ordinary meeting no...rear garden and minor window changes, minor roof changes to pool house at no.3...

Ordinary Meeting No.4312 12 September 2011 at 7.30pm

Sesqu icentenary Ce lebra t ion Hunte r ’s H i l l Counc i l

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Prayer

Attendance, Apologies,

Declarations of Interests

A Confirmation of Minutes

Civic Ceremonies

B Mayoral Minutes & Reports

Tabling of Petitions

Addresses from the Public

C Notice of Motions (including Rescission Motions)

Reports from Staff

D Development & Regulatory Control

E Works & Services

F Corporate Governance

G Customer & Community Services

H General Manager

J Committees

K Correspondence

L Delegates Reports

M General Business

N Questions With or Without Notice

Z Council in Committee of the Whole

HUNTER’S HILL COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

4312 – 12 September 2011

INDEX A – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting 4311 held 22 August 2011 ............1

D – DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

1. 10A Moorefield Avenue, Hunters Hil ....................................................................1 2. 34 Batemans Road, Gladesville ........................................................................14 3. 17A Ferry Street, Hunters Hill ...........................................................................23 4. 66 High Street, Hunters Hill 47 ..........................................................................32 5. Court Outcome – 58-60 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill .....................................47 6. Lease for Car Parking - 45 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill .................................50 7. Legal Matters ....................................................................................................52 8. Delegated Authority ...........................................................................................53

E – WORKS & SERVICES

1. Tree Preservation Order – Approval/Refusals .....................................................1

F – CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

1. Referral & Presentation of the 2010/2011 Financial Reports ...............................1 2. GST Compliance .................................................................................................2

G – CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES

1. Community Service Grants .................................................................................1 2. Digitisation of Council Minutes ...........................................................................2 3. Sesquicentenary Celebration – Hunters Hill Schools XFaktor .............................3

H – GENERAL MANAGER

1. Local Government 2011 Shoalhaven Conference Attendance by Delegates .......1 2. Amendments to Local Government Act 1993 – Conduct of Elections by Councils 2

J – COMMITTEES

1. Report of General Purpose on-site Inspections held 22 August, 2011 ................1 2. Report of Councillor Workshops & Briefings held 22 August 2011 .....................2 3. Minutes of Le Vesinet Friendship Committee meeting held on 10 August 2011 .3 4. Minutes of the Sesquicentenary Committee Meeting held 31 August 2011 ........6

K – CORRESPONDENCE

1. Narrabri Shire Council – Petition for Mrs Ruth Downey Against the RSPCA .......1

M – GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Meetings – Various Committees of Council .........................................................1

A

Confirmation Of Minutes

A – Confirmation Of Minutes

4312 – 12 September 2011

Index 1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting 4311 held 22 August 2011 1 ........................................ ..................................... Councillor Susan Hoopmann Debra Mc Fadyen MAYOR ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING NO.4311 – 22 August 2011 A1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No.4311 held on 22 August 2011 This is page

COMMENCEMENT The meeting opened with Prayer at 7.30pm.

IN ATTENDANCE The Mayor Councillor Susan Hoopmann, Deputy Mayor Councillor Richard Quinn, Councillors Peter Astridge, Murray Butt, Simon Frame, and Meredith Sheil.

ALSO PRESENT The Acting General Manager Debra McFadyen and the Group Manager Development and Regulatory Control Steve Kourepis.

APOLOGIES Councillor Ross Sheerin has Leave of Absence for this meeting via Minute No.198/11 OM 14 June 2011. No apologies were received.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Mayor called for Declarations of Interest without response.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 278/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Sheil that the Minutes of Ordinary

Meeting No.4310 held 8 August, 2011 be confirmed.

CIVIC CEREMONIES The Mayor Clr Hoopmann welcomed and introduced Gladesville Local Area Command, (LAC) Police Commander, Superintendent John Duncan who transferred to Gladesville this year, taking over from Commander Philip Flogel. Clr Hoopmann spoke about the importance of the (LAC) and commented on the forthcoming Sesquicentenary of the Australian Police Force in 2012, noting that Hunter’s Hill Council is one year older than the Australian Police Force. Clr Hoopmann invited Commander Duncan to address the meeting. Superintendent Duncan spoke a little about his police background in Sydney’s Western Suburbs, challenges facing Gladesville Police and the results of the latest community crime survey released only hours earlier. He said the survey revealed that 90% crime rates were at a record low across most crime categories. Superintendent Duncan advised that the Station is moving forward with a proposal to introduce “Neighbourhood Watch” on Facebook or other electronic media.



NOTICE OF MOTIONS (Page C1) PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Clr Richard Quinn tabled a petition signed by local residents requesting Council to

enable the local community, in association with Council, to sustainably manage the natural and cultural resources in Riverglade Reserve as stated in the Reserve current Plan of Management.

Mr. Alister Sharp addressed the meeting on the subject matter. 1. RIVERGLADE RESERVE 279/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Hoopmann that: 1. Council convenes as soon as possible, a meeting of representatives of the

various user and stakeholder groups of Riverglade Reserve to seek a resolution of an appropriate balance of reserve uses.

2. Council undertakes a review of the Riverglade Reserve Plan of

Management. Councillor Astridge moved an amendment to item 2, to read:

2. Council undertakes a review of the Riverglade Reserve Plan of Management in consultation with local residents, users groups and Councillors as per the Council Community Consultation Guidelines.

Councillor Hoopmann moved a motion, seconded Clr Quinn that an extra item be added to the resolution, to read as follows: 3. That this matter be referred to the General Purpose Committee for on-site

inspection prior to the next Ordinary Meeting scheduled for 12 September, 2011 and prior to any reviews or meetings of representatives.

280/11 The amendment and the motion on being put to the meeting were CARRIED, as

follows. 1. Council convenes as soon as possible, a meeting of representatives of the

various user and stakeholder groups of Riverglade Reserve to seek a resolution of an appropriate balance of reserve uses.

2. Council undertakes a review of the Riverglade Reserve Plan of

Management in consultation with local residents, users groups and Councillors as per the Council Community Consultation Guidelines.

3. That this matter be referred to the General Purpose Committee for on-site

inspection prior to the next Ordinary Meeting scheduled for 12 September, 2011 and prior to any reviews or meetings of representatives.



REPORTS FROM STAFF

DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL (Pages D1 – D42) 1. DA NO. 2011-1035 & DA2010/1053 - 6 FOSS STREET, HUNTERS HILL PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Darren Dougan (Objector) and Mr. Colin Brady (Heritage Advisor and Architect

for applicant) addressed the meeting on the subject matter. 281/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Frame that:

A. The Council, as the consent authority, is not satisfied and will not support the objection submitted under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 as the submission is not well founded to vary the garden area provisions under clause 16A of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1.

B. Development Application No. 2011/1035 for the alterations and additions to

the existing dwelling house at No.6 Foss Street, Hunters Hill, be refused, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 79C of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 in relation to sub-clauses (1)(a)(iii), (b)(c) and (e).

2. The proposal does not satisfy the stated aims and objectives of

clause 2 of Hunter’s Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 3. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of clause 16A –

Garden Area of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 4. The proposal would not meet the requirements of Part 7.3 being

Garden Area, under Hunters Hill DCP No.15. 5. The proposal does not meet the objectives of DCP No 15 –

Residential Development, and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents of the adjoining and nearby properties, such as loss of privacy and overshadowing.

6. The proposal does not meet the objectives of DCP No 15 –

Residential Development, and would have a detrimental impact on the existing Streetscape of Foss Street and the character of Hunter's Hill.

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

undesirable precedent undermining Council’s planning objectives.



RECORD OF VOTING Yes Against / Absent

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

2. DA NO. 2011/1058 – 3 NOTE STREET, HUNTERS HILL 282/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that:

A. 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.

B. Development Application No.11/1058 for the addition of a pergola in the

rear garden and minor window changes, minor roof changes to pool house at No.3 Note 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.

1. The development consent No.11/1058 relates to the plans prepared by Finish Pty Ltd, numbered 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, issue B, dated 28 May 2011, 4/4, 10 May 2011, all date stamped by Council on 20 July 2011.

2. That the proposed rear pergola is to have open rafters and is not to be roofed at any time.

3. That the rear north-west corner of the site is to be converted to soft landscaping (as per the plan prepared by Finish Pty Ltd, numbered 1/4, issue B, dated 28 May 2011, date stamped by Council 20 July 2011). Evidence of compliance is to be provided prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Standard Conditions: A4-A9, B1, B7, C1-C5, C14, C35, C40-C42, C44, D2, D13-D19, FS2, L2, L4, PE4, S1.

RECORD OF VOTING Yes Against / Absent

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



3. DA NO. 2011/1043 – 67 ALEXANDRA STREET, HUNTERS HILL 283/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Quinn that:

A. The Council, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the objection under

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the height standard of clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded under the circumstances of the case and is consistent with the aims of the Policy.

B. Development Application No.2011/1043 for the carrying out of alterations to

the dwelling house at No.67 Alexandra 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 physically commenced within five (5) years after the date of approval.

2. The development consent No.2011/1043 relates to the plans prepared by Tony McLain Susan McLain Architects numbered 2036 DA 01, 03 & 04 as received by Council on 6 May 2011 and drawing Nos.2036 DA02, 05 to 09 Amendment A dated 30 July 2011 as received by Council on 5 August 2011, except where modified by conditions of this consent.

3. The choice of external colours altered to a range of deep stone colours, and tonals thereof, to meet the requirements of Council’s Heritage Adviser for these premises in a conservation area and being submitted to Council for approval prior to the release of the stamped approved plans.

4. Compliance with the requirements of the Basix Certificate No.A111950 dated 5 May 2011.

5. Stormwater from proposed garage roof being piped into “existing stormwater” indicated on DA01, or alternatively to Council’s gutter in Alexandra Street by a “charged” line. Prior to issue of Construction Certificate working details being submitted to PCA for approval.

6. The existing ‘garage at the south-west corner of the lower level of the

dwelling not being used for habitable purposes as this would exacerbate the non-conformity with the two-storey development standard of the Hunters Hill LEP No.1.

7. The landscaping of the site being maintained to Council’s satisfaction and the existing stand of trees on the front section of the eastern boundary being retained and protected during construction work on the site.

8. The proposed westernmost pergola not being sited closer than 4.8 metres to the Alexandra Street alignment in order to maintain the building line for the locality.



Standard Conditions: A4 to A9, B1, B7 ($1,190), C1 to C5, C9 to C12, C14, C19, C31 to C35, C40, C42, C44, C45, D1 to D11, L5, L6, PE1, PE4 to PE7, S1, S7, SP2 to SP8, SP10, SP12, SP14, SP16, SP18 & W1.

RECORD OF VOTING

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

4. REPORT OF LEGAL MATTERS 284/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Quinn that the report be

received and noted. 5. REPORT OF DELEGATED AUTHORITY 285/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted.

WORKS & SERVICES (Pages E1 – E3) 1. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER – APPROVALS / REFUSALS 286/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Butt that the report be

received and noted. 2. SUSTAINABLE EVENT MANAGEMENT POLICY (SEMP) 287/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that Council adopt

the Sustainable Events Management Policy (CG16).

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (Pages F1 – F2) 1. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL INVESTMENTS AS AT 31 JULY 2011 288/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted.

GENERAL MANAGER (Pages H1 – H5) 1. POLICY REVIEW – INFORMATION SYSTEMS SURVEILLANCE POLICY

(NO.CG2) 289/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Butt that the amended

Information Systems Surveillance Policy (CG2) be adopted.



2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2011 SHOALHAVEN CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE BY DELEGATES

290/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Quinn that this matter be

deferred to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council. 3. MONTHLY REPORT OF OUTSTANDING MATTERS 291/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Butt that the report be

received and noted.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (Pages J1 – J12) 1. MINUTES OF THE MOOCOOBOOLA WORKING PARTY MEETING HELD 20

JULY 2011 292/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Butt that the minutes be

received and noted. 2. MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL – LE VESINET FRIENDSHIP COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD 8 JUNE 2011 293/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Butt that the minutes be

received and noted. 3. MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL – LE VESINET FRIENDSHIP COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD 10 AUGUST 2011 294/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Butt that the minutes be

received and noted. 4. REPORT OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE INSPECTIONS HELD 8

AUGUST 2011 295/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted. 5. REPORT ON COUNCILLOR WORKSHOPS & BRIEFINGS HELD 8 AUGUST 2011 296/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted.

CORRESPONDENCE (PRECIS) (Pages K1) 1. CORRESPONDENCE 297/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Astridge that the information be

referred to the Mayor for inclusion in the Mayors Column in the local Press.



GENERAL BUSINESS (Page M1) 1. MEETINGS – VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL 298/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Astridge that the report listing the

various Committees of Council be received and noted.

QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE

No. Author Date Question Answer

16/11 Clr Astridge 22.08.11 Could the area from Gladesville Road to Mark Street, on the west side of Ryde Road be cleaned of food scraps, boxes etc on a regular basis?

The suggested work has been added to the routine maintenance schedule.

TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 8.45pm. I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Ordinary Meeting No.4311 held 2011. ............................................. .............................................. Councillor Susan Hoopmann Debra McFadyen MAYOR ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

D

Development & Regulatory Control

D – Development & Regulatory Control

4312 – 12 September 2011

Index 1. 10A Moorefield Avenue, Hunters Hill 1 2. 34 Batemans Road, Gladesville 14 3. 17A Ferry Street, Hunters Hill 23 4. 66 High Street, Hunters Hill 32 5. Court Outcome – 58-60 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill 47 6. Lease for Car parking – 45 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill 50 7. Legal Matters 52 8. Delegated Authority 53 .....................................

Steve Kourepis GROUP MANAGER

DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

Meeting 4312 – 12 September 2011 D1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4312 held on 12 September 2011. This is page

ITEM NO : 1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 2011/1029

PROPOSAL : DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING &

ERECTION OF A NEW DWELLING PROPERTY : 10A MOOREFIELD AVENUE, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : DANIELA ANNA TURRIN

OWNER : NIRAN PEIRIS & DANIELA TURRIN

DATE LODGED : 31 MARCH 2011

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

REPORTING OFFICER : SHAHRAM ZADGAN

FILE : 1510/10A & DA11/1029

1. SUMMARY

Preamble This application was considered at the Development Control Unit (DCU) meeting of 17 August 2011 where it was deferred for an onsite inspection on 18 August 2011. Following the onsite inspection the DCU committee adopted the recommendation for approval subject to conditions, as printed within this report. Subsequent to the above, Councillor Astridge gave notice to refer this application to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 September 2011. Councillor Astridge reasons for referring this application are in regard to demolition of a dwelling within the conservation area, possible overshadowing, and set backs. The DCU committee gave notice to the applicant and objector that this application was referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on12 September 2011. It should be noted that on 5 September 2011, Council received a submission from DG Briggs and Associates (Solicitors, Town Planners, and Building Consultants) acting on behalf of the applicant, providing an argument that Conditions No.5 and No.6 within the recommendation are unreasonable and unnecessary and should not be imposed. A copy of this submission is attached to this report. Council should be aware of the comments made by DG Briggs and Associates, in particular on page 4 (mid point) of the letter, regarding their clients’ concern about the conditions recommended, being Nos. 5 and 6:

Our clients are most concerned about the proposed conditions – so much so that we have been instructed to file an appeal with the Land and Environmental Court should such conditions be imposed. We will tender this correspondence to the Court in support of our clients’ appeal.




With regards to the issue of the BASIX Certificate, following the DCU meeting of 17 August 2011, Special Condition No.5 of the recommendation was amended to read as a standard condition, not requiring the applicant to submit a further s96 Application, due to the amendments proposed by condition No.6. Condition No.5 now reads as follows: 5. Development to be in accordance with BASIX Certificate. The BASIX Certificate

is to be submitted prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.

The following report is resubmitted for Council’s consideration. Reasons for Report

The proposal results in one (1) objection received in response to the neighbour notification process.

Objectors Issues

• Privacy Impacts

• Height covenant

• Trees to be retained

• Compliance with setback requirements

Objections

One (1) objection was received.

Recommendation

The application is recommended for approval because it:

1. is permissible under the zoning

2. complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15

3. is appropriate

4. will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties such is justified. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The subject application seeks consent for the demolition of the existing house, carport, pergolas and swimming pool, and erection of a part one and part two-storey dwelling with attached double garage with a green roof. The proposal would consist of the following works: Ground Floor Living room/dining/kitchen, bedroom No.3, work room, laundry/sewing room, powder room, cellar, a double garage and two attached storerooms.




First Floor Two bedrooms including a master bedroom with bathroom. Site Works • Planted roof over the single storey part of the dwelling. • The installation of a rainwater tank within the void space that will remain following the

removal of the in-ground pool • Replacement of existing boundary fencing with timber lapped and capped fencing • Removal of 11 trees in accordance with the Arborist report 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is known as No.10A Moorefield Avenue, located on the western side of Moorefield Avenue approximately midway between Kareelah Road and Church Street. The site is battle-axe in shape, with a 3.05 metre frontage to Moorefield Avenue and an area of 900.3sqm. The land is considerably flat. The site contains a single-storey weatherboard clad house with a flat roof built in the late1970’s. Behind the house on the northern side is an in-ground swimming pool. The house has a double garage attached to it on the eastern side. The front door is shaded by pergola structure and a second shades the main living room windows on the northern side. There are several mature trees on the site, including several cypresses, Jacarandas, Celtis, palms, a large Camphor Laurel, Cheese tree. The subject site adjoins a listed Schedule No.6 Heritage Item to the east and is located within the Conservation Area. Surrounding development consists of single to two storey residential dwellings. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY No relevant DA or BA history. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: 2(a2) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes Development Control Plan: No.15 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes, 10 Moorefield Avenue 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 within the conservation area under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who considered the proposal to be satisfactory in terms of heritage and conservation. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure

The subject application was referred to Council’s Design and Development Engineer who raised no concern. 7.5 Parks & Landscape

The subject application was referred to Council’s Parks and Landscape Coordinator who provided the following comments:

The landscape plan is sound and provides a great improvement over the existing site conditions. Most of the existing plant elements are retained with some new features and plantings proposed.

Most of the proposed tree removals are Cocos palms or heavily damaged trees or weed species. There is one jacaranda on the western boundary, which is proposed to be removed. It is located very close to the proposed dwelling and would be unlikely to survive the construction process. It is currently growing extremely close to the existing dwelling and has been heavily pruned in the past for clearance. There is some basal decay in the trunk. There are two other jacarandas within the site. On balance, it is reasonable to allow removal of this Jacaranda because of the existing heavy tree cover on the site and the large improvement to the landscape over the current site conditions. A screen Weavers Bamboo (Bambusa textillis – Gacilis) is proposed along the base of the stone garden wall along the south western boundary. This is a clumping bamboo that attains a height of 6m in approximately two years. Council has a policy of not permitting bamboos (unless fully contained with built structures) as the stolons spread into neighbouring properties including this “clumping” species with detrimental horticultural effects and often adverse social consequences.

Recommendations: The recommendations in the Arborists Report by Glenyss Laws particularly section 4.2. Protection of trees on development sites and section 7. Tree Management Plan be included as a condition of consent to ensure protection of the existing trees. Resubmit a revised landscape plan with Weavers Bamboo (Bambusa textiles – Gacilis) removed and substitute with a non invasive or spreading screen plant species.




Accordingly, the above recommendations have been imposed as Special Conditions. 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 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

5.85 metres

7.2 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storey 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 52% 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 5.85 metres and 2 storey 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 52% 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 is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposed development would not be visible from the waterway. Accordingly, the development 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

7.2m

5.85m

Yes

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 50% 52% Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house East (Front) North (Rear) West (Side) East (Side) South (Side)

Average street pattern 6m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m

Battle-axe site 16.22m 100-1725mm 2.075m 100mm

N/A Yes No (garage) Yes No (garage)

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

Refer to section 10.5 of this report ‘Height of Buildings’.

Front, Side and Rear Setbacks

The plans appear to indicate side setback non-compliances, with the numerical requirements of Part 7.2 – Setbacks under DCP No.15, as the southern and western side boundary setbacks appear to be less than 1.5 metres. Part 7.2.3 – Side Boundary Setbacks, states that:

The distance between any part of the building and the side boundaries of the site shall not be less than 1.5 metres.

The setback of the proposed southern and western side boundaries would be 100mm for the single storey garage and storage areas. It should be noted that the site has constraints due to its battle-axe shape. It is considered that the southern and western elevation setbacks of 100mm for the single storey structure would not eventuate in adverse privacy impacts, as these walls do not contain any window openings and are low trafficable areas.




It is considered that in this instance the non-compliance would not eventuate in any material impacts, such as privacy or overshadowing, as this structure is not habitable, contains no windows to the south and west elevations, and is a single storey structure. Concessions are permitted to single storey structures, such as carport and garages, subject to satisfying the objectives of Part 7.2.3 of the DCP No.15, such as privacy and solar access. Notwithstanding the numerical requirement, it is considered that the proposal has been assessed against the objectives under Part 7.2 of the DCP No.15 (following characteristic pattern of setbacks for locality, sunlight, privacy, views and streetscape, as has been assessed within the body of the report) and is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives as there would be no unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties. Garden Area

Refer to section 10.6 of this report ‘Garden Area’. Solar Access

The shadow diagrams indicate that at 9.00am mid winter, the shadows are cast to the south-west of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.21 and 23 Herberton Avenue. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the sites. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 12 noon mid winter, the shadows are cast to the south of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.8 Moorefield Avenue. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the sites. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 3.00pm mid winter there would be shadows cast south-east of the subject site and onto the adjoining properties, being No.8 Moorefield Avenue. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the sites. The proposal would comply with the general requirements, being that new development must not eliminate more than one third of the existing sunlight to adjacent properties at ground level, measured at 9.00am, 12 noon and 3.00pm of the winter solstice. The proposal would comply with the general requirements and objectives stipulated under Part 7.4.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15, as the proposal would allow for reasonable access to sunlight to adjoining buildings and their recreational open space. Privacy

To elevate any privacy impacts to the rear recreational areas of the adjoining properties, in particular No.21 and No.23 Herberton Avenue, as a result of the close proximity of the first floor western elevation hallway window, a Special Condition will be imposed that this window to have a sill height of 1600mm, measured from finished first floor ground level. Subject to conditioning, the proposed new dwelling would be acceptable in regards to privacy, due to its positioning of window openings, limited amount of windows from low trafficable areas on the western first floor elevation, separation from adjoining properties and orientation. The proposed dwelling is considered to provide for the reasonable privacy of the adjoining dwellings and their outdoor spaces, accordingly, satisfying the objective stipulated under Part 7.5.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15. Views

Not applicable.




Car Parking

The proposal complies with Part 7.7.2(f)(h) of the DCP, as two (2) car parking spaces have been provided for a gross floor area in excess of 125sqm. Garages and Carports

The proposal is for a new double garage to south-west corner of the allotment. The proposed structure would not be visible from Moorefield Avenue as the site has a battle-axe shape with a long driveway of 29.54m. The proposal would not impact on the streetscape or the conservation area and would satisfy the aims and objectives of part 8 of DCP No.15. Fences

The proposal is for a replacement of an existing side (1800mm) boundary fencing with timber lapped and capped fencing. The height and materials of the proposed fence are considered satisfactory and would comply with Part 9 – Fences of DCP No.15. 12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies

Not applicable. 13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the Moorefield Avenue streetscapes. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan No.15. There would be no detrimental impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no detrimental social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.15 for a period of thirty (30) days on the 20 April 2011. Within the specified time period one (1) submission was received. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report. NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 16 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Julie Sheerin 21 Herberton Avenue Hunters Hill

• Privacy – that there should be no overlooking to adjoining properties. This application is for a new dwelling so a design outcome to protect neighbour’s privacy should be easily achievable.

• Height – would Council check if a covenant exists relating to two-storey height.

• Trees – the proposal should respect and retain the mature Jacaranda Trees at the west of the site and they should be retained.

• Set Back – we ask the setbacks be adhered to along the western boundary of the site in accordance with DCP/LEP.




The main issues of concern outlining the objections are discussed below: • Privacy – that there should be no overlooking to adjoining properties. This

application is for a new dwelling so a design outcome to protect neighbour’s privacy should be easily achievable.

Comment: To elevate any privacy impacts to the rear recreational areas of the adjoining properties, in particular No.21 and No.23 Herberton Avenue, as a result of the close proximity of the first floor western elevation hallway window, a Special Condition will be imposed that this window to have a sill height of 1600mm, measured from finished first floor level. Subject to conditioning, the proposed new dwelling would be acceptable in regard to privacy, due to its positioning of window openings, limited amount of windows from low trafficable areas on the western first floor elevation, separation from adjoining properties and orientation. The proposed dwelling is considered to provide for the reasonable privacy of the adjoining dwellings and their outdoor spaces, accordingly, satisfying the objective stipulated under Part 7.5.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15. • Height – would Council check if a covenant exists relating to two-storey

height. Comment: Clause No.22 - Suspension of certain covenants, agreements etc. of LEP No.1 states that:

22 (1) For the purpose of enabling development to be carried out in accordance with this plan (as in force at the time the development is carried out) or in accordance with a consent granted under the Act, the operation of any covenant, agreement or instrument imposing restrictions on development, to the extent necessary to serve that purpose, shall not apply to the development.

(2) Nothing in subclause (1) shall affect the rights or interests of the

council under any registered instrument. (3) Pursuant to section 28 of the Act, before the making of this clause,

the Governor approved subclauses (1) and (2). Considering the above Clause, any covenant’s that have been agreed upon in the past between adjoining properties would not apply under this clause, as they are considered to be a civil agreement between parties. The height of the proposal, being 5.85 metres and 2 storey 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. • Trees – The proposal should respect and retain the mature Jacaranda Trees at

the west of the site and they should be retained. Comment: The subject application was referred to Council’s Landscape Advisor who provided the following comments:

The landscape plan is sound and provides a great improvement over the existing site conditions. Most of the existing plant elements are retained with some new features and plantings proposed.




Most of the proposed tree removals are Cocos palms or heavily damaged trees or weed species. There is one jacaranda on the western boundary, which is proposed to be removed. It is located very close to the proposed dwelling and would be unlikely to survive the construction process. It is currently growing extremely close to the existing dwelling and has been heavily pruned in the past for clearance. There is some basal decay in the trunk. (see report) There are two other jacarandas within the site. On balance, it is reasonable to allow removal of this Jacaranda because of the existing heavy tree cover on the site and the large improvement to the landscape over the current site conditions. A screen Weavers Bamboo (Bambusa textillis – Gacilis) is proposed along the base of the stone garden wall along the south western boundary. This is a clumping bamboo that attains a height of 6m in approximately two years. Council has a policy of not permitting bamboos (unless fully contained with built structures) as the stolons spread into neighbouring properties including this “clumping” species with detrimental horticultural effects and often adverse social consequences. Recommendations: The recommendations in the Arborists Report by Glenyss Laws particularly section 4.2. Protection of trees on development sites and section 7. Tree Management Plan be included as a condition of consent to ensure protection of the existing trees. Resubmit a revised landscape plan with Weavers Bamboo (Bambusa textiles – Gacilis) removed and substitute with a non invasive or spreading screen plant species.

Accordingly the above recommendations have been imposed as Special Conditions. • Set Back – We ask the setbacks be adhered to along the western boundary of

the site in accordance with DCP/LEP. Comment: The plans appear to indicate side setback non-compliances, with the numerical requirements of Part 7.2 – Setbacks under DCP No.15, as the southern and western side boundary setbacks appear to be less than 1.5 metres. Part 7.2.3 – Side Boundary Setbacks, states that:

The distance between any part of the building and the side boundaries of the site shall not be less than 1.5 metres.

The setback of the proposed southern and western side boundaries would be 100mm for the single storey garage and storage areas. It should be noted that the site has constraints due to its battle-axe shape. It is considered that the southern and western elevation setbacks of 100mm for the single storey structure would not eventuate in adverse privacy impacts, as these walls do not contain any window openings and are low trafficable areas. It is considered that in this instance the non-compliance would not eventuate in any material impacts, such as privacy or overshadowing, as this structure is not habitable, contains no windows to the south and west elevations, and is a single storey structure. Concessions are permitted to single storey structures, such as carport and garages, subject to satisfying the objectives of Part 7.2.3 of the DCP No.15, such as privacy and solar access.




Notwithstanding the numerical requirement, it is considered that the proposal has been assessed against the objectives under Part 7.2 of the DCP No.15 (following characteristic pattern of setbacks for locality, sunlight, privacy, views and streetscape, as has been assessed within the body of the report) and is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives as there would be no unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties. 15. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in Development Control Plan No.15 and Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, the application is considered acceptable. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1, and Development Control Plan No. 15. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the adjoining residential properties and accordingly is recommended for approval.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION

That Development Application No.11/1029 for the demolition of the existing house, carport, pergolas and swimming pool, and erection of a part one and part two-storey dwelling with attached double garage with a green roof at No.10a Moorefield Avenue, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the following conditions: Special Conditions:


2. The development consent No.11/1029 relates to the plans prepared by Arkhefield, numbered 100-03, rev B, 100-06, rev B, 100-07, rev B, 100-11, rev A, 180-01, rev B, 200-01, rev C, 200-02, rev C, 210-01, rev B, 300-01, rev C, 300-02, rev C, 400-01, rev C, 910-01, rev A, 910-02, rev A, all dated 18 March 2011, Landscape Plan prepared by 360, sheet 1-3, dated 24 March 2011.

3. The recommendations in the Arborists Report by Glenyss Laws, in particular section 4.2. Protection of trees on development sites and section 7. Tree Management Plan to be implemented to this consent to ensure protection of the existing trees.

4. That the Weavers Bamboo (Bambusa textiles – Gacilis) be removed and substitute with a non invasive or spreading screen plant species. Amended landscape plan is to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

5. Development to be in accordance with BASIX Certificate. The BASIX Certificate is to be submitted prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.




6. That the proposed window on the first floor level, along the western elevation is to have a sill height of 1600mm, measured from finished first floor level. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Standard Conditions: A4-A9, B1, B7, C1-C5, C8 (No.10a), C9, C12, C14, C19, C35, C40-C42, C44, D1, D2, D13-D19, FS2, L2, L4, PE4, PE5, S1, S7(50%). ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans 3. Submissions




ITEM NO : 2


PROPOSAL : NEW SWIMMING POOL & LANDSCAPE WORKS

PROPERTY : 34 BATEMANS ROAD, GLADESVILLE

APPLICANT : STEPHEN GRECH ASSOCIATES & ARCHITECTS

OWNER : SALLY & BJORN ERIK EDVARDSEN

DATE LODGED : 29 JUNE 2011



FILE : 1070/34 & DA11/1074

1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

The proposal results in an existing non-compliance with Clause 16A - Garden Area of LEP No.1. Also, the proposal results in one (1) submission received in response to the neighbour notification process.

Issues

• Existing non-compliance with Clause 16A - Garden Area of LEP No.1.

• The proposal results in one (1) submission received in response to the neighbour notification process.

Objections

The proposal results in one (1) submission received in response to the neighbour notification process

Recommendation




3. is appropriate

4. will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties such is justified.




2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The subject application seeks consent for the construction of an inground swimming pool to the rear of the site, measuring 3.6m in width and 6.6m in length. A SEPP No.1 Objection has been lodged in relation to the breach of Clause 16A of LEP No.1 – Garden Area under LEP No.1. In support of the SEPP No.1 Objection the proposal would introduce new landscaping and would demolish the existing rear deck to provide a betterment to the existing garden area of the site. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is known as 34 Batemans Road, Gladesville, located on the corner of Batemans Road and Venus Street. The site is irregular in shape with a site area of 447sqm. The site slopes down from the front to the rear. The current building on the site is a brick and tile roofed single storey dwelling. The subject site is a listed schedule No.6 Heritage item, and adjoins other heritage items and is located within the Conservation Area. Surrounding development consists of single to two storey residential dwellings. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY

On 18 November 2011, Council received Development Application No.2010/1128 for alterations and additions. This application was approved by Council on 28 March 2011. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: 2(a1) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: No Development Control Plan: DCP No.15 Listed Heritage item: Yes Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes, 30 and 32 Batemans Road 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

The application was not required to be notified to Council’s Heritage Advisor, as the works are considered to be minor and not related to the fabric of the existing heritage dwelling.

7.6 Public Works and Infrastructure

The subject application was referred to Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who raised no concern. 7.7 Parks & Landscape

The subject application was referred to Council’s Parks and Landscape Coordinator who provided the following comment:

Chinese Elm tree in adjoining property should not be affected as the proposed excavation is outside of the structural root zone and is only a minor incursion into the tree protection zone. Recommendation: Landscape plan is to be approved.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C



State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) – Development Standard – Garden area The plans indicate the existing garden area of the site to be 48.3% or 216sqm, which would not comply with the 50% minimum permissible under the provisions of Clause 16A - garden area under Hunters Hill LEP No.1. However, the proposal would offer a betterment by introducing new landscaping to the paved area along the south-western boundary of the front garden and would demolish part of the existing rear deck and replace it with new lawn, which would provide a betterment to the garden area of the site. The applicant’s consultant has therefore submitted a State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objection, which attempts to provide justification that strict compliance with the development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances, and that strict compliance would hinder attainment of the objects of the Act, for the following reasons:

The total Garden Area is unaltered from existing however, the following is noted in relation to meeting objectives: In relation to LEP 2(a) “conserving the environmental heritage significance….and tree covered environment”: The proposal retains all existing trees and items of environmental heritage significance.




In relation to LEP (b3) it is noted that this proposal is for a swimming pool which is completely detached from the existing heritage item. The proposal does not represent an increase in the footprint of the building, nor does it represent a reduction in the Garden Area. The proposed works are not visible from the public domain and therefore do not detract from the heritage significance. In relation to the objectives indicated in DCP No 15 the proposal: a) Does not alter the character of the detached house as there is no

amendment proposed to the house itself, nor or there any works actually visible from the main street frontage.

b) Protects the existing tree covered environment as there is no reduction to the Garden area, nor is the removal of any trees proposed.

c) Retains and enhances the usefulness of the existing Garden Area d) Does not impact any sandstone topography as there is none visible in this

particular site e) Protects the existing drainage system as there is no change to the existing

roofs or Garden areas. f) Provides a betterment to the current situation by marginally increasing the

soft landscaping and providing additional planting to the front garden area by removal of redundant paving.

The applicant is considered to have properly argued that the strict compliance with the standard of 50% of garden area is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The proposal would offer a betterment by increasing the garden area of the site, by introducing new landscaping to the paved area along the south-western boundary of the front garden and would demolish part of the existing rear deck and replace it with new lawn, which would provide a betterment to the existing garden area of the site. It should be noted that the proposed swimming pool does not project more than 150mm above natural ground level and does not exceed more than 40sqm in water surface area. Thus, it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the objectives for garden area stipulated under Part 7.3 of the Development Control Plan No.15, as the proposal would not remove any trees or vegetation, or reduce the existing garden area. Having considered the SEPP No.1 objection to Clause 16A, in the Hunters Hill LEP No.1, the strict application of the garden area development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The arguments made within the SEPP No.1 specifically relate to the proposal complying with the aims and objectives of the LEP No.1 and the garden area objectives stipulated under 7.3.1 of the DCP No. 15. The SEPP No.1 is therefore supported. A copy of the SEPP No.1 objection is attached. 9.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs


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 2(a1) 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


Garden Area 48.3% (existing) 50% No* *SEPP No.1 submitted 10.3 Site Area Requirements


area controls

Not applicable.


No change to height of existing dwelling. 10.6 Garden Area

Refer to part 9.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP’s) of this report.

10.7 Integrated Housing Development

Not applicable.


Not applicable.


Not applicable. 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

Garden Area 50% 48.3%(existing) No* BOUNDARY SETBACKS Swimming Pool East (Front) West (Rear) North (Side) South (Side)

Average street pattern 6m 1m (for pools) 1m (for pools)

Existing 7m 3-4m 1.3m

No change Yes Yes Yes

*SEPP No.1 submitted Planning Policy – All Development



Not applicable. Visually Prominent Sites


Not applicable. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks

It is considered that the proposal has been assessed against the objectives under Part 7.2 of the DCP No.15 (following characteristic pattern of setbacks for locality, sunlight, privacy, views and streetscape, as has been assessed within the body of the report) and is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives as there would be no unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties. Garden Area


Solar Access

No change.




Privacy

The proposed development is not likely to reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises, as the proposed swimming pool is wholly inground and provides additional screen planting along the southern and western sides of the site. Views

Not applicable. Car Parking

Not applicable. Garages and Carports

Not applicable. Fences

Not applicable. 12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies


The proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the Batemans Road streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan No.15. There would be no detrimental impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no detrimental social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.15 for a period of ten (10) days on the 5 July 2011. Within the specified time period one (1) submission was received. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report. NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Mr A & Mrs B Baxter 2 Venus Street Gladesville

• The applicant, at their cost, erects a new 6’ timber fence (about 7.6m in length) on the mutual boundary.

• The new fence is erected before the 1st December 2011.




The main issues of concern outlining the objections are discussed below: • The applicant, at their cost, erects a new 6’ timber fence (about 7.6m in length)

on the mutual boundary.

• The new fence is erected before the 1st December 2011. Comment: The proposal does not include any changes to the existing dividing fences of the property. Also, dividing boundary fencing is a civil matter between owners of properties. Please refer to the Dividing Fences Act. However, it should be noted that in regards to boundary fencing under the Swimming Pool Act, a Standard Condition (SP19) has been imposed by Council, which reads as follows: To ensure compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992, the existing boundary

fence, forming part of the safety fencing to enclose the pool shall be upgraded or otherwise so altered or reconstructed so as to comply with the provisions of Australian Standard 1926-1986 "Fences and Gates for Private Swimming Pools". The overall height of the dividing fence is not to exceed 1.8 metres in height above the natural ground level. Attention is directed to any obligations or responsibilities under the Dividing Fences Act in respect of adjoining property owners, which may arise in respect of this matter and enquiries in this regard may be made at the nearest Local Court.

This concern is not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. 15. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in Development Control No.15 and Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, the application is considered acceptable. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the adjoining residential properties and accordingly is recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION

A. That 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.

B. That Development Application No.11/1074 for a new swimming pool and landscape

works at No.34 Batemans Road, Gladesville, be approved, subject to the following conditions:




Special Conditions:


2. The development consent No.2011/1074 relates to the plans prepared by Stephen Grech and Associates, Architects, numbered 166.01, 166.02, 166.03, 166.04, dated June 2011, date stamped by Council on 29 June 2011.

Standard Conditions: A4-A9, B1, B7, C1-C5, C12, C35, C40-C42, C44, L2, L4, PE4, PE5, SP1-SP10, SP14-SP19, S1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans 3. SEPP No. 1 Objection




ITEM NO : 3


PROPOSAL : ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS TO EXISTING

RESIDENCE, NEW SWIMMING POOL & SMALL AMOUNT OF DEMOLITION TO RESIDENCE. DEMOLISH EXISTING METAL SHED & RETAINING WALL

PROPERTY : 17A FERRY STREET, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : DALGLIESH WARD & ASSOCIATES

OWNER : M M FONG & W W FAN

DATE LODGED : 17 JUNE 2011



FILE : 1230/17A & DA11/1069

1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

The proposal results in a non-compliance with Clause 16A – Garden Area of LEP No.1.

Issues

• Non-compliance with Clause 16A – Garden Area of LEP No.1.

Objections

No objections were received.

Recommendation




3. is appropriate

4. will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties such is justified.




2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The subject application seeks consent for alterations and additions, and construction of an inground new swimming pool. The proposed works consist of the following: • A small amount of demolition to the existing residence, metal shed and retaining

wall to the rear. • New ground floor addition to improve functionality with a new breakfast room. • Refurbish existing ground floor spaces such as laundry and replace existing bath

with wine cellar. • New swimming pool (3m x 8.5m) and landscaped areas to the rear. • A new first floor addition with master bedroom, ensuite, study and media room. • Refurbish existing first floor spaces to make new baths and study areas. On 1 August 2011, Council received a SEPP No.1 Objection in relation to the breach of Clause 16A of LEP No.1 – Garden Area under LEP No.1. In support of the SEPP No.1 Objection the existing metal shed and retaining walls to the rear of the site are being removed and replaced with soft landscaping. Also, amended plans were submitted indicating the garden area betterment and section drawings showing that the proposed swimming pool is inground. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is known as No.17a Ferry Street, Hunters Hill, located on eastern side of Ferry Street. The site is battle-axe in shape with an area of 816.3m2 and 756m2 taken at the gate. The subject site is currently occupied by an existing two storey brick residence with a terracotta tile roof. The existing property also has a metal shed and landscaping features to the rear of the property. The subject site has a slight fall from the eastern to western boundaries of approximately 0.5m. The subject site is located within the Conservation Area and adjoins heritage items to the rear. Surrounding development consists of one to two storey residential dwellings. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY

No relevant DA or BA history. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: 2(a3) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes Development Control Plan: DCP No.15 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes, 6 & 8 Passy Avenue 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

Not applicable to this application, as the proposed works are considered to be minor. 7.8 Public Works and Infrastructure

The subject application was referred to Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who raised no concern, subject to a special condition. 7.9 Parks & Landscape

The subject application was referred to Council’s Parks and Landscape Coordinator who raised no concern. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C



State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) – Development Standard – Garden area The plans indicate the existing garden area of the site to be 46% or 354sqm, which would not comply with the 50% minimum permissible under the provisions of Clause 16A - garden area under Hunters Hill LEP No.1. However, the proposal would offer a betterment by increasing the garden area of the site to 48% or 365sqm, an increase of 11sqm. The applicant’s consultant has therefore submitted a State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objection, which attempts to provide justification that strict compliance with the development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances, and that strict compliance would hinder attainment of the objects of the Act, for the following reasons:

• Both the existing and new proposal both equate to 46% and 48% respectively of the total site area, with the new proposal slightly improving on the existing landscaped area of the site.

• Even though the new proposal does not meet Council’s required 50% of total landscaped area, it does not alter from what is existing. More importantly it slightly improves in the existing landscaped area (as per Council’s definition of garden area) which comes closer to Council’s requirement of a total of 50% landscaped area. With the proposal only slightly being under the 50% requirement, there is no direct impact to the subject site, the neighbouring properties or the wider Hunters Hill community.




• The new proposal improves by 3% (22sqm) to the northern boundary where the existing metal shed and retaining wall was located. By removing these non-landscaped features we are able to improve the overall proposed landscaped area to 49%. This is slightly reduced by 1% (11sqm) with the increase in building footprint to the new breakfast room. This reduction brings the total proposed landscaped area to 48%, which is an overall improvement on the existing residence. This improvement can be seen in the attached drawings of the proposed and existing landscape calculations.

• The important factor for the new proposal is maintaining the existing soft landscaped areas which easily exceeds Council’s minimum requirement of 255sqm (the new proposal is 305sqm). This is an improvement factor for the growth on the site and maintaining the natural look of the site.

The applicant is considered to have properly argued that the strict compliance with the standard of 50% of garden area is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The proposal would offer a betterment by increasing the garden area of the site to 48%, an increase of 11sqm. Thus, it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the objectives for garden area stipulated under Part 7.3 of the Development Control Plan No.15, as the proposal would not remove any trees or vegetation, or reduce the existing garden area. Having considered the SEPP No.1 objection to Clause 16A, in the Hunters Hill LEP No.1, the strict application of the garden area development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The arguments made within the SEPP No.1 specifically relate to the proposal complying with the aims and objectives of the LEP No.1 and the garden area objectives stipulated under 7.3.1 of the DCP No. 15. The SEPP No.1 is therefore supported. A copy of the SEPP No.1 objection is attached. 9.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs


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 2(a3) 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


HEIGHT Ceiling

5.4 metres

7.2 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storey 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 48% 50% No* *SEPP No.1 submitted




10.3 Site Area Requirements


area controls

Not applicable.


The height of the proposal, being 5.4 metres and 2 storey 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

Refer to part 9.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP’s) of this report. 10.7 Integrated Housing Development

Not applicable.


Not applicable.


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 proposal is located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal would not be visible from the waterway and would have no impact on the waterway or views to Lane Cove River. 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

7.2m

5.4m

Yes

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 50% 48% No* BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house South (West) North (Rear) East (Side) West (Side) South (side) (FFL Media room)

Average street pattern 6m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m

Existing 6m 2m 6.161m 1.823m

No change Yes Yes Yes Yes

*SEPP No.1 submitted Planning Policy – All Development



Refer to section 10.9 of this report ‘Foreshore Scenic Protection Area’. Visually Prominent Sites


Refer to section 10.5 of this report ‘Height of Buildings’. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks

It is considered that the proposal has been assessed against the objectives under Part 7.2 of the DCP No.15 (following characteristic pattern of setbacks for locality, sunlight, privacy, views and streetscape, as has been assessed within the body of the report) and is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives as there would be no unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.




Garden Area


Solar Access

The shadow diagrams indicate that at 9am mid winter, the shadows are cast to the south-west of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.8 Passy Avenue. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the site. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 12 noon mid winter there would be shadows cast south within the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.8 Passy Avenue. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the site. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 3pm mid winter there would be shadows cast south-east of the subject site and onto the adjoining properties, being No.1a Ambrose Street and 8 Passy Avenue. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the sites. The proposal would comply with the general requirements, being that new development must not eliminate more than one third of the existing sunlight to adjacent properties at ground level, measured at 9 am, 12 noon and 3 pm of the winter solstice. The proposal would comply with the general requirements and objectives stipulated under Part 7.4.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15, as the proposal would allow for reasonable access to sunlight to adjoining buildings and their recreational open space. Privacy

The proposed alterations and additions would be acceptable in regards to privacy, due to its positioning and size of window openings, limited number of windows to the eastern and southern side elevations, separation from adjoining properties and orientation. The proposed works are considered to provide for the reasonable privacy of the adjoining dwellings and their outdoor spaces, accordingly, satisfying the objective stipulated under Part 7.5.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15. Views

The objectives stipulated under Part 7.6.1 of the DCP No. 15, states to provide opportunities for view sharing by both the existing and future residents of the municipality and to ensure that the maximum number of residents enjoy a view by avoiding the monopolising of a view by existing dwellings and undue obstruction of views by new dwellings or additions. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy these objectives. Accordingly, the proposal would be satisfactory as the proposal would satisfy the objectives stipulated under Part 7.6 of the DCP No.15. Car Parking

No change. Garages and Carports

No change.




Fences

No change. 12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies


The proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the Ferry Street streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan No.15. There would be no detrimental impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no detrimental social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.15 for a period of ten (10) working days on the 24 June 2011. Within the specified time period no submissions were received. On 1 August 2011, Council received a SEPP No.1 Objection in relation to the breach of Clause 16A of LEP No.1 – Garden Area under LEP No.1. In support of the SEPP No.1 Objection the existing metal shed and retaining walls to the rear of the site are being removed and replaced with soft landscaping. Also, amended plans were submitted indicating the garden area betterment and section drawings showing that the proposed swimming pool is inground. This information provided clarification and was not required to be notified to the neighbours, as the proposal results in a lesser impact. 15. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with

ordinary meeting no...rear garden and minor window changes, minor roof changes to pool house at no.3...

Documents