 23 April 2012

INDEX

A - CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No.4321 held 26 March 2012 1

D - DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

1. 9 Glenview Crescent, Hunters Hill 1 2. 1/14 Lloyd Avenue, Hunters Hill 23 3. 19 Bonnefin Road, Hunters Hill 33 4. 6 Foss Street, Hunters Hill 53 5. 25-27 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill 68 6. Report of Legal Matters 72 7. Delegated Authority 73 8. 45 Gladesville Road Hunters Hill - Free Parking Area Agreement 75 9. 58 - 60 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill 77

F - CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

1. Summary of Council Investments as at 31 March 2012 1

G - CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES

1. Henley Cottage 1 2. Henley Community Centre (Henley Bowling Club) 2

J - COMMITTEES

1. Minutes of the Hunters Hill Access Advisory Committee held 29 March 2012 1 2. Minutes of the Hunters Hill Children Services Advisory Committee held 27

March 2012 5

3. Minutes of the Hunters Hill Art Exhibition Advisory Committee held 14 March 2012

8

4. Minutes of the Hunters Hill Seniors Advisory Group held 2 April 2012 12 5. Report of General Purpose On-site Inspections held 26 March 2012 15 6. Report of Councillor Workshops & Briefings held 26 March 2012 16

M - GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Meetings - Various Committees of Council 1

A

Confirmation of

Minutes

A – Confirmation of Minutes

4322 - 23 April 2012

Index

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No.4321 held 26 March 2012 1

Councillor Susan R. Hoopmann MAYOR

Barry Smith GENERAL MANAGER

MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING NO.4321 - 26 March 2012 A1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4321 held on 126 March 2012. This is page

COMMENCEMENT

The meeting opened with prayer at 7.35pm.

IN ATTENDANCE

Deputy Mayor Councillor Richard Quinn, Councillors Peter Astridge, Simon Frame, Ross Sheerin and Meredith Sheil. The Mayor Councillor Susan Hoopmann arrived at 8.03pm.

ALSO PRESENT The General Manager Barry Smith, the Group Manager Corporate Governance Debra McFadyen, the Group Manager Development and Regulatory Control Steve Kourepis and the Group Manager Works and Services David Innes.

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillor Murray Butt. 62/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Sheerin that the apologies be

accepted and leave of absence granted.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Mayor Councillor Susan Hoopmann declared an interest in Item D1 – 11 Crescent Street, Hunters Hill, the interest being in relation to the owner being a neighbour. Councillor Ross Sheerin declared an interest in Item D6, Report on Legal Matters, Legal Reference No.207578 16 Vernon Street, Hunters, the interest being in regard to his being the agent for the property owner.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

63/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Sheil that the Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No.4320, held 12 March 2012 be confirmed.

REPORTS FROM STAFF

DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL (Pages D1 – D50) 1. DA2011/1057 - 11 CRESCENT STREET, HUNTERS HILL

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

64/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Astridge that at 7.40pm, Standing Orders be suspended to allow Councillors to view plans.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

65/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Astridge that at 7.50pm, Standing Orders be resumed.



66/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Astridge that the section 96 Application, DA2011/1057-1, under of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to delete Condition No.3 of the development consent, dated 8 September 2011, be retained and altered to read as follows:

3. That the area, along the southeastern boundary alignment, to the east of

the existing swimming pool to either provide for suitable screen plants to a maturity height of 3 metres OR install an appropriate fixed privacy screen at 1.8m in height from the existing swimming pool coping finish, for the entire length of the existing swimming pool, to improve the privacy for adjoining neighbours. The amended plans and required details being submitted to Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

RECORD OF VOTING

Yes Against / Absent Clr Peter Astridge Clr Murray Butt - Absent Clr Simon Frame Clr Susan Hoopmann - Absent Clr Richard Quinn Clr Ross Sheerin Clr Meredith Sheil

2. DA2010/1065-1 - 38 EARL STREET, HUNTERS HILL

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

67/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Astridge that at 7.58pm, Standing Orders be suspended to allow Councillors to view plans.

8.03pm Councillor Hoopmann entered the meeting during discussion on this matter.


68/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Astridge that at 8.05pm, Standing Orders be resumed.

8.06pm Councillor Hoopmann assumed the Chair. 69/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Frame that this application

DA2010/1065-1 to modify, under Section 96 of the Act, the development consent No. 2010/1065, for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new child care centre at No.38 Earl Street, Hunters Hill, be approved and Condition Nos.2(iii) and 5 being altered, and Condition No.84 be added to read as follows:

2 (iii) The front fence and gates being setback a minimum of 2.1 metres

from the front street boundary and not exceeding a height of 1200mm above natural ground level. The area between the fence and front boundary is to comprise a layering of landscape up to a height of at least 1.5m and include at least one (1) canopy tree from Council’s preferred tree list.

5. The development consent No.2010/1065 relates to the plans prepared by

Artiva Architects drawing Nos.DA:S96-21 & 31 all Issue A, dated 14 November 2011, as received by Council on 15 November 2011 and DA:S96-01 Issue B, DA:S96-03 Issue A, DA:S96-11 issue B as received by Council on 28 February 2012, except where amended by conditions of this consent.



84. That the proposed waste bins are to be roofed and enclosed and sited to stand adjacent OR under the stairs of the building and car parking bay 4 (staff) be relocate further north towards the boundary alignment accordingly. The waste bins are not to stand along the northern boundary alignment and amended plans are required reflecting this amendment and being submitted to Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

RECORD OF VOTING Yes Against / Absent

Clr Peter Astridge Clr Murray Butt - Absent Clr Simon Frame Clr Susan Hoopmann Clr Richard Quinn Clr Ross Sheerin Clr Meredith Sheil

3. DA2011/1016 - 96 BARONS CRESCENT, HUNTERS HILL 70/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Sheil that the review of

determination under s82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, to the refusal of Development Application No.2011/1016 for alterations and additions at No.96 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the following conditions:

Special Conditions: 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act

1979 this approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not substantially commenced within five (5) years after the date of approval.

2. The development consent No.2011/1016 relates to the plans prepared by

Julie Cracknell and Peter Lonergan, numbered SEC 82 01 – SEC 82 04, Issue C, dated 29 August 2011.

3. Development to be in accordance with BASIX Certificate No.A106342, date

of issue 24 February 2011. 4. Pursuant to section 80A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act 1979, and the Hunters Hill Section 94A Developer Contributions Plan 2011, a contribution of $3000.00 shall be paid to council.

The amount to be paid is to be adjusted (if required) at the time of the actual payment, in accordance with the provisions of Hunters Hill Section 94A Developer Contributions Plan 2011. The contribution must be paid to Council: (a) in the case of Complying Development; • prior to the time notice is given to Council under s86 of the Act of the

applicant's intention to subdivide, commence work or erect a building; • prior to the commencement of any work pursuant to the complying

development certificate; • prior to the issue of any subdivision certificate; • prior to the issue of any occupation certificate;



whichever occurs first. (b) in all other instances: • prior to the issue of any construction certificate; • prior to the issue of any subdivision certificate; • prior to the commencement of any work pursuant to the development

consent; • prior to the issue of any occupation certificate; whichever occurs first. 5. To protect the privacy of the northern property a condition will be imposed

that Camellia Sasanqua “Star above star” to be planted along the northern side of the roof top planter box at 1 metre centres. Amended plans to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

6. That the proposed garage door is to be dark and recessive earthy

tone/colour. Amended schedule of colours to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

7. That the proposed front fence is to be dark and recessive earthy

tone/colour. Amended schedule of colours to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

8. The footings on the western end of the proposed theatre room are to be

pier and beam construction to ensure the protection of any roots from Tree No.3. The construction to be supervised by the Site Arborist to ensure compliance.

The recommendations contained in Part 6 of the Arborist report by ENTS

Tree Consultancy, dated 29 October 2011, are to form part of the conditions of consent. Additionally, the Tree Protection Recommendations contained in Appendix No.6 of that report are to form part of the conditions of consent. Evidence of compliance with the recommendations is to be provided prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

9. Should any portion of the external walls of the existing dwelling, which is

indicated on the approved plans to be retained, be damaged or demolished during the construction period for whatever reason, all such works are to cease and written notification be submitted to Council as a matter of urgency. No demolition or building work is to resume until the written approval of Council to proceed is given. Failure to comply with this the provisions of this condition will result in Council initiating legal proceedings for unauthorised work without further warning.

10. To further protect the tree located immediately adjacent to the proposed

front porch entry area, the length of the proposed front entry porch area is to be reduced to 2 metres and to stand approximately 8.45 metres from the front boundary alignment. Amended plans to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Standard Conditions: A4-A9, B1, B7, C1-C5, C11, C12, C14, C15, C40-C42, C44, D2, D13-D19, FS2, L2, L5, L4, L6, L7 PE4, PE5, S1, S7(50%)



RECORD OF VOTING Yes Against / Absent

Clr Peter Astridge Clr Murray Butt - Absent Clr Simon Frame Clr Susan Hoopmann Clr Richard Quinn Clr Ross Sheerin Clr Meredith Sheil

4. DA2011/1136 - 22 FERRY STREET, HUNTERS HILL

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Karl Romandi (Owner) addressed the meeting on the subject matter.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 71/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Sheil that at 8.20pm,

Standing Orders be suspended to allow Councillors to view plans.


72/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Astridge that at 8.22pm, Standing Orders be resumed.

73/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Frame that: 1. The Council as the consent authority being satisfied that the objection

under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the garden area provisions under Clause 16A, of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded.

2. Development Application No.2011/1136 for alterations and additions to the

existing dwelling at No.22 Ferry Street, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the following conditions:

Special Conditions: 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act

1979 this approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not substantially commenced within five (5) years after the date of approval.

2. The development consent No.11/1136 relates to the plans prepared by Karl

Romandi & Helen De Luis Architects Pty Ltd, numbered 0911_3A to 0911_6A, 0911_8A, 0911_9A, dated January 2012, date stamped by Council on 31 January 2012.

Standard Conditions: A4-A9, B1, B7, C1-C5, C12, C14, C40-C42, C44, D2, D13-D19, FS2, L2, L4, PE4, PE5, S1, S7



RECORD OF VOTING Yes Absent / Against

Clr Peter Astridge Clr Murray Butt Clr Simon Frame Clr Susan Hoopmann Clr Richard Quinn Clr Ross Sheerin Clr Meredith Sheil

5. REPORT OF DELEGATED AUTHORITY 74/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Sheerin that the report be

received and noted. 6. REPORT OF LEGAL MATTERS Having declared an interest in relation to Item D6 Legal Reference No.207578 16 Vernon Street, Hunters Hill, Councillor Sheerin refrained from voting on this matter and as there was no discussion on this matter, did not leave the Meeting. 75/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Sheil that the report be

received and noted. 7. PROPOSED HERITAGE ITEMS & EXHIBITION OF THE DRAFT LEP 2012 PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Tony Coote (Hunters Hill Trust) addressed the meeting on the subject matter. 76/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Sheil that:

1. Council continue to endorse the exhibition of the draft Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 for public exhibition, subject to the inclusion of:

(a) A Heritage Schedule and Heritage Maps, formatted to meet the

requirements of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and revised to include the following recommendations of the Hunters Hill Heritage Review prepared by Paul Davies and amended as shown.

i. Upgrade 10 contributory items to heritage status. (This has

been revised from 12 contributory items as 13 & 21 Huntley’s Point Road have been removed).

ii. Upgrade 43 noted items to heritage status (This has been revised from 37 noted items as the Everard Street stone wall has been removed and 7 more items have been added)

iii. De-list 5 existing heritage items from through the Draft LEP 2012 (this remains unchanged).

iv. That owners of items identified above be notified and consulted prior to exhibition.

2. That should conditions of certification only require minor amendments to

Hunters Hill Draft LEP 2012 of a technical or procedural nature the Council agree the General Manager be delegated authority to endorse and exhibit the plan.



3. A further report be prepared for Council following the exhibition of the Hunters Hill draft LEP 2012.

RECORD OF VOTING

Yes Against / Absent Clr Peter Astridge Clr Murray Butt - Absent Clr Simon Frame Clr Susan Hoopmann Clr Richard Quinn Clr Ross Sheerin Clr Meredith Sheil

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (Pages F1 – F4) 1. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL INVESTMENTS AS AT 29 FEBRUARY 2012 77/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted. 2. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2011 78/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Sheil that the report be

received and noted and the variations adopted.

CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES (Page G1) 1. STORAGE RENTAL HENLEY COMMUNITY CENTRE 79/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Quinn that Council enter into a

one year licence agreement with Hunters Hill Rugby Club and All Saints Soccer Club for use of the storage rooms at Henley Community Centre for an annual fee of $634 each for 2012/13.

GENERAL MANAGER (Pages H1 – H11) 1. NO SMOKING POLICY IN PLAYGROUNDS & PUBLIC PLACES

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Stafford Sanders (representing 48 NGOs) addressed the meeting on the subject

matter. 80/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Sheil that:

1. Council adopt the attached Smoke-free Environment policy which includes banning smoking in the following areas on Council land:

(i) Within ten (10) metres of all children playground equipment; (ii) On all playing fields, sporting grounds and sporting facilities (i.e.

swimming pools, outdoor sports centres); (iii) At all events run or sponsored by Council; (iv) In alfresco dining areas on public land; (v) In Council’s pedestrian malls/plazas; (vi) Within ten (10) metres of Council owned or managed buildings

including balconies or covered areas of those buildings; (vii) In all bushland, parks and reserves;



(viii) Within all covered bus stops and taxi ranks (ix) Within enclosed Council car parks; (x) Further, that this Policy be enforced in any leases, licenses or

other estates that apply to Council owned and managed lands and properties

(xi) That internationally recognised signage be erected to indicate that these areas are smoke-free.

2. That the draft policy be placed on public exhibition for 28 days and

comments and submissions invited.

2. 1. NSROC REGIONAL PRIORITIES & 2. NSROC REVIEW 81/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Sheil that:

1. Council advise the NSROC Board of its strong support for the NSROC Region Priorities Plan.

2. Council commend the Executive Director, Ms Carolynne James on her

work and involvement in the preparation of both these reports. 3. Council advise the NSROC Board that it supports the provision of additional

staff resource and the proposed funding model.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (Pages J1 – J7) 1. MINUTES OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (CAP) MEETING HELD

15 FEBRUARY 2012

82/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Frame that the minutes be

received and noted.

CORRESPONDENCE (PRECIS) (Page K1) 1. CORRESPONDENCE – ALGWA NSW seeking Donations from Councils for Moree

Relief. 83/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Quinn that the correspondence

be received and noted.

GENERAL BUSINESS (Page M1) 1. MEETINGS – VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL 84/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Frame that the report listing the

various Committees of Council be received and noted.



QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE

No. Author Date Question

3/12 Clr Quinn 26.03.12 Does Council have a policy about appropriate response times for correspondence received by email? What is regarded as an appropriate response time for emails received?

Answer Item 1.2 of Council’s Communication Policy (CORP.S.20

states:

“Council staff must acknowledge all correspondence or provide an interim reply within 10 working days. All correspondence must be sent in accordance with the Council style manual and via Council Records. If the matter requires further investigation, a letter must be sent notifying the recipient of the following:

a) Their enquiry is being investigated.

b) The name of the responsible officer following up the enquiry.

c) Any additional information regarding how the matter is likely to progress or the processes and procedures that must be undertaken to enable a full response to the enquiry to be given.

Exceptions to these standards include, where:

a) Council or a member of Council staff receives correspondence that contains substantially and clearly inappropriate content – such as threatening or abusive language or adverse personal reflections on individuals. In this circumstance a substantive reply will not be forwarded.

b) Objections to development applications where a response is offered following the determination of the application.

c) The request is in the form of an application subject to a fee.

d) Council receives repeated complaints from an individual or community group regarding a complaint that has already been assessed and reviewed by council staff. Such circumstances will be dealt with in accordance with council’s complaints handling policy and may involve limitations on further correspondence on that matter with the concerned individual or group.

This policy is also currently being reviewed in conjunction with the implementation of the new Electronic Document and Records Management System.



TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 9.25pm. I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Ordinary Meeting No.4321 held 26 March 2012. ............................................. ................................... Councillor Susan Hoopmann Barry Smith MAYOR GENERAL MANAGER

D

Development &

Regulatory Control

D - Development & Regulatory Control

4322 - 23 April 2012

Index

1. 9 Glenview Crescent, Hunters Hill 1 2. 1/14 Lloyd Avenue, Hunters Hill 23 3. 19 Bonnefin Road, Hunters Hill 33 4. 6 Foss Street, Hunters Hill 53 5. 25-27 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill 68 6. Report of Legal Matters 72 7. Delegated Authority 73 8. 45 Gladesville Road Hunters Hill - Free Parking Area Agreement 75 9. 58 - 60 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill 77

Steve Kourepis GROUP MANAGER

DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

Meeting 4322 - 23 April 2012 D1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4322 held on 23 April 2012. This is page

ITEM NO : 1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. : DA2010-1099

PROPOSAL : TO DEMOLISH THE FRONT GARAGE & SWIMMING POOL, CARRY OUT ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS TO THE DWELLING HOUSE, TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL & NEW WORKSHOP/STUDIO FRONTING FRANCIS STREET – S.82A REVIEW OF REFUSAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

PROPERTY 9 GLENVIEW CRESCENT, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : ANTHONY JOHN VLATKO

OWNER : MR A J VLATKO & MS C A MERCHANT

DATE LODGED : 3 NOVEMBER 2011, 22 DECEMBER 2011 & 13 FEBRUARY 2012

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH

1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 13 February 2012 resolved that the matter be deferred to the General Purposes Committee for an on-site inspection prior to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council available to the applicant and objector on 26 March 2012 and that additional documentation and correspondence be received to ensure comments relating to: 1. Objectives of DCP 15

2. Non-compliance in relation to DCP 15

3. Compliance of height controls in DCP 15 (7.2m)

4. Assessment of view loss from adjoining properties

5. Assessment of set-back non-compliances

6. Assessment of loss of privacy

7. Adjoining neighbour to provide height poles

8. Consideration of the late submission.




In relation to the above eight points, the following comments are made: 1. Objectives of DCP 15

Comment: It is considered that the development, with the exception of the workshop/studio, generally meets the objectives of clause 3.1 of DCP No.15 as discussed in the body of the report. 2. Non-compliance in relation to DCP 15

Comment: The workshop/studio does not comply with the building line provisions of clause 7.2.2 of DCP No.15 as discussed in the body of the report. 3. Compliance of height controls in DCP 15 (7.2m)

Comment: The proposed alterations and additions are considered to comply with the height standards of the LEP and DCP No.15 as discussed in the body of the report. 4. Assessment of view loss from adjoining properties

Comment: There will be some water/city views lost from 7 Glenview Crescent. These however will be side views and not direct views. Based on the recent Court decision in respect of 7 Elgin Street, this would not be justifiable as a reason for refusal as discussed in the body of the report. 5. Assessment of set-back non-compliances

Comment: The only setback non-compliance is the building line for the workshop/studio fronting Francis Street, which in any case is recommended for refusal as discussed in the body of the report. 6. Assessment of loss of privacy

Comment: Loss of privacy for the residents of 15 Francis Street has been addressed by way of the schedule 1 conditions relating to the provision of a planter box and privacy screen as discussed in the body of the report. 7. Adjoining neighbour to provide height poles

Comment: As development has been completed on the adjoining premises to the west, there would be no useful purpose served by the installation of height poles. 8. Consideration of the late submission

Comment: The late submission has been considered in the body of the report and addressed in detail in the submissions section of this report. Please note, the proposal resulted in six (6) letters of objection being received in response to the neighbour notification process for the review. Such review applications are required under the EP&A Act to be considered by Council. The nine (9) page letter of objection referred to above, as prepared by Provincial Planning on behalf of the owner of 7 Glenview Crescent, was dated 9 January 2012 (the notification period closed on 7 December 2011) This letter was a late submission placed on Council’s file after the report had been completed for the previous Council agenda.




Much of this abovementioned letter was very similar and in the main identical word for word with the ten (10) page letter of objection prepared by Provincial Planning on behalf of the owner of 15 Francis Street. A copy of this letter is attached and is reported on in the submissions section of this report to Council. In the interim, an inspection of that site, 7 Glenview Crescent, has been carried out as requested at the Council meeting to assess view loss and any detrimental visual effects. However, due to the applicant being unavailable to attend the Council meeting of 26 March 2012 with the need for an on-site inspection, this report was held over to this Council meeting. Issues raised by objectors • Francis Street garage out of character and not needed

• Future use of the garage

• Visual impact on 15 Francis Street • Height non-compliance

• Traffic / parking problems in Francis Street

• Loss of privacy

• Undesirable precedent for Francis Street

• Heritage impact

• Noise emission

• Inadequate site analysis

• Lack of finished surface details

• Lack of landscape plans

• Lack of stormwater management plans

Objection Objection letters were received representing six (6) nearby premises. Recommendation The application is recommended in part for a “deferred commencement” approval for reasons that it is reasonable having regard to: 1. it is permissible under the zoning 2. it complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local

Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15 and 3. it will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties.




That part of the application relating to the construction of the workshop/studio off Francis Street is recommended for refusal. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish the existing garage to be replaced with two (2) open parking spaces at the front of the site off Glenview Crescent and to demolish the swimming pool at the rear of the dwelling. To construct alterations and additions to the existing two-storey dwelling such that it will be used as follows: On the lower ground floor, a utility room, bathroom, laundry, storeroom, undercroft and staircase. A new L-shaped timber deck, pool with associated fencing and stairs will be constructed off the rear of the dwelling. On the ground floor, a main entry, two (2) studies, bathroom, bedroom, lounge/dining room, kitchen, family room, staircase and new dining room at the rear. A new enclosed balcony 3.599 metres wide x 6.201 metres deep with stairs will be constructed off the rear of the dwelling. External shade louvers will be provided adjacent to each west facing window from the kitchen south. A framed glass wall with sliding doors will be provided on the western elevation faces of the new balcony area opening off the dining room extension. Elevation plans alternatively show the rear balustrade as being of masonry construction. The rear balcony area will be roofed to the position of the rear wall of the lower ground floor. On the first floor, three (3) bedrooms, bathroom, sitting room and staircase. An existing balcony facing south will be maintained off the sitting room and one bedroom. No changes are proposed for the first floor layout. On the Francis Street frontage, it is proposed to construct a single-storey structure, 5.6 metres wide x 6.794 metres deep, with a substantially accessible roof to be used as a workshop / studio. It will have a 2.4 metre wide timber panel doors opening inwards facing the street and external stairs along the western side giving access to the roof area. A wooden panel parapet/balustrade will surround the upper deck area. The applicant does not propose to provide a vehicular crossing in Francis Street to service this building. Accompanying this application for a s.82A review of the refusal of the development application was a report of a habitat assessment and field surveys for red-crowned toadlets. A town planning report accompanied the s.82A review application which in part addressed the reasons for the original refusal of the application was attached. A copy of this part of the report is attached. The applicant has erected a height pole on the land to indicate the extent of the additions to the rear of the dwelling. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is legally described as Lot 24 in DP 9291 and is known as 9 Glenview Crescent, Hunters Hill. The site is conventional in shape and has an area of 965sqm and has a frontage of 18.535 metres to Glenview Crescent and 18.29 metres to Francis Street. It has a slope of approximately 12 metres down to the south (Francis Street) and a relatively level section along the street frontage. The subject site is located on the southern side of Glenview Crescent, between Wybalena Road and Glenview Road.




Existing on the subject site is a two-storey brick/tile dwelling with a detached garage to the front and an in-ground pool to the rear. Surrounding development comprises single-storey and two-storey dwellings, having variations in style, form, period of construction and scale. At the Francis Street frontage, there is a flat section of land at the western end that formed the floor of the original garage, since demolished. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY Development consent was granted by Council on 24 August 1999 for alterations and first floor additions to the existing dwelling. A pre-DA meeting was held with Council’s DCU on 11 May 2005 at which advice was given that a two-storey garage fronting Francis Street would not be in keeping and have to be carefully considered from a streetscape perspective. A new carport was proposed at Glenview Crescent. It was suggested that a lightweight style carport may be acceptable. Further, the natural rock features to Francis Street would have to be retained. The development application (DA2010/1099) for alterations and additions to the dwelling and the construction of a workshop / studio was refused under delegation on 8 June 2011 for nine (9) reasons, as follows:

1. The proposal fails to comply with clause 1- ‘Aim objective, etc’ of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1.

2. The proposal fails to comply with clauses 3.1 and 3.2 under ’Planning Policy

– All Development’ of DCP No.15. 3. The landscaping plan is inadequate in terms of plant material, the protection

method for the retention of the existing trees and shrubs and no detail has been submitted for the protection of trees immediately adjoining the site.

4. The plans submitted with the development application are inaccurate and

inconsistent. 5. The construction of a detached garage/workshop/studio building fronting

Francis Street would be detrimental to the local streetscape. 6. The proposed external window treatment is unsatisfactory and requires a

rationalisation of configurations and reduction in sizes. 7. There will be a loss of privacy due to the location of windows and doors plus

the large rear balcony facing out onto adjoining recreation and living areas of residential premises.

8. No evidence of research has been submitted to Council by the applicant as

requested identifying threatened species and aboriginal sites on the subject property.

9. The proposal is contrary to the public interest and would create an

undesirable precedent undermining Council’s planning objectives.




The s.82A application was submitted on 3 November 2011 and was accompanied by amending plans. The main differences being deletion of the cinema room from the lower ground floor and the provision of a laundry at that level; the provision of a planter box at the south west corner of the ground floor balcony and deletion of a window from the west elevation of the ground floor. The roof over the rear ground floor balcony will be extended south to a position based on the extension of the rear wall of the lower level of the dwelling. A height pole was subsequently erected on the subject site showing the position and height of the south western corner of the covered balcony of the proposed extension. This was followed by a plan and written description from a surveyor for the applicant setting out the survey details of the height pole. This application was deferred by Council on 22 February 2012 for an on-site inspection plus additional documentation and correspondence to be submitted in relation to a number of criteria as quoted above. This on-site inspection took place on 20 February 2012 in conjunction with the owners of 7 Glenview Crescent and 15 Francis Street. An alternative design option was made at that recent on-site meeting was for the proposed open deck to be cut back to the north by approximately.3.2 metres in line with the adjacent deck area wall of 15 Francis Street and to cut back the roof covering of the open sided deck i.e. cutting it back by 3 metres. This to improve the privacy for the owners of 15 Francis Street relative to their open deck and to improve the views to the south east from 7 Glenview Crescent. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a2) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005: No Development Control Plan: No.15 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes 6. POLICY CONTROLS Development Control Plan No.15. 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building Not applicable.




7.3 Heritage As stated within the body of the report, the property is in a conservation area under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who provided the following comments:

Heritage Status: within Conservation Area No 1 (Peninsula). Nearest Sch. 6 item at 3 Jeanneret Ave (“Wybalena”)- rear access. Proposal: Demolish existing garage. New Studio/ workshop to Francis St frontage. Extend Dining Room to ground floor. Statement of Heritage Impact: Required. None provided. Comments: most of the impact will be to Francis Street which is of a very much mixed character. The works will be visible from the Parramatta River, though in a context of buildings of a similar nature. The proposed wall colour is presumably similar to the existing but it would be more beneficial to be a dark, earthy, recessive tone (as per DCP 15). Recommendation: there will be no adverse impacts on heritage items, and on the Conservation Area in the broader sense, although the proposed balcony etc. will have some cumulative impacts on what is an uncharacteristic area. I don’t see the need to refer it to CAP.

The application was not forwarded to the Conservation Advisory Panel as the dwelling house was not proposed to be demolished. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure

The application was referred to Council’s Design & Development Engineer who advised by memo that engineering conditions are required which are set out as special condition No.8 in the recommendation. 7.5 Parks & Landscape

The application was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator who advised by memo that there the landscape plan is approved. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings. 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION 9.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) Not applicable. 9.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs Not applicable.




9.3 Other Legislation Not applicable. 10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO.1 10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Zone The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone Residential 2(a2) and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Compliance with Current Statutory Controls

Proposed Control Compliance

HEIGHT Ceiling

6.0 metres

7.2 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 58% 50% Yes 10.3 Site Area Requirements The proposal complies with these requirements. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi-unit housing-density and garden

area controls Not applicable. 10.5 Height of Buildings The height of the proposal, being 6.0 metres and two storeys in height is acceptable as it would comply with the maximum of 7.2 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.6 Garden Area The proposed garden area of 58% would be above the 50% minimum permissible garden area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.7 Integrated Housing Development Not applicable. 10.8 Foreshore Building Lines Not applicable. 10.9 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Clause 18A states:




18A. The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked ‘Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14. - Heritage Conservation’, unless it has made an assessment of:

(a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development

when viewed from the waterway; and

(b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway from public roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6(b).

The subject site falls within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposed development would be generally visible from the waterway. The development, however, would not detrimentally affect the visual amenity of the foreshore. 10.10 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards Not applicable. 11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS (DCPs) 12.1 Compliance Table Residential Development Control Plan No.15 CONTROL REQUIRED/

PERMISSIBLE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2 metres

6.0 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 50% 58% Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house North (Front) South (Rear) East (Side) West (Side) Workshop/studio South (front) East (side) West (side) Swimming Pool North (Front) South (Rear) East (side) West (side)

Predom. Building Line 6 metres 1.5 metres 1.5 metres Predom. Building Line 1.5 metres 1.5 metres Predom. Building Line 1 metre 1 metre 1 metre

8.1 metres 12.5 metres 3.0 metres 1.5 metres 1.0 metre 10.8 metres 1.5 metres 30.0 metres 14.2 metres 13.2 metres 1.9 metres

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes




Planning Policy – All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Part 3 of Development Control Plan No.15. Heritage Conservation Areas The proposal complies with the relevant objectives under Part 4 of Development Control Plan No.15. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Refer to section 10.9 of this report ‘Foreshore Scenic Protection Area’. Visually Prominent Sites Not applicable. Height Complies. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks The plans for the dwelling house and the indoor pool give compliance to the setback provisions of the DCP No.15. The proposed workshop / studio proposed to be sited 1 metre from the Francis Street alignment does not comply with the predominant building line along this section of Francis Street. Garden Area Complies. Solar Access There will be no undue loss of mid-winter solar access resultant from the subject development. Privacy Subject to compliance with Schedule 1 Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 including the refusal of the workshop / studio as set out in the recommendation, there will be no undue loss of privacy as a result of this development. These conditions are to provide for reasonable retention of privacy for the adjoining neighbours at 15 Francis Street. Views There will be no loss of direct shared water views for adjoining and nearby residents as a result of this development. Car Parking The applicant will have an open off-street parking area at the Glenview Crescent section of the site (in place of the garage). It would be possible to have parking in a new garage structure fronting Francis Street although it is listed as a studio / workshop on the application form and in the statement of environmental effects, this structure is proposed to be refused.




Garages and Carports It is recognised that this part of the development, which is the workshop / studio, is not a garage but an out-building. However, it could be simply converted to and used as a garage off Francis Street. A new structure with timber panel doors 2.4 metres wide fronting Francis Street could be simply converted into a garage (from a studio / workshop) with the provision of a driveway crossing over the kerb. If this building were to be used for that purpose, the owners would have off street parking off Francis Street in place of the existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent. The construction of a detached garage/workshop/studio building fronting Francis Street would be detrimental to the local streetscape. In these circumstances, that part of the development application is recommended for refusal. Fences No change proposed. 12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies Not applicable. 13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT The detrimental impacts of the development, particularly relating to the lower part of the site, relate to the Francis Street streetscape and parking/traffic conditions. It is considered that the size, scale and location of the proposed single-storey workshop / studio fronting Francis Street are not reasonable in the local streetscape. The proposed wide building 1 metre from the Francis Street alignment will create a foreign element in this part of the streetscape. It will entail major excavation of sandstone, earth and shrubbery from this part of the site which will also create a major change in the local landscape. However, if it were to be approved by Council, in order to maintain reasonable levels of privacy for adjoining and nearby residents, it would be recommended that the accessible roof deck be deleted from the design. It would also be recommended that the structure be reduced in width to that of the current landform at that location. This would obviate major earthworks / sandstone removal which would create a major change in the Francis Street streetscape and create an undesirable precedent for Council. These matters form the basis for the refusal of that part of the application. They also provide guidance for the applicant for a further development application to be submitted to Council for the workshop / studio fronting Francis Street. No details have been given in the plans for the triangular planter box shown to be sited at the south western corner of the ground floor balcony. The plans of the southern elevation also do not show detail on the ground floor plan or the south elevation of the columns supporting the roof over part of the rear balcony. These matters have been addressed by Schedule 1, condition Nos. 3 and 4 as set out in the recommendation. Privacy to the adjoining owner to the west should be provided by the deletion of the window to the ground floor extensions on the western elevation and by screening of the western side of the large rear deck area. These matters are addressed by Schedule 1, condition Nos.1, 2 and 3 as set out in the recommendation.




An alternative design solution was discussed with both adjoining objectors at the recent on-site meeting for the proposed open deck to be setback to the north by approx.3.2 metres in line with the adjacent deck area wall of 15 Francis Street and to setback the roof covering of the open sided deck i.e. cutting it back by 3 metres. This would be to improve the privacy for the owners of 15 Francis Street relative to their open deck and to improve the water/city views to the south east from 7 Glenview Crescent. This design solution is now one for Council to consider as part of its consideration of this application. The additions to the rear of the existing dwelling, including the provision of the indoor swimming pool, are considered reasonable in the circumstances, subject to providing for privacy for the residents of 15 Francis Street, in that they give compliance to the height, garden area and setback provisions of Council’s controls. 14. SUBMISSIONS The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.15 for a period of ten (10) days commencing on the 23 November 2011. A total of six (6) submissions were received from or on behalf of adjoining and nearby property owners. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report. NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 9 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Dr. Ashutosh & Dr. Anju Aggarwal 7 Francis Street HUNTERS HILL

• The applicant for the development already has an adequate garage/studio/workshop at Glenview Crescent. The new garage/studio/workshop at the rear of the site is out of character with Francis Street homes

• The proposed development would increase traffic on Francis Street which is already a narrow, dead end street

• The proposed development would have a direct impact on our property with the new development compromising the privacy of our house

David & Lorraine Dewar 3 Francis Street

• Francis Street is a very narrow dead end street which already has in the order of about 28 residence vehicles to contend with.

Raymond & Robyn George 18 Wybalena Road HUNTERS HILL

• Parking in Francis Street is tight at the best of times being a one-way street. Having an extra garage / workshop built in this street will only make it more congested , I am led to believe that the owners of the above address have an existing garage in the front of their house, if residents have a function with many visitors Francis Street becomes a car park, at these times it is very difficult to get in and out of my driveway

• I believe Francis St does not need a garage/workshop, I refer to point 1 re parking, also I think there will be a problem of noise resonating from the workshop at all hours




NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 9 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents


• I have a problem with the height, I have walked past on many occasions and have noticed a height pole erected, based on this, I think the proposed development stands very high compared to other buildings in Francis Street

• This brings me to another matter of houses who are established in Glenview Crescent. Does this mean that if this proposal goes through all houses in Glenview who back on to Francis St can now extend their buildings into Francis Street?

M. Maniscalco 2 Francis Street HUNTERS HILL

• We personally strongly object to any further development on Francis St. and fail to see any justification for the resident to resubmit the application

• Francis St. is a very narrow dead end street which is already congested and certainly developed enough already

Provincial Planning for Colin Pirina 15 Francis Street HUNTERS HILL

• Overshadowing It is plainly obvious that a building of the scale, bulk, height and length proposed in close proximity to the western boundary is a poor and insensitive design, which creates unsatisfactory shadowing impacts

• Visual impact on No.15 The proposal by virtue of excessive length,

unarticulated elevations, bulk, height and siting, which is compounded by the aesthetically displeasing and bland façade treatment will dominate and tower over the outdoor living areas of No.15

• Privacy impacts As is clearly demonstrated by the attached photomontage, the height and proximity of the proposed building results in a gross invasion of privacy to No.15. There has been no attempt to design the proposal to maintain the existing amenity. In this regard the western elevation is proliferated with large unscreened west facing windows and a large elevated entertaining deck.

• Streetscape impacts It is obvious the proposal will have a deleterious impact on the streetscape and character of the area, however, a full and proper assessment cannot be made in the absence of notification plans which show the southern elevation. It is curious as to why arguably the most important elevation has not been attached






• Reasonableness and necessity Firstly, the workshop/studio as it is referred to by the applicant is inappropriately located in terms of its relationship and physical disconnection from the main dwelling house, both from a distance and accessibility point of view. It appears that there is ample opportunity within the existing building envelope, particularly in the subfloor area to accommodate a workshop and generous surplus area Secondly, there is no landscaping or other suitable measures proposed to attempt to minimise any impact, which notwithstanding, noting the height, scale siting etc, would be impossible mitigate. Thirdly, the approval of the application will create an undesirable precedent for new development along Francis Street, garages with roof terraces particularly noting the opportunity for views. Further, approval is likely to result in demand for carparking structures within the Glenview Crescent setback area

• Permissibility In particular it is uncertain as to whether such work

shop is for commercial or industrial purposes, or is for a home industry or home occupation. Accordingly Council cannot be satisfied as to the permissibility of the proposal under the Hunters Hill LEP

• Evident in the poor quality plans and substandard ‘tokenistic reports

• The existing site by way of the arrangement of the built form already constitutes an over development and the new works further compounds this situation

• The building will clearly be 3 storeys and over 7.2 metres in height

Provincial Planning for Mrs.I.Pirina 7 Glenview Crescent HUNTERS HILL

• Visual impact on No.7 The proposal by virtue of excessive length,

unarticulated elevations, bulk, height and siting, which is compounded by the aesthetically displeasing and bland façade treatment will dominate and tower over the living areas and terraces of No.7

• Privacy impacts As is clearly demonstrated by the attached photomontage, the height and proximity of the proposed building results in a gross invasion of privacy to No.15. There has been no attempt to design the proposal to maintain the existing amenity. In this regard the western elevation is proliferated with large unscreened west facing windows and a large elevated entertaining deck.






• View loss It is however obvious that the pleasant district and foreshore views will be adversely impacted by the proposal. The proposal replaces a pleasant outlook with a long solid unrelieved wall which is aesthetically displeasing and overbearing

• Streetscape impacts It is obvious the proposal will have a deleterious impact on the streetscape and character of the area, however, a full and proper assessment cannot be made in the absence of notification plans which show the southern elevation. It is curious as to why arguably the most important elevation has not been attached

• Reasonableness and necessity Firstly, the workshop/studio as it is referred to by the applicant is inappropriately located in terms of its relationship and physical disconnection from the main dwelling house, both from a distance and accessibility point of view. It appears that there is ample opportunity within the existing building envelope, particularly in the subfloor area to accommodate a workshop and generous surplus area Secondly, there is no landscaping or other suitable measures proposed to attempt to minimise any impact, which notwithstanding, noting the height, scale siting etc, would be impossible mitigate. Thirdly, the approval of the application will create an undesirable precedent for new development along Francis Street, garages with roof terraces particularly noting the opportunity for views. Further, approval is likely to result in demand for carparking structures within the Glenview Crescent setback area

• Permissibility In particular it is uncertain as to whether such work

shop is for commercial or industrial purposes, or is for a home industry or home occupation. Accordingly Council cannot be satisfied as to the permissibility of the proposal under the Hunters Hill LEP

The main issues of concern outlining the objections are discussed below:

• The applicant for the development already has an adequate

garage/studio/workshop at Glenview Crescent. The new garage/studio/workshop at the rear of the site is out of character with Francis Street homes




Comment: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent which is to be replaced with the new workshop / studio structure fronting Francis Street. The benefit of this part of the development to the Glenview Crescent streetscape will be offset to some degree by the likely detrimental change to the Francis Street streetscape which in any case is deemed too wide for the streetscape and will create privacy issue for neighbours. The changes recommended to remove these detrimental effects to the Francis Street streetscape and to improve privacy are set out in the recommendation.

• The proposed development would increase traffic on Francis Street which is

already a narrow, dead end street Comment: Assessment has been carried out by Council’s Group Manager Works & Services and it was declared that Francis Street was not too narrow for one or two additional cars to use such pavement on a daily basis. • The proposed development would have a direct impact on our property with

the new development compromising the privacy of our house Comment: The objector’s property in Francis Street is directly opposite the subject land. It is considered that no effective argument can be made for the loss of privacy to their front yard or front of the dwelling house. Nevertheless, the recommendation is for refusal of this part of the application for a number of reasons. • Francis Street is a very narrow dead end street which already has in the order

of about 28 residence vehicles to contend with Comment: The applicant does not propose to use the workshop/studio (which is in any case recommended for refusal) for the purpose of off-street car parking. Therefore, the question of traffic generation and on-street parking issues are not likely to result from this development. • Parking in Francis Street is tight at the best of times being a one-way street.

Having an extra garage / workshop built in this street will only make it more congested , I am led to believe that the owners of the above address have an existing garage in the front of their house, if residents have a function with many visitors Francis Street becomes a car park, at these times it is very difficult to get in and out of my driveway

Comment: The applicant does not propose to use the workshop/studio fronting Francis Street (which in any case is recommended for refusal) for the purpose of off-street car parking. Therefore, the question of traffic generation and on-street parking issues are not likely to result from this development. • I believe Francis Street does not need a garage/workshop, I refer to point 1 re

parking, also I think there will be a problem of noise resonating from the workshop at all hours

Comment: It is the applicant’s choice to have a detached workshop / studio fronting Francis Street. However, it is considered that the size of this structure is excessive in the circumstances and would detrimentally alter the Francis Street streetscape. The recommendation is to delete the Francis Street structure. As stated above, it is considered that parking in Francis Street is not likely to be exacerbated. • I have a problem with the height, I have walked past on many occasions and

have noticed a height pole erected, based on this, I think the proposed development stands very high compared to other buildings in Francis Street




Comment: The proposed additions to the dwelling house on a sloping site are such that they will comply with Council’s height requirements set under Local Environmental Plan No.1. Similar height controls were applied by Council and given compliance for the recent construction of the multi-level house at 15 Francis Street. • This brings me to another matter of houses who are established in Glenview

Crescent. Does this mean that if this proposal goes through all houses in Glenview who back on to Francis Street can now extend their buildings into Francis Street?

Comment: There are only two other properties in Glenview Crescent that have a second frontage to Francis Street. These owners have every right to make application for redevelopment in a form that gives compliance to Council’s planning controls that exist at the time. The matter of bulk, scale and form will be the criteria used by Council to assess such future development applications. In this case, where that part of the application is recommended for refusal, any future application will have to be assessed on its merits and in accordance with the controls in place. • We personally strongly object to any further development on Francis Street

and fail to see any justification for the resident to resubmit the application Comment: Owners have full right to submit applications for redevelopment in such a way for the construction of structures in Francis Street and their position relative to the street alignment / building line. As can be seen in the recommendation, that part of the application for the workshop / studio is recommended for refusal. Any such proposals will have to be considered on their merits and in accordance with the planning controls of Council at the time. • Francis Street is a very narrow dead end street which is already congested

and certainly developed enough already Comment: The applicant does not propose to use the workshop/studio fronting Francis Street for the purpose of off-street car parking. Therefore, the question of traffic generation and on-street parking issues are not likely to result from this development. • It is plainly obvious that a building of the scale, bulk, height and length

proposed in close proximity to the western boundary is a poor and insensitive design, which creates unsatisfactory shadowing impacts

Comment: It is considered that the design of the additions to the dwelling is reasonable for approval. Further, the greater part of the additional mid-winter shadows cast by the new works will fall on the rear yard of the subject property and over Francis Street. The proposed development does not contravene the solar access provisions of DCP No.15. • The proposal by virtue of excessive length, unarticulated elevations, bulk,

height and siting, which is compounded by the aesthetically displeasing and bland façade treatment will dominate and tower over the outdoor living areas of No.15




Comment: It is considered that no effective argument can be made in terms of bulk, height and siting of the additions to the dwelling house. The length of the dwelling extension to the rear is not considered to be excessive given the depth of the subject site, and not to the point where a strong case can be made for refusal on the basis of aesthetics. No argument can be made to state that it will tower over and dominate the outdoor living areas of 15 Francis Street, which has its own extensive outdoor living areas. These are matters for Council’s Heritage Adviser to comment on and he has not raised this issue with the application. The removal of the existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent will markedly improve the look of the premises and improve that streetscape. • View loss. It is however obvious that the pleasant district and foreshore views

will be adversely impacted by the proposal. The proposal replaces a pleasant outlook with a long solid unrelieved wall which is aesthetically displeasing and overbearing

Comment: It is considered that any view loss to premises 7 Glenview Crescent, which will be of the water/city to the south east, will not be such that it will fall under the relevant categories for assessment. Hence, a refusal based on the planning principles adopted by the Land & Environment Court would not be justifiable. This was recently established under appeal in respect of No.7 Elgin Street. No effective argument can be made to state that the rear of the dwelling development will tower over the outdoor living areas of 15 Francis Street, which has its own extensive outdoor living areas. The removal of the existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent will however markedly improve the look of the subject premises and properly maintain that part of the local streetscape. • As is clearly demonstrated by the attached photomontage, the height and

proximity of the proposed building results in a gross invasion of privacy to No.15. There has been no attempt to design the proposal to maintain the existing amenity. In this regard the western elevation is proliferated with large unscreened west facing windows and a large elevated entertaining deck

Comment: Subject to Schedule 1 condition Nos.1, 2 and 3 as set out in the recommendation, the development is not likely to create an undue loss of privacy for the adjoining residents. The current plans have deleted one set of windows from the western elevation opening off the ground floor dining room rear extension. • It is obvious the proposal will have a deleterious impact on the streetscape

and character of the area, however, a full and proper assessment cannot be made in the absence of notification plans which show the southern elevation. It is curious as to why arguably the most important elevation has not been attached

Comment: The south elevation which was not attached to the letter sent out for the notification of the application, it was available as part of the overall application details for the residents to inspect at the Council counter or on request to the Council officer referred to in the notification letter. It is understood that no one other than the objector made contact with Council staff re this issue. Further, there is no practical opportunity to include every plan and every part of the documentation in the development application notification letters sent out as a matter of course to adjoining and nearby residents.




• Firstly, the workshop/studio as it is referred to by the applicant is inappropriately located in terms of its relationship and physical disconnection from the main dwelling house, both from a distance and accessibility point of view. It appears that there is ample opportunity within the existing building envelope, particularly in the subfloor area to accommodate a workshop and generous surplus area

Comment: It is considered that the likely effect of the workshop / studio on the Francis Street streetscape would be detrimental and create a loss of privacy to the adjoining owners to the west in Francis Street which, as a result, that part of the development proposal is recommended for refusal. • Secondly, there is no landscaping or other suitable measures proposed to

attempt to minimise any impact, which notwithstanding, noting the height, scale siting etc, would be impossible mitigate

Comment: A basic landscaping plan was submitted with the development application. This has been assessed by Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator who advised that the new planting around the site is appropriate for the setting. However, no details submitted on the landscape plan for the triangular planter box at the south western corner of the proposed rear deck. • Thirdly, the approval of the application will create an undesirable precedent

for new development along Francis Street, garages with roof terraces particularly noting the opportunity for views. Further, approval is likely to result in demand for carparking structures within the Glenview Crescent setback area

Comment: It is recommended that the workshop / studio be refused for reasons including privacy and precedent. There is some opportunity for a similar type of structure to be constructed in the remaining undeveloped areas of Francis Street. Any new such development will be subject of a development application and treated on its merits. There is currently an existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent which is proposed to be demolished and the area used for open off-street car parking. If this development is approved and acted upon, a development application in the future will then have to be submitted to Council for the construction of a new detached garage fronting Glenview Crescent. • In particular it is uncertain as to whether such work shop is for commercial or

industrial purposes, or is for a home industry or home occupation. Accordingly Council cannot be satisfied as to the permissibility of the proposal under the Hunters Hill LEP

Comment: No details have been submitted with the application to indicate that the proposed workshop / studio will be used for commercial or industrial purposes. However, as it is recommended that such building be refused, this will not be an issue. • Evident in the poor quality plans and substandard ‘tokenistic reports Comment: That is a matter for objectors to make judgement on. What is required in a case such as this is that there are adequate details submitted with the application to be able to properly assess it. In this case, it is considered that the plans and documents submitted are in need of upgrade in terms of scale to 1:100 and showing the columns for the cover over part of the rear deck to be shown on the southern elevation. This is covered by Schedule 1, condition No.4.




• The existing site by way of the arrangement of the built form already constitutes an over development and the new works further compounds this situation

Comment: It cannot be reasonably argued on assessing this application that it amounts to an overdevelopment of the site. There is an excess of garden area and the buildings comply with the height and setback provisions of Council’s Controls.

• The building will clearly be three storeys and over 7.2 metres in height

Comment: The plans submitted with the application, which include survey plans, show that the dwelling as to be added to will be two storeys and not exceed 7.2 metres by definition. 15. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST One major impact of this development relates to the fact that new additions to the rear of the dwelling and the other major impact will be the effect of the proposed workshop / studio building fronting Francis Street to be constructed after major excavation of sandstone an, soil and shrubbery. This part of the application has been recommended for refusal. The other major impact of the development relates to the demolition of the existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent, additions to the rear of the dwelling incorporating a new in-ground pool. These parts of the review have been recommended for conditional approval. The development in this form, as requested to have the earlier refusal reviewed formally under s.82A of the Act by Council, is recommended for a deferred commencement approval be issued with the exception of the construction of the workshop / studio. The proposed amended development as the s.82A review of the original refusal for Council with the exception of the workshop / studio fronting Francis Street is considered to comply with the objectives of the current zoning of the area. They will reasonably complement the existing buildings in this area and would not be detrimental to the Glenview Crescent streetscape. There is not likely to be any significant loss of privacy, solar access, nor loss of views from adjoining premises resultant from the development subject to compliance with conditions, which includes the deletion of a western window, the expansion of the planter box and the provision of a privacy screen on the western elevation of the additions to maintain privacy between neighbours. Conditions have been set out in the recommendation for a ‘deferred commencement’ development approval. An alternative design solution was discussed with both adjoining objectors at the recent on-site meeting for the proposed open deck to be setback to the north by approximately 3.2 metres in line with the adjacent deck area wall of 15 Francis Street and to setback the roof covering of the open sided deck i.e. cutting it back by 3 metres. This would be to improve the privacy for the owners of 15 Francis Street relative to their open deck and to improve the water/city views to the south east from 7 Glenview Crescent. This design solution is now one for Council to consider as part of its consideration of this application. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.




RECOMMENDATION A. That the review of determination under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning &

Assessment Act, 1979, of the decision to refuse the Development Application No.2010-1099 for the demolition of the garage and swimming pool and the construction of a covered pool and additions to the rear of the house and a workshop / studio at the Francis Street frontage of the site at No. 9 Glenview Crescent , Hunters Hill, is such that the development application be approved in part as a “Deferred commencement” consent pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council.

Schedule 1 1. The proposed window to the extension of the ground floor level, along the western

elevation be deleted to improve privacy between neighbouring premises.

2. A privacy screen 1.6 metre high being provided from the proposed additions to the end of the roofed section of the rear deck along its western elevation.

3. A planter box 1 metre wide x 1 metre high with appropriate landscaping be provided

to the open, unroofed, section of the deck, along the western side. 4. Upgraded plans being submitted to Council at a scale of 1:100 and showing the

columns for the roof over part of the rear deck on the southern elevation. Schedule 2 That Development Application No.2010-1099 for the demolition of the garage and pool, extend the ground floor dining room of the dwelling and construct a new covered pool at 9 Glenview Crescent, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the following conditions: Special Conditions:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979 this approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not physically commenced within five (5) years after the date of approval.

2. The development consent No.2010-1099 relates to the plans prepared by

N.Robinson numbered 001, 102, 103, 104B, 120 to 123, FF150, all Issue ‘B’ dated 6 October 2011, as received by Council on 3 November 2011, except where amended by conditions of this consent.

3. The site being landscaped in accordance with plan prepared by N.Robinson drawing

No.105 Issue ‘A’ dated 6 October 2011 as received by Council on 3 November 2011, except where amended by conditions of this consent.

4. Compliance with the Basix Certificate No.A79606 dated 2 September 2010. 5. The finished surfaces being provided in accordance with the ‘Colour samples’

prepared by N.Robinson as received by Council on 3 November 2011.




6. The provision of any pump for any rainwater tank, the swimming pool motor and any air-conditioning equipment to be installed on the outside of the building being acoustically treated to ensure that noise does not exceed 5dBA above ambient noise levels on the boundaries at any time.

7. Dilapidation reports being prepared and certified by a practising structural engineer

on the current state of the original section of the adjoining dwelling houses at 7 Glenview Crescent and 15 Francis Street, Hunters Hill. Such reports shall be completed and submitted to Council and the adjoining neighbours prior to the commencement of any excavation or construction work. Upon completion of the approved building works, second dilapidation reports are to be carried out on the buildings and a copy of such report submitted to Council and the adjoining neighbours prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. The applicant is to pay for the cost of the above-mentioned reports.

8. Prior to issue of Construction Certificate a stormwater storage and disposal plan

with reference to DCP 25 being submitted to the PCA for approval showing pipes and kerb discharge points for roofwater and tank overflows, as referred to generally in DA documents, but not submitted yet in Plan.

Standard Conditions: A4 to A9, B1, B7 ($1,365), C1 to C5, C12, C19, C31 to C35, C40, C42, C44, C45, L5 to L7, S1, SD1 to SD3, SD5, SD7, SD29, SP2 to SP8, SP10, SP12, SP14, SP16, SP18, W1. B. That part of the application No.DA2010/1099 relating to the construction of the

workshop / studio fronting Francis Street under the section 82A review of the original refusal to the development application be confirmed as being refused for reasons that:

1. It would detrimentally affect the Francis Street streetscape. 2. It would create a loss of privacy for the adjoining neighbours to the west. 3. It would necessitate a major excavation of sandstone and soil thus altering the

natural landscape of this part of Hunters Hill and being contrary to the objectives contained in DCP No.15.

4. It would create an undesirable precedent for redevelopment in Francis Street.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans 3. Planning report on refusal 4. Height pole details 5. Submissions




ITEM NO : 2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : DA20111132

PROPOSAL BALCONY REPAIR, REPLACEMENT/ EXTENSION DUE TO DAMAGE THROUGH THE SUBSIDANCE OF EXISTING SLAB & REPLACE PRIVACY WALL & EXISTING WINDOW/DOOR UNIT

PROPERTY 1/14 LLOYD AVENUE, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : MS VANESSA VICKI WILSON

OWNER : WILSON, MS V V

DATE LODGED : 2 JANUARY 2011

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH

1. SUMMARY Reasons for Report The proposal involves an SEPP No.1 objection in relation to non-compliance with ‘garden area’ provisions. Objections No letters of objection were received. Recommendation The application is recommended for approval for reasons that it is reasonable having regard to: 1. It is permissible under the zoning

2. The SEPP No.1 objection is reasonable

3. It complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local

Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15 and

4. It will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish the concrete balcony and the existing boundary brick wall of a section of unit No.1 of the residential flat building and to construct new replacement structures of which the widened balcony will have a supporting column.




To replace the windows on the first floor northern elevation adjacent to the balcony of this unit with French doors. Horizontal wire balustrading 1 metre high will be provided on the surrounds of the balcony. The existing brick privacy wall at the western end of the balcony will be rebuilt. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The premises is known as 1/14 Lloyd Avenue, Hunters Hill and is legally described as Lot 1 in SP15893. The site is located on the western side of Lloyd Avenue, north of Browns Lane. It has an area of 1,269sqm and a frontage of 13.78 metres to the bulk of the cul-de-sac. Existing on the site is a three-storey residential flat building containing four (4) townhouses, constructed in 1980, and comprising off-street parking on the ground floor and a two level residential units on top. Surrounding and nearby development is mostly two-storey single dwelling houses. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY Subsequent to lodging the development application, an application for a Construction Certificate (CC 2011 7118) with Council as the Principal Certifying Authority was submitted on 5 December 2011. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a2) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005: Yes Development Control Plan: No.15 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes 6. POLICY CONTROLS None relevant. 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies

Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building Not applicable.




7.3 Heritage As stated within the body of the report, the property is in a conservation area under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. The proposal was not referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor as it was work of a minor nature and the premises are not heritage listed.

The application was not forwarded to the Conservation Advisory Panel for the same reasons as above. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure The application was referred to Council’s Design & Development Engineer who advised by memo that there are no engineering requirements. 7.5 Parks and Landscape The application was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator who advised by memo that there are no landscape requirements in this application. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C The relevant matters for consideration under sec

ordinary meeting no. 43224322 - 23 april 2012 index a - confirmation of minutes 1. confirmation of...

Documents