Agenda: Development Control Committee · 10/17/2005 · C McMahon (Team Leader – Team Central) B...

Agenda: Development Control Committee Date: Monday 17 October 2005 Time: 6.00 pm & 8.00 pm Session: One & Two Part: One of Five Item: D1 to D15

H:\Development Control Committee \AGENDAS\2005\oct17-05dccage.doc

Outline Of Meeting Protocol & Procedure: • The Chairperson will call the Meeting to order and ask the Committee/Staff to present apologies

or late correspondence. • The Chairperson will commence the Order of Business as shown in the Index to the Agenda. • At the beginning of each item the Chairperson will ask whether a member(s) of the public wish

to address the Committee. • If person(s) wish to address the Committee, they are allowed four (4) minutes in which to do so.

Please direct comments to the issues at hand. • If there are persons representing both sides of a matter (eg applicant/objector), the objector

speaks first. • At the conclusion of the allotted four (4) minutes, the speaker resumes his/her seat and takes no

further part in the debate unless specifically called to do so by the Chairperson. • If there is more than one (1) person wishing to address the Committee from the same side of the

debate, the Chairperson will request that where possible a spokesperson be nominated to represent the parties.

• The Chairperson has the discretion whether to continue to accept speakers from the floor. • After considering any submissions the Committee will debate the matter (if necessary), and

arrive at a recommendation (R items which proceed to Full Council) or a resolution (D items for which the Committee has delegated authority).

Delegated Authority (“D” Items): • To approve, disapprove and take action on Development and related applications submitted or

any other matter referred by the Council or other Committee; to a site inspection for recommendation back to the Development Control Committee. (Except for those applications within the category of designated development, or matters as specified by resolution of the Council taken from time to time.

Note: This not to limit the discretions of nominated staff members exercising Delegated Authorities granted by the Council.)

• General implementation of matters touching upon or within the strategic goals and policy directives of the Council, and in respect of which due provision has been made in the Council's current budget.

• To require such investigations, reports or actions as considered necessary in respect of matters contained within the Business Agendas (and as may be limited by specific Council resolution).

• Confirmation of Minutes of its Meeting. • Any other matter falling within the responsibility of the Development Control Committee and

not restricted by the Local Government Act or required to be a Recommendation to Full Council as listed below:

Recommendation only to the Full Council (“R” Items): • Specified developments, as may be determined and listed by the Council by resolution taken

from time to time. • Matters which involve broad strategic or policy initiatives within the responsibilities of the

Committee. • Matters requiring the expenditure of moneys and in respect of which no Counc il vote has been

made. • Matters not within the specified functions of the Committee,. • Matters reserved by individual Councillors in accordance with any Council policy on

"safeguards" (and substantive changes) Committee Membership: 7 Councillors Quorum: The quorum for a committee meeting is 4

Councillors.


WOOLLAHRA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Notice of Meeting 10 October 2005 To: The Mayor, Councillor Andrew Petrie, ex-officio

Councillors Christopher Dawson (Chair) Anthony Boskovitz John Comino Julian Martin Geoff Rundle Isabelle Shapiro David Shoebridge

Dear Councillors

Development Control Committee Meeting – 17 October 2005 In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, I request your attendance at a Meeting of the Council’s Development Control Committee to be held in the Committee Room, ground floor level, 536 New South Head, Double Bay, on Monday 17 October 2005 at 6.00pm. Gary James General Manager

Woollahra Municipal Council Development Control Committee 17 October 2005


Meeting Agenda Session One – Commencing 6.00pm

Part One of Five Parts Item

Subject

Pages

1 2 3

Leave of Absence and Apologies Late Correspondence Declarations of Interest

Items to be Decided by this Committee using its Delegated Authority

D1 Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held on 26 September 2005 1

Site Inspection Items

D2 DA8/2005 – 398 Edgecliff Road, Woollahra – Demolish existing dwelling & construct new single dwelling – 10/1/2005, 7/4/2005, 4/5/2005 & 20/6/2005 *See Recommendation Page 3

2-100



Meeting Agenda Session One – Commencing 6.00pm

Part Two of Five Parts Item

Subject

Pages

D3 DA22/2005 – 206 Victoria Road, Bellevue Hill – Alteration s&

additions to existing residential flat building including the construction of two new residential units – 21/1/2005 *See Recommendation Page 102

101-211

Other Delegated Items

D4 DA286/2005 – 2C Tarrant Avenue, Bellevue Hill – Alterations & additions to residence – 18/5/2005 *See Recommendation Page 227

212-252

D5 DA 242/2005 – 91 Sutherland Street, Paddington – Change of stair at front to first floor entry – 6/5/2005, 17/8/05 (Amended plans) *See Recommendation Page 260

253-266



Meeting Agenda Session Two – Commencing 8.00pm

Part Three of Five Parts Item

Subject

Pages

D6 DA845/2004 – 20 Ray Avenue, Vaucluse – Demolition of existing

dwelling-house & detached garage – Erection of new dwelling-house – Landscaping & siteworks – 22/12/2004 & 8/8/2005 *See Recommendation Page 292

267-327

D7 DA158/2005 – 2A Pacific Street, Watsons Bay – Alterations & additions to dwelling-house, double garage & swimming pool – 30/3/2005, 23/5/2005 & 14/7/2005 *See Recommendation Page 350

328-354

D8 DA263/2005 – 144 Old South Head Road, Bellevue Hill – Demolition of existing dwelling house & construction of a new residential flat building consisting of 3x2 bedroom units with basement level car parking – 12/5/2005 *See Recommendation Page 376

355-390

D9 DA302/2005 – 67 Fitzwilliam Road, Vaucluse – Alterations & additions to existing dwelling house including a new 1st floor level, landscaping & siteworks – 25/5/2005 & 12/9/2005 *See Recommendation Page 409

391-433

D10 DA194/2005 – 10 Annandale Street, Darling Point – Demolish existing (4) storey residential flat building containing (7) units & construct new (4) storey (including basement carpark) residential flat building containing (2) units – 12/4/2005 & 9/6/2005 *See Recommendation Page 462

434-473




Part Four of Five Parts Item

Subject

Pages

D11 DA685/2001 Part 4 – 52A Wunulla Road, Point Piper – Section 96

application proposed modification to openings in ensuite (1) located on upper ground floor, southern elevation, so as to accommodate french doors to allow access to the adjoining roof area – 23/5/2005 *See Recommendation Page 475

474-498

D12 DA29/2005 – 37 Wunulla Road, Point Piper – Demolition of existing dwelling & construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey residence & refurbishment of pool deck level – 27/1/2005 & 22/8/2005 *See Recommendation Page 518

499-547




Part Five of Five Parts Item

Subject

Pages

D13 DA929/2003 Part 2 – 9 Dunara Gardens, Point Piper – Section 96

application proposed modification – Deletion of Condition No. 2 of the development consent & extension of approved fence & new gates – 28/6/2005 *See Recommendation Page 558

548-692

D14 DA1010/2003 Part 2 – 34 & 38 Wolseley Road, Point Piper – Section 96 application proposed modifications – 6/4/2005, 7/7/2005, 29/7/2005, 1/9/2005 & 28/9/2005 *See Recommendation Page 717

693-740

D15 Register of Current Land and Environment Court Appeals for Building and Development Applications *See Recommendation Page 741

741-750


H:\Development Control Committee\AGENDAS\2005\oct17-05dccage.doc 6

Item No: D1 Delegated to Committee Subject: Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held on 26 September 2005 Author: Les Windle, Manager - Governance File No: See Council Minutes Reason for Report: The Minutes of the Meeting of Monday 26 September 2005 were

previously circulated. In accordance with the guidelines for Committees’ operations it is now necessary for those Minutes be formally taken as read and confirmed.

Recommendation: That the Minutes of the Development Control Committee Meeting of 26 September 2005 be taken as read and confirmed. Les Windle Manager - Governance



DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE SITE INSPECTION REPORT ITEM No. D2

FILE No. DA 8/2005/1

ADDRESS:

398 Edgecliff Road WOOLLAHRA 2027

PROPOSAL:

Demolish existing dwelling & construct new single dwelling.

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Local Development

APPLICANT:

Tobias Theodore Buildings & Interiors Pty ltd

OWNER:

Mr S A Tilley

DATE LODGED:

10/01/2005

AUTHOR:

Ms J Askin

Site Inspection A site inspection in relation to this Development Application was conducted on Wednesday 28 September 2005 with the following Councillors and staff present: Present: His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Petrie ex-officio

Councillors Anthony Boskovitz John Comino Christopher Dawson (Chair) Julian Martin David Shoebridge (in part – left approx 8.30am)

Staff: J Askin (Senior Assessment Officer) C McMahon (Team Leader – Team Central) B Daintry (Manager Development Control) B Herden (Team Leader Governance) D Sheils (Manager – Public Open Space) D Grey (Tree Officer) Apologies: Councillor Gardner The following people addressed the Councillors: Ms Shauna Roche, Ms Helen Klinger, Mr Stephen McMahon (for Mr David Rofe QC), objectors and Mr Tony Moody, Nick Tobias, Bruce Walker for the applicant and the owner, Mrs Tilley addressed Councillors on site.



In Summary, the DCC Site Inspection recommended the following:

• That Condition No. 2(f) be amended to require that the evergreen magnolia be of a “Little Gem” variety of an advanced planting.

• That Condition No. 2(c) be amended to require that the planter box on the roof terrace be 1.5m wide and surround the perimeter of the reduced roof terrace.

• That the Council’s standard noise condition be included to ensure that the mechanical ventilation system will not exceed the ambient noise level at the boundaries of the subject property.

• That the conditions and advisings as stated in the agreement reached between Mr John Braybrooke, Consulting Engineer of Douglas Partners acting on behalf of the adjoining owners and Mr B Walker, Consulting Engineer of Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd acting on behalf of the applicant, dated 27th September 2005 as detailed in a facsimile dated 27th September 2005 from Tony Moody be included in the recommendation for approval.

The Councillors at the site inspection submit the following recommendation for consideration by the Development Control Committee: (Comino/Petrie) Recommendation: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT the Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development Application No. 8/2005 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling on land at 398 Edgecliff Road, Woollahra, subject to the following conditions:

1. Approved Plans

This consent relates to the work, shown in colour, on plans numbered 001, Issue A dated April 2005, 002, Issue A dated April 2005, 003 dated December 2004, 004, Issue A dated March 2005, 005 dated December 2004, 006, Issue A dated April 2005, 007, Issue A dated April 2005, 008 dated December 2004, 009 dated December 2004, 009, Issue A dated March 2005, 010, Issue A dated April 2005, 011 dated December 2004, drawn by Tobias Theodore, including landscape plans dated 23 May 2005, drawn by Paul Bangay, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved DA Plans” and the signature of a Council officer, except where amended by the following conditions.

2. Modification of details of the development (s80A(1)(g) of the Act)

The approved plans must be amended and the Construction Certificate plans and specification, required to be submitted to the Certifying Authority pursuant to Clause 139 of the Regulation, must detail: a) Louvres are to be provided to all windows and doors at first floor level to the western

and eastern elevation and to the roof level windows to the northern elevation. These louvres are to be fixed in an upward position to protect the privacy of adjoining properties.

b) The doors to the eastern elevation at first floor level are to be non-openable to ensure

that the visual privacy of the adjoining property to the east is maintained.



c) The usable area at roof level is to be reduced to have a maximum width of 3 metres to the east and west of the proposed living area and is to be surrounded by a planter box with screen planting. The planter box is to be a minimum of 1.5m in width. The remaining area is to be treated so as to be non-trafficable to ensure that the acoustic privacy of the adjoining properties is maintained.

d) All windows to ensuites, powder room and bathrooms are to be constructed to

translucent glass.

e) Deletion of roof top swimming pool to ensure that the acoustic privacy of adjoining properties is maintained.

f) The height of the evergreen magnolia to be planted along the western boundary is not to

exceed RL71.70 at any time. The variety to be planted is to be advanced “Little Gem”.

g) The proposed Callery Pear trees to be planted along the driveway are to be deleted and replaced with an alternative evergreen species to protect the general amenity of adjoining properties in terms of falling leaves.

Note: The effect of this condition is that it requires design changes and/or further information to be provided with the Construction Certificate drawings and specifications to address specific issues identified during assessment under section 79C of the Act.

Note: Clause 146 of the Regulation prohibits the issue of any Construction Certificate subject to this condition unless the Certifying Authority is satisfied that the condition has been complied with.

Note: Clause 145 of the Regulation prohibits the issue of any Construction Certificate that is inconsistent with this consent.

3. BASIX Commitments

The development must be implemented and all BASIX commitments thereafter maintained in accordance with BASIX Certificate No. 13796 other than superseded by any further amended consent and BASIX certificate. Note: Clause 145(1)(a1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 provides: "A certifying authority must not issue a construction certificate for building work unless it is satisfied of the following matters: (a1) that the plans and specifications for the building include such matters as each relevant BASIX certificate requires," Note: Clause 154B(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 provides: "A certifying authority must not issue a final occupation certificate for a BASIX affected building to which this clause applies unless it is satisfied that each of the commitments whose fulfilment it is required to monitor has been fulfilled." Note: For further information please see http://www.basix.nsw.gov.au


A window is to be provided to the power door at ground floor level to ensure compliance with the BASIX certificate No. 13796. Details are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.



5. Development consent is not granted in relation to these matters

This approval does not give consent to the erection of fencing and/or retaining wall above the existing height of fencing on the site or the removal of the existing fence and gate along Edgecliff Road. A separate Development Consent or Complying Development Certificate, as appropriate, will need to be obtained prior to the erection of any new fencing above existing fence heights and any fencing along the front boundary.

6. Requirement for a Construction Certificate

In accordance with the provisions of Section 81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the erection of the building must not be commenced until:

(a) detailed plans and specifications of the building have been endorsed with a Construction

Certificate by:

(i) Council; or (ii) an accredited certifier; and

(b) a principal certifying authority (PCA) has been appointed and the Council has been

notified in writing of the appointment, and

(c) at least two days notice, in writing, has been given to Council of the intention to commence work.

7. Drawings to show levels and heights

The reduced levels of the ground floor, first floor and the overall height of the roof in relation to Australian Height Datum must be shown on the drawings submitted with the Construction Certificate Application to ensure that building construction complies with the development consent.

8. Structural details

Structural engineering details and design calculations, prepared and certified by a qualified practising Structural Engineer, must be submitted with Construction Certificate application, for all reinforced concrete work, structural steel work, retaining walls, brick fences, shoring and underpinning, isolated piers, chimneys, parapets and other structural members.

This condition is imposed to ensure the structural integrity of the proposed building work.

9. Services and electrical sub-station

All electrical and telephone services to the subject property must be placed underground. If an electrical sub-station is required, it must be situated within the boundaries of the subject property and suitably screened.



10. Layout of buildings

The layout of all external walls, including retaining walls and contiguous piling must be checked and verified by survey prior to the commencement of construction to ensure that building construction complies with the development consent and does not encroach beyond the boundaries of the site.

11. Demolition, excavation and construction hours

Demolition, excavation and construction work must not take place outside the hours of 7.00am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 7.00am to 1.00pm Saturday. No work and no deliveries are to take place on Sundays and public holidays. Noise from construction activities associated with the development must comply with the guidelines contained in the NSW EPA Environmental Noise Control Manual Chapter 171.

12. Machine excavation

Excavation or removal of any materials involving the use of machinery of any kind, including compressors and jack hammers, must be limited to between 9.00am and 4.00 pm Mondays to Fridays, with regular breaks of 15 minutes each hour. This condition is imposed to ensure reasonable standards of amenity for occupants of neighbouring properties.

13. Building Inspections

The Applicant, Owner and Builder, jointly and severally, must ensure that they call their Principal Certifying Authority ("the PCA") to carry out such critical phase building inspections required by the PCA, the PCA Service Agreement and that the PCA is satisfied with the level of compliance achieved before the Builder proceeds to the next phase of construction. Ample notice of required inspections must be given to the PCA in accordance with the PCA Service Agreement. The Applicant, Owner and Builder must comply with the PCA Service Agreement (Service Contract) and any lawful direction given by the Principal Certifying Authority. Note: It is the responsibility of the PCA to ensure that critical phase building inspections are undertaken in accordance with a PCA Service Agreement and issue to the Applicant, Owner and Builder appropriate Notice under Section 109L of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 ("the Act") where any breach of this consent occurs. Failure of the PCA to issue such notice may result in Council taking action under Section 109V of the Act. Failure of the Applicant, Owner and Builder to comply with a PCA Service Agreement and comply with lawful directions of the PCA under this condition may result in Council issuing fines, notices, orders and commencing legal proceedings. Council will only enter into PCA Agreements with the Owner of the land being developed. Council, if appointed as the PCA, will report to the owner of the land being developed.

14. Occupation of premises

The premises must not be occupied prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.



15. Existing trees which must be retained

Approval is NOT granted for the removal of the following trees, which Council has determined to be significant landscape elements. Where indicated, a Tree Preservation Bond is required to be lodged with Council. The Bond has been applied in accordance with Council’s policy regarding the bonding of trees on or adjacent development sites, where an assessment has determined that the proposed development may impact on the preservation of the following trees.

Trees on Private Property

Council Reference No:

Species Location Dimension (Metres)

3 Platanus x hybrida London Plane Side – NE corner 16 x 16 4 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Front – South side of driveway 12 x 9

The Construction Certificate plans must include reference to the retention of the above mentioned trees and identify the trees by Councils reference number (Ref No:) and colour or shade them in the colour green for trees to be retained and yellow for trees to be transplanted. The management of Tree No. 3 during demolition and construction works is to be undertaken in accordance with the Tree Management Plan dated 14 August 2005 prepared by Naturally Trees Management Plan.

16. Trees which may be removed

This consent includes approval under Council’s Tree Preservation Order to remove the following trees:



1 Hedge of Cupressocyparis leylandii Leyland cypress Rear – West boundary 12m high 2 Platanus x hybrida London Plane Rear – NW corner 14 x 12

The Construction Certificate plans must include reference to the removal of the above mentioned trees and identify the trees by Council’s reference number (Council Ref No:) and colour or shade them in the colour red.

17. Trees which may be pruned

This consent includes approval under Council’s Tree Preservation to prune the following trees:


Species Location Approved Works

3 Platanus x hybrida London Plane

Side – NE corner Prune to clear new building alignment



Pruning Approval of the above trees, is subject to all pruning works being undertaken by an experienced Tree Surgeon-Arborist with a minimum qualification of a Certificate in Arboriculture. All works undertaken are to be in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4373 – 1006 “Pruning of Amenity Trees” to ensure the preservation of the existing trees on the site.

18. No excavation within tree root zones

To allow for the preservation of a viable root zone, excavation work must not be undertaken within the specified radius of the trunks of the following trees. Beyond this radius, excavation is permissible only after root pruning by hand along the perimeter line of such works has been carried out.


Species Location Radius from Trunk(Metres)

3 Platanus x hybrida London Plane Side – NE corner 2.5m 4 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Front – South side of driveway 3m

19. Protective fencing mulching and irrigation around trees

To limit the potential for damage to trees to be retained, the area beneath their canopies must be fenced. The fencing must encompass the maximum possible area covered by the dripline of the canopy to allow for development and remain in place until the completion of building works. The fencing should be a minimum of a 1.8 metres high chainlink or welded mesh fencing. The fencing is to be maintained for the duration of the building works.

To ensure adequate moisture levels for the growing medium, protected within the fenced areas, all areas within the perimeter of the safety fencing are to be covered with woodchip mulch to a depth of 100mm. All steep gradients unable to be effectively covered with mulch are to be protected with hessian cloth to be kept at a moisture level sufficient to ensure the preservation of tree root systems. To ensure the continued preservation of the aforementioned existing trees by providing adequate soil moisture, a irrigation program or temporary irrigation system is to be installed and an irrigation program maintained during the full course of construction works.

20. Barricading for earthworks

Earthworks shall not commence until the trunks of the following trees are protected by the placement of 2m lengths of 50 x 100 mm hardwood timbers, spaced at 150 mm centres and secured by 8 gauge wire at 300 mm spacing. The trunk protection must be maintained intact until the completion of all work on site. Any damage to the trees must be treated immediately by a experienced Horticulturist/Arborist with a minimum qualification of Horticulture Certificate/Tree Surgery Certificate.



3 Platanus x hybrida London Plane Side – NE corner 16 x 16 4 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Front – South side of driveway 12 x 9



21. Footings in the vicinity of trees

To ensure the preserva tion of retained trees, NO APPROVAL is granted for severing of significant tree roots. Footings for any structures constructed within the area, defined by the canopy driplines of the following trees, shall be constructed using an isolated pier and beam construction method, to bridge any existing roots exceeding 100mm, where excavation identifies roots exceeding this diameter. The piers shall be located such that no roots of a diameter greater than 100mm shall be severed.

Approval is granted for the root pruning of all roots of a diameter less than 100mm, subject to all pruning works being undertaken by an experienced Tree Surgeon-Arborist with a minimum qualification of a Certificate in Arboriculture or other equivalent qualification acceptable to Council.



3 Platanus x hybrida London Plane Side – NE corner 16 x 16 22. Reinstatement of grass verge

The grass verge must be reinstated to contain a uniform minimum of 75mm of friable growing medium and have a total cover of Couch turf. Any alternative treatment must be carried out to the satisfaction of Council’s Development Engineer.

23. Sewer pipe connection

All existing underground sewer pipes affected by the works in this consent must be replaced as far as Sydney Water’s sewer main. These pipes must be welded or jointed in such a manner so as to prevent leakage and must not be located less than five (5) metres from the base of any Council street tree. The replacement work must be inspected by a registered plumber who must certify, by way of a compliance certificate submitted to Council, that this condition has been satisfied.

24. Stormwater Management Plan including On-Site Detention

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, a Stormwater Management Plan for the development site must be submitted and approved by the Accredited Certifier. This Condition is imposed to ensure site stormwater is disposed in a controlled and sustainable manner. The Stormwater Management Plan must be in accordance with Council’s Draft Stormwater Drainage Management Development Control Plan, and generally in accordance with the Stormwater disposal concept plan prepared by Donnelley Simpson Cleary Engineers Dwg no. SW1,2 and 3 Rev A dated 23.12.04 Stormwater run-off from the proposed development must drain to Edgecliff Road. New drainage systems must be designed having regard to the need to prevent stormwater from entering buildings in accordance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).



An on-site stormwater detention (OSD) system must be provided. The minimum (On) Site Storage Requirements (SSR) and the Peak Site Discharge (PSD) from the site must be designed according to the following storage/discharge relationships taken from Council’s Draft Stormwater Development Control Plan.

2 year ARI P.S.D 20.4 L/s

Min. Volume 3.5 m3

100 Year ARI P.S.D 29.5 L/s

Min. Volume 21.7 m3

Site Area (m2) 868.6 (Single)

The Stormwater Management Plan must include the following specific requirements: a) Layout plan

A detailed drainage plan at a scale of 1:100 based on drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institute of Engineers Australia publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition or most current version thereof. It must include: • All pipe layouts, dimensions, grades, lengths and material specification • Location of On-Site Detention unit • All invert levels reduced to Australian Height Datum (AHD) • Location and dimensions of all drainage pits • Point and method of connection to Councils drainage infrastructure • Overland flow paths over impervious areas.

b) On-site Detention (OSD) details:

• Internal dimensions and volume of the proposed detention storage. • Diameter of the outlet to the proposed detention storage basin. • Plans, elevations and sections showing the detention storage basin invert level,

centre- line level of outlet, top water level, finished surface level and adjacent structures.

• Details of access and maintenance facilities. • Construction and structural details of all tanks and pits and/or manufacturer’s

specifications for proprietary products. • Details of the emergency overland flow-path (to an approved Council drainage

point) in the event of a blockage to the on-site detention system. • Non-removable fixing details for orifice plates where used.

c) Copies of certificates of title, showing the creation of private easements to drain water

by gravity, if required. d) Subsoil Drainage

• Subsoil drainage details, clean out points, discharge point.



25. On-Site Detention requirements

The on-site detention system must be designed having regard to the following requirements: a) On-Site Detention (OSD) storages must, generally, be as close as possible to the lowest

point of the site and be designed to collect all piped and surface stormwater run-off from the site. The location and design of the OSD storage must not have a detrimental impact on upstream or adjacent properties.

b) Storage’s must not be located in drainage easements and/or overland flow paths, which

convey catchment flows through the site. c) Discharge restriction from OSD systems must be by the use of appropriately sized short

length of reduced diameter pipe or non-removable orifice plate (Dyna-bolted with 2-part epoxy). Discharge control pits must be fitted with screens. Screens must be able to be easily removed for routine maintenance. The screen must:

• Protect the outlet from blockage, • Dissipate the kinetic energy of inflows creating static conditions around the

discharge restriction, which help to achieve predictable discharge coefficients, and • Retain litter and debris, which would degrade downstream waterways

d) Below-ground Storage

• Building floor levels must be set above the top water level (TWL) of OSD storages with 150mm freeboard where the OSD storage is located near buildings. This requirement applies to both new and existing buildings.

• Backwater protection device(s) must be provided where there is the potential for backwater from OSD system into areas that are below the OSD system overflow level.

e) Construction, Access and Maintenance

• Bondek must not be used in a composite slab design. • Internal supporting walls must be minimised to ease maintenance. Typically,

internal supports must only be considered for spans greater than 3m. • Tank needs to be checked for normal earth, surcharge, traffic and hydrostatic

loads. Where free draining soils do not exist around the tank, buoyancy must be considered.

• Excavation for the tank must be checked for impact on the zone of influence of adjacent footings and structures.

• A depression within the OSD system is not to be used to provide a silt/sediment trap. Where required a proprietary silt/oil arrestor must be provided (treatment of runoff from vehicle parking areas)

• Access for cleaning (typically flushing) must be provided at the upstream and downstream ends of the tank. Access must also be provided in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point. Generally, grated access points must be provided to enable venting. Where access points need to be sealed, alternative means of ventilation (including mechanical if required) must be provided.



• The on-site detention must have a minimum access opening size of 600mm x

600mm for tank depths less than 1.5m and 900mm x 900mm opening size for deeper tanks. The access point must be fitted with a hinged, lockable galvanised grate and be placed over the outlet. Step irons must be placed at the access point to enable entry for maintenance and inspection. The designer must consider the provisions of AS 2865-1986 ‘Safe working in a confined Space’ and other work cover requirements.

26. Positive Covenant - Drainage system

A Positive Covenant, pursuant to Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act, must be created on the title of the subject property. The Covenant must provide for the indemnification of Council from any claims or actions and the on-going maintenance of the on-site detention and/or pump and sump system in the development. This includes all ancillary gutters, pipes, drains, walls, kerbs, pits, pumps, grates, tanks, chambers, basins and surfaces designed to temporarily detain stormwater. The wording of the Instrument must be in accordance with Council’s standard format (available from Councils web-site http://www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au) and the Instrument must be registered at the Land Titles Office prior to the Final Building Inspection and issuance of the Certificate of Occupation.

27. Compliance with the Stormwater Management Plan

The stormwater drainage system must be constructed in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan as prepared by Donnelley Simpson Cleary Engineers Dwg no. SW1, 2 and 3 Rev A dated 23.12.04 and the following amendments: • Discharge of the stormwater to the gutter by a single galvanised iron Rectangular

Hollow Section • Construction of an interceptor drain for collection of stormwater at the property

boundary

28. Stormwater Certification and Work-As-Executed (WAE) Plans

Prior to the release of the Final Building Certificate, Certification and Work-As-Executed (WAE) plans must be submitted and approved by the Accredited Certifier demonstrating that the site drainage system has been provided according to the submitted calculations and/or approved plans.

Certifications must be provided by a suitably qualified engineer. WAE plans must be prepared and certified by a Registered Surveyor. The following must be provided:

a) Certification that:

• The drainage system has been installed in accordance with the drainage Conditions of Development Consent and relevant Australian Standards.



• That all drainage components, including the on site detention, are structurally adequate and have been installed in accordance with the relevant Codes and Standards and/or specifications.

• That the on-site detention system will provide the detention storage volume and attenuation in accordance with the submitted calculations.

b) Work-As-Executed (WAE) plans showing:

• Pipe and drainage system layout, including all pits, pipe diameters, grades,

materials, invert levels and surface levels. • Details (exact point and method) of connection to Council system • OSD tank dimensions, location and orifice plate/outlet details. • Contours indicating the direction in which water will flow should the OSD storage

overflow.

29. Interceptor drain

Prior to the Final Building Inspection, an interceptor drain must be provided at the intersection of the concrete/paved area and footpath, within the boundaries of the subject property and drained to the street gutter.

30. Wet areas

All floors of wet areas are to be constructed and finished so as to be impervious to water and graded to a sufficient number of floor drains.

31. Long Service Levy Payment

A Long Service Levy under Section 34 of the Building & Construction Industry Long Service Payment Act , 1986, must be paid and proof of payment provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The Levy can be paid directly to the Long Services Payments Corporation or to Council.

32. Erosion and sediment control

An erosion and sediment control plan, designed in accordance with the SSROC Soil and Water Management Brochures titled “Do it Right on Site” and the current version of the NSW Landcom publication “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” (The Blue Book), must be prepared to show erosion and sediment control measures which are to be installed. The Plan must be submitted to Council or the accredited certifier for approval before commencement of excavation or construction work.

33. Compliance with erosion and sediment control plan

The erosion and sediment control plan must be implemented during site works and construction activities. All controls in the Plan must be maintained at all times. A copy of the Plan must be kept on-site at all times and made available to the accredited certifier and Council officers on request.



34. Sediment removal from vehicle wheels

A vehicle wheel wash, cattle grid, wheel shaker or other appropriate device, must be installed to prevent mud and dirt leaving the site and being deposited on the street.

35. Display of Council’s warning sign for soil and water management

Throughout the demolition, excavation and construction period, Council’s warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed on the most prominent point of the building site, visible both from the street and site. A copy of the sign is available from Council.

36. Stockpiles

Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, soil or other material must not be located on any drainage line or easement, natural watercourse, footpath or roadway, or within the dripline of any Street Tree. Stockpiles within the construction site must be protected with adequate sediment controls, in accordance with Council’s Code for Sediment Control.

37. Location of building operations

Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or brushes and mixing mortar must not take place on public roadways or footways or in any other location which could lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

Footpaths, gutters and roadways must be swept regularly to keep them free from sediment.

38. Temporary disposal of roof water

Stormwater from any roof areas must be linked, via a temporary downpipe, to a Council approved stormwater disposal system immediately upon completion of the roof installation.

39. Photographic archival recording of buildings with little or no heritage significance that are to be demolished:

A photographic archival record of the building and landscape elements to be demolished is to be submitted, to the satisfaction of Council’s heritage officer, prior to the commencement of demolition work and prior to the issue of a Construction certificate. The photographic archival recording is to be bound in an A4 format and is to include the following: • Site plan at a scale of 1:200 (or 1:500) if appropriate of all structures and major

landscape elements including their relationship to the street and adjoining properties. • Postcard sized photographs of:

(i) each elevation, (ii) each structure and landscape feature;



(iii) internal or external details if nominated in Council’s heritage officer’s assessment report; and

(iv) views to the subject property from each street and laneway or public space.

Each photograph to be mounted, labelled and cross-referenced in accordance with recognised archival recording practice. One original coloured photographic set and a coloured photocopy are to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council s heritage officer prior to the commencement of demolition work and prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The original will be retained by Council and the coloured photocopy will be provided to the Woollahra Local History Library.

40. Swimming Pools and Spa Pools

The pool must comply with the following requirements:

• all waste water must be drained into the main sewer with the permission of Sydney Water;

• filtration or other mechanically operated equipment must be operated by a time switch and must be installed set and sealed so that the operation of such equipment is limited to between the hours of 7.00 am and 8.00 p.m. Monday to Saturday and 8:00am and 8:00pm on Sundays and public holidays;

• filtration or other mechanically operated equipment must be installed in a masonry housing and treated to prevent the noise level, when the equipment is in operation, from rising above the background noise level, when measured at the boundaries of the subject site;

• vertical depth markers must be permanently fitted and clearly visible at the deep and shallow ends of the pool to ensure reasonable levels of safety;

• where the pool concourse is higher than 1 metre above the adjacent ground level, a protective guard or handrail complying with the provisions of Clause D2.16 of the Building Code of Australia must be fitted;

• an egress ladder or steps into the pool must be provided to ensure reasonable levels of safety;

• the pool must be fenced, prior to filling the structure with water to a depth of 300 mm or more in such a manner so as to obstruct the entry to the pool in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Regulations and Australian Standard 1926 "Fences and Gates for Private Swimming Pools;"

• all overflow and splash must be contained within the boundaries of the site, to ensure reasonable levels of amenity for neighbouring properties and the locality;

• warning notices must be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 Section 17 and Regulation 8, to ensure reasonable levels of safety.

41. Water conservation

Water saving showerheads must be fitted to all showers within the development to reduce water consumption and promote energy efficiency.

42. Standard for demolition

All demolition work must be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS2601-2001: The Demolition of Structures.



43. Construction Management

A construction management plan must be submitted for the approval of Council’s Development Engineer before the commencement of demolition, excavation or construction works. The plan must:-

a. describe the anticipated impact of the construction works on: • local traffic routes • pedestrian circulation adjacent to the building site • and on-street parking in the local area, and; b. describe the means proposed to: • manage construction works to minimise such impacts, • provide for the standing of vehicles during construction, • provide for the movement of trucks to and from the site, and deliveries to the site, and; c. show the location of: • any site sheds and any anticipated use of cranes and concrete pumps, • any areas of Council property on which it is proposed to install a Works Zone

(Construction Zone), • structures to be erected such as hoardings, scaffolding or shoring, • any excavation.

The Plan must make provision for all materials, plant, etc. to be stored within the development site at all times during construction. Structures or works on Council property such as hoardings, scaffolding, shoring or excavation need separate approval from Council. Standing of cranes and concrete pumps on Council property will need approval on each occasion. Note: A minimum of eight weeks will be required for assessment. Work must not commence until the Construction Management Plan is approved. Failure to comply with this condition may result in fines and proceedings to stop work.

44. Compliance with the construction management plan

All excavation, demolition and construction work and traffic movements must be carried out in accordance with the approved construction management plan. All controls in the Plan must be maintained at all times. A copy of the Plan must be kept on-site at all times and made available to the PCA or Council on request.

45. Site fencing

The site must be appropriately secured and fenced to the satisfaction of Council during demolition, excavation and construction work to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties. Permits for hoardings and or scaffolding on Council land must be obtained and clearly displayed on site.

46. Works Zone

A Work Zone (Construction Zone) is required for this development. Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate an application for the required Works Zone must be submitted to Woollahra Council, for consideration by the Woollahra Local Traffic Committee.



Prior to commencement of any demolition, land clearing, piling, piering, excavation, construction or like work or the issue of a Notice of Commencement of building works, any Works Zone approval by the Woollahra Local Traffic Committee shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the Committee’s terms and conditions. Note: • The Woollahra Local Traffic Committee meets monthly. • A minimum of eight weeks is required for assessment and determination of a Works

Zone application. • Failure to comply with this condition may result in fines and proceedings pursuant to

Part 6 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. 47. Damage security deposit

A security deposit of $36,000 for the cost of making good any damage to Council property caused as a consequence of the construction work, plus an administration fee of $154.00, must be paid to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The security deposit, which may be in the form of a bank guarantee, has been calculated in accordance with the following schedule.

Estimated cost of work Deposit Works up to $50,000 $2,000 Works in excess of $50,000 & up to $100,000 $4,000 Works in excess of $100,000 $4,000+$200/$10,000 estimated cost >$100,000

Council may use all or part of the Damage Security Deposit to complete damage restoration works if they do not meet Council’s requirements.

48. Footpath levels

The existing footpath level and grade at the street alignment of the property must be maintained.

49. Protection of services

Prior to any excavation works, the location and depth of all services (telephone, cable TV, electricity, gas, water, sewer, drainage, etc.) must be ascertained. The deve loper must meet all costs of any adjustment, relocation or reinstatement of any services.

50. Road Opening Permit

Prior to the commencement of any excavation in Council controlled roadways or footpath areas, the developer must obtain a road opening permit from Council’s Customer Services Counter. Restoration of roads, footpaths, retaining walls, kerbs and gutters must be carried out in accordance with the relevant clauses of the current edition of AUS-SPEC.



51. Storage of materials and plant on Council’s footpath

Building, excavation or demolition materials and plant must not be stored on Council’s footpath and/or roadway unless prior written approval has been obtained from Council’s Development Engineer.

52. Public footpaths

A safe pedestrian circulation route a minimum of 1.5m wide and with a pavement free of trip hazards must be maintained at all times on or adjacent to the public footpaths fronting the construction site. Where the footpath is damaged, repair works must be carried when directed by Council officers and in accordance with the relevant clauses of Council's document "Standard Specifications for Roadworks, Drainage and Miscellaneous Works" dated Jan 2003. Where circulation is diverted on to the roadway clear directional signage and protective barricades must be installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS1742-3 2002 “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”. Should the applicant propose to direct pedestrians onto the road pavement of a State road then an application is to be made to the RTA for a Road Occupancy Licence. Licence approval is to be submitted to Council. If pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily maintained, and action is not taken promptly to rectify the defects, Council may carry out remedial works and deduct the cost from the Damage Security Deposit.

53. Driveways and associated works

The following works must be undertaken at the applicant’s expense prior to the final building inspection and the issuance of the Occupation Certificate.

• Construction of a new full width concrete driveway crossing and layback in accordance

with Council’s Standard Drawing RF2. Levels in the footpath area must match existing.

An “Application for permission to construct a vehicle and special crossing by private contractor” must be completed and submitted to Council’s Customer Service Centre prior to commencement of construction of a new driveway. For any technical enquiries regarding alteration to existing footpath levels or alignments, please contact Council’s Works Supervisor.

54. Repair of Damaged Infrastructure

If Council’s infrastructure is damaged during the course of works, Council’s Development Engineer must be notified and necessary repairs must be undertaken within the time stipulated by Council, to Council’s specifications, and at no cost to Council. Works generally must be in accordance with the relevant clauses of the current edition of AUS-SPEC. If work is not undertaken to the satisfaction of the Development Engineer with regard to time or quality, Council may carry out remedial works and deduct the cost from the Damage Security Deposit.



55. Facilities for waste storage and collection

Details of facilities for waste storage and collection must be submitted to the accredited certifier prior to issue of a Construction Certificate. Details must meet the following requirements.

a) Single occupancies:

Within the property boundaries, there must be provision for:

i) One 120 litre mobile garbage bin for putrescible waste ii) One 50 litre crate for paper recyclables (blue) iii) One 50 litre crate for non-paper recyclables (black); and iv) One 240 litre mobile garbage bin for garden organics.

b) Inside the Waste Storage Area

The interior of the Waste Storage Area must meet the following requirements i) Bins to be stored with lids down to prevent vermin from entering the waste

containers. ii) The area must be constructed with a smooth impervious floor graded to a floor

waste and provided with a tap and hose to facilitate regular cleaning of the bins. A waste storage area that is located internal to the building must be fitted with both a hot and cold water supply and hose cocks. Waste water must be discharged to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water.

iii) Walls and ceilings of the waste storage area must be constructed of an impervious material with a smooth finish. The junction between the walls and the floor must be coved with a minimum radius of 25mm to prevent the accumulation of waste matter.

iv) The garbage storage area must be well lit to enable use at night. A timer switch must be fitted to the light fitting to ensure the light is turned off after use.

v) Odour problems to be minimised by good ventilation. The air flow must not be close to units.

vi) Air-conditioned waste storage areas to be provided with a separate air-conditioning system to units.

vii) For developments of four storeys and above, waste storage areas, garbage and recycling rooms must be fitted with fire sprinklers and be rated to fire safety standards in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

viii) Both putrescible and recycling bins/crates must be stored together. Recycling bins must never stand alone. They must always be located beside putrescible waste bins. Putrescible bins must be located closest to the entrance to the waste storage room.

ix) Signage on the correct use of the waste management system and what materials may be recycled must be posted in the communal waste storage cupboard/ room or bin bay.

56. Vehicular access and garaging

The following vehicular access and garaging detail must be submitted and approved by the Accredited Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.



• The garage entrance is to be relocated to commence at the SE corner (bin storage area)

of the building • The provision of blind aisle - a metre setback is required • Aisle width is to be a minimum of 5.8m for 3 point turn (a width of 6.2 would be more

suitable) • Driveways and access ramps must be designed not to scrape the underside of cars. In all other respects, proposed garage/car park/basement car park, driveways and access ramps must be designed to comply with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 – “Off-Street car parking.”

57. Dilapidation survey

A dilapidation survey of the following property and infrastructure must be conducted prior to any site work. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. A practicing structural engineer must prepare a full dilapidation report on the structural condition of all existing structures at the following locations:

• 396 Edgecliff Road. • 400 Edgecliff Road • 404 Edgecliff Road. • 3 Trelawney Street • 5 Trelawney Street. • 7 Trelawney Street • 9-11 Rosemont Avenue • 15 Rosemont Avenue

The Report must be completed and submitted to Council prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or construction works. A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed prior to the commencement of works, must be carried out at the completion of the works and be submitted to Council. A copy of the first dilapidation report required in this condition is to be provided to the adjoining owners of the respective abovementioned properties and these adjoining owners be provided with the opportunity to examine the report and to sign the report as a true and correct record of current conditions if they consider it appropriate.

58. Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical / hydrogeological and

Structural reports

The development works are to be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the • Geotechnical and Hydrogeological report/s prepared by Geotechnical Report by Jeffery

& Katauskas P/L Ref 18994Srpt dated 6 January • Structural report by Baigents Consulting Engineers ref S04250/FF/KAG/ODSC-13014

dated 24 January 2005



59. Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program

Excavation works associated with the proposed development must be overseen and monitored by a qualified and practising geotechnical engineer. A Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program must be produced to ensure that all geotechnical matters are regularly assessed during the construction to prevent adverse effects resulting from the excavation. The Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program for the construction works must be in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Report prepared by Geotechnical Report by Jeffery & Katauskas P/L Ref 18994Srpt dated 6 January 2005 Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant must submit to the Accredited Certifier details of the proposed Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program. A suitably qualified and practising geotechnical engineer must prepare the Program which must consist of the following; • Recommendations as contained within the Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Report

prepared by Geotechnical Report by Jeffery & Katauskas P/L Ref 18994Srpt dated 6 January 2005

• Recommended hold points to allow for inspection by a geotechnical engineer during the following construction procedures;

− Excavation of the site (face of excavation, base, etc) − Installation and construction of temporary and permanent shoring/ retaining walls. − Foundation bearing conditions and footing construction. − Installation of sub-soil drainage.

• Location, type and regularity of further geotechnical/hydrogeological investigations and testing.

The Applicant undertakes to provide a copy of the required Hydrogeological and Geotechnical monitoring programme to Douglas Partners for its consideration and comments prior to submission of the required report to the Accredited Certifier for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

60. Compliance with the Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program

Excavation and construction works must be undertaken in accordance with the “Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Monitoring Program” submitted as required by condition of consent. A qualified and registered geotechnical engineer shall provide certification to the Accredited Certifier that all earth works have been carried out; • In accordance with the Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program. • In accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Codes of Practise. • In a manner that does not compromise the structural integrity of all adjacent structures,

property and infrastructure. The record of each inspection shall be provided to the Accredited Certifier following each required inspection.



The certification and a complete record of inspections, testing and monitoring (with certifications) must be submitted in report form to the Accredited Certifier for approval, prior to the issue of a Final Building Certificate.

61. Vibration Monitoring Program

Vibration resulting from construction activities can adversely affect surrounding property and infrastructure. To ensure that vibration created by the method of construction does not adversely impact on the existing building, surrounding property and infrastructure, a Vibration Monitoring Program must be implemented. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must submit to the Accredited Certifier details of the proposed Vibration Monitoring Program. A qualified and practising geotechnical and/or hydrogeological engineer must prepare the Vibration Monitoring Program and undertake all associated investigations. Details to be included in Vibration Monitoring Program to include:

a) pre-set acceptable limits for the variation of:

− settlement − deflection or movement of retaining mechanisms such as shoring and bracing and − vibration in accordance with AS 2187.2 1993 Appendix J, including acceptable

velocity of vibration.

b) the location and type of monitoring systems to be used c) the period of monitoring in terms of construction stages d) recommended hold points to allow for inspection and certification by a geotechnical

engineer and e) a contingency plan should the pre-set acceptable limits be exceeded.

62. Compliance with the Vibration Monitoring Program

The Vibration Monitoring Program submitted as required by condition of consent must be implemented during excavation works on the site. All controls within the Program must be maintained at all times. A copy of the Program must be kept on site at all times and made available to the accredited certifier and Council officers on request. A record of inspections, monitoring and activities associated with the Program must be submitted to the accredited certifier in report format prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate. A qualified and practising geotechnical and/or hydrogeological engineer must prepare certification that all controls and activities within the Program have been maintained.



63. Mechanical ventilation/services

Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate

Detailed mechanical ventilation system plans and specification prepared by a professional engineer, as defined by the Building Code of Australia, must be submitted to Council or an Accredited Certifier with the application for a Construction Certificate certifying compliance with AS/NZS 1668 The Use of Mechanical Ventilation and Air Conditioning in Buildings, Part 1-1998: Fire and smoke control in multi-compartment buildings and Part 2-1991: Mechanical ventilation for acceptable indoor-air quality.

Installation and Commissioning

The mechanical ventilation system must be installed and commissioned in accordance with AS/NZS 1668 The Use of Mechanical Ventilation and Air Conditioning in Buildings, Part 1-1998: Fire and smoke control in multi-compartment buildings and Part 2-1991: Mechanical ventilation for acceptable indoor-air quality under the supervision of a professional engineer.

Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate

Detailed "works as executed" mechanical ventilation system plans and specification prepared by a professional engineer, as defined by the Building Code of Australia, must be submitted to Council or an Accredited Certifier together with certification from the supervising professional engineer that the system as commissioned complies with AS/NZS 1668 The Use of Mechanical Ventilation and Air Conditioning in Buildings, Part 1-1998: Fire and smoke control in multi-compartment buildings and Part 2-1991: Mechanical ventilation for acceptable indoor-air quality.

Note: Part 1 of AS/NZS 1668 only applies to multiple compartment buildings.

64. Noise from mechanical ventilation This condition has been applied to maintain a reasonable level of amenity to the area. Prior to the issue of any construction certificate, the developer must submit to the Council or accredited certifier a report from a qualified practicing acoustic engineer (who is a member of either the Australian Acoustical Society or the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants). The report must certify that the method of treating the mechanical ventilation system will ensure that the noise level, as measured at the boundaries of the subject property, will not exceed the ambient noise level. After completion of the works and prior to the issue of an occupation certificate or occupation, the developer must submit to the principal certifying authority, a report from a qualified practicing acoustic engineer (who is a member of either the Australian Acoustical Society or the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants) certifying that the works have been undertaken to meet the above design criteria.



65. Compliance with Building Code of Australia

(a) All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

(b) This condit ion does not apply to the extent to which an exemption is in force under

Clause 187 or 188, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in Clause 187 (6) or 188 (4) of the Regulation.

66. Residential building work

(a) Building work that involves residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority (PCA) for the development to which the work relates:

• in the case of work to be done by a licensee under that Act:

(i) has been informed in writing of the licensee's name and contractor license number; and

(ii) is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the requirements of Part 6 of that Act; or

• in the case of work to be done by any other person:

(iii) has been informed in writing of the person's name and owner-builder permit number; or

(iv) has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land, that states that the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work is less than the amount prescribed for the purposes of the definition of owner-builder work in Section 29 of that Act,

and is given appropriate information and declarations under paragraphs (a) and (b) whenever arrangements for the doing of the work are changed in such a manner as to render out of date any information or declaration previously given under either of those paragraphs.

Note: The amount referred to in paragraph (a) (iv) above is prescribed by regulations under

the Home Building Act 1989. As at the date on which this Regulation was Gazetted, that amount was $5,000. As those regulations are amended from time to time, so that amount may vary.

(b) A certificate purporting to be issued by an approved insurer under Part 6 of the Home

Building Act 1989 that states that a person is the holder of an insurance policy issued for the purposes of that Part is, for the purposes of this clause, sufficient evidence that the person has complied with the requirements of that Part.

67. Excavations and backfilling

(a) All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.



(b) All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be

properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

68. Retaining walls and drainage

If the soil conditions require it:

(a) retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil must be provided; and

(b) adequate provision must be made for drainage.

69. Support for neighbouring buildings

(a) If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made:

(i) must preserve and protect the building from damage; and (ii) if necessary, must underpin and support the building in an approved manner; and (iii) must, at least 7 days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings

of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining allotment of land and furnish particulars of the excavation to the owner of the building being erected or demolished.

(b) The owner of the adjoining allotment of land is not liable for any part of the cost of

work carried out for the purposes of this condition, whether carried out on the allotment of land being excavated or on the adjoining allotment of land.

(c) In this condition, allotment of land includes a public road and any other public place.

70. Protection of public places

(a) If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building:

(i) is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic on a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient, or

(ii) building involves the enclosure of a public place;

a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

(b) If necessary, an awning must be erected, sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place.

(c) The work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous

to persons in the public place.

(d) Any such hoarding, fence or awning must be removed when the work has been completed.



Note: Prior to the erection of any hoarding, fence or the like on any footpath or other property owned or controlled by Council, permission must be sought and obtained from Council and the prescribed rental fee paid.

71. Signs to be erected on building and demolition sites

(a) A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any work site on which work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out :

(i) stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited; and (ii) showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number

at which that person may be contacted outside working hours.

(b) Any such sign must be removed when the work has been completed.

(c) This clause does not apply to:

(i) building work carried out inside an existing building; or (ii) building work carried out on premises that must be occupied continuously (both

during and outside working hours) while the work is being carried out.

72. Toilet facilities

(a) Toilet facilities must be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site on which work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site.

(b) Each toilet provided:

(a) must be a standard flushing toilet; and

(b) must be connected:

(i) to a public sewer; or (ii) if connection to a public sewer is not practicable, to an accredited sewage

management facility approved by the Council; or (iii) if connection to a public sewer or an accredited sewage management facility

is not practicable, to some other sewage management facility approved by the Council.

(c) The provision of toilet facilities in accordance with this clause must be completed

before any other work is commenced.

(d) In this condition:

accredited sewage management facility means a sewage management facility to which Division 4A of Part 3 of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993 applies, being a sewage management facility that is installed or constructed to a design or plan the subject of a certificate of accreditation referred to in Clause 95B of the Regulation. approved by the Council means the subject of an approval in force under Division 1 of Part 3 of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993.



public sewer has the same meaning as it has in the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993.

sewage management facility has the same meaning as it has in the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993.

73. Residential building work over $12,000 in value

Council must be provided with the following information prior to the commencement of any works;

(a) the proposed builder's details (in writing); and (b) proof of payment of the required insurance premium pursuant to Part 6 of the Home

Building Act 1989.

74. Maintenance of Landscaping All landscaping must be maintained in general accordance with the consent. 75. Dust Mitigation

Dust mitigation must be implemented in accordance with “Dust Control - Do it right on site” published by the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils.

This generally requires:

(a) Dust screens to all hoardings and site fences. (b) All stockpiles or loose materials to be covered when not being used. (c) All equipment, where capable, being fitted with dust catchers. (d) All loose materials being placed bags before placing into waste or skip bins. (e) All waste and skip bins being kept covered when not being filled or emptied. (f) The surface of excavation work being kept wet to minimise dust. (g) Landscaping incorporating trees, dense shrubs and grass being implemented as soon as

practically possible to minimise dust.

Note 1: “Dust Control - Do it right on site” can be down loaded free of charge from Council’s web site www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au or obtained from Council’s office.

Note 2: Special precautions must be taken when removing asbestos or lead materials from development sites. Additional information can be obtained from www.workcover.nsw.gov.au and www.epa.nsw.gov.au . Other specific condition and advice may apply.

Note 3: Demolition and construction activities may affect local air quality and contribute to urban air pollution. The causes are dust, smoke and fumes coming from equipment or activities, and airborne chemicals when spraying for pest management. Precautions must be taken to prevent air pollution.

76. Vibration Trial

(a) Following underpinning and prior to carrying out any rock excavation on site, vibration attenuation trials must be carried out well away from the boundaries to determine the PPV/distance- from –source relationship for each proposed activity.

(b) The Applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer must be present at such trials and must review

the data and advise if the proposed excavation equipment and method are suitable.



(c) For each piece of equipment to be used on this site of the approved development, the contractor shall provide results from these trials for approval to the Principal Certifying Authority.

ADVISINGS 1. Other approvals

This development consent does not remove the need to obtain any other statutory consent or approval necessary under any other Act, including:

• an Application for Approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for an

activity under that Act, including the erection of a hoarding. All such applications must comply with the Building Code of Australia.

• an application for an Occupation Certificate under Section 109(C)(2) of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

An application for an Occupation Certificate may be lodged with Council if the applicant has nominated Council as the Principal Certifying Authority.

2. Works and requirements of other authorities

• Sydney Water may require the construction of additional works and/or the payment of additional fees. Other Sydney Water approvals may also be necessary prior to the commencement of construction work. You should therefore confer with Sydney Water concerning all plumbing works, including connections to mains, installation or alteration of systems, and construction over or near existing water and sewerage services.

Contact Sydney Water, Rockdale (Urban Development Section) regarding the water and sewerage services to this development. • Australia Post has requirements for the positioning and dimensions of mail boxes in

new commercial and residential developments. A brochure is available from your nearest Australia Post Office.

• AGL Sydney Limited has requirements for the provision of gas connections. • Sydney Electricity has a requirement for the approval of any encroachments including

awnings, signs etc, over a public roadway or footway. The Engineer Mains Overhead Eastern Area should be contacted on 9663 9408 to ascertain what action, if any, is necessary.

• Telstra has requirements concerning access to services that it provides. 3. Application for a Construction Certificate

The required Application for a Construction Certificate may be lodged with Council. Alternatively, you may apply to an accredited private certifier for a Construction Certificate.



WARNING: Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate prior to the commencement of any building work is a serious breach of Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. It is also a criminal offence which attracts substantial penalties and may also result in action in the Land and Environment Court and orders for demolition.

4. Occupational health and safety

All site works must comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of the NSW WorkCover Authority.

5. Waste collection

Liquid and solid wastes generated on the site must be collected, transported and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Records must be kept of all waste disposal from the site.

6. Relocation of stormwater drainage

Council is not responsible for the cost of relocating Council’s stormwater drainage pipes through the subject property.

7. Hazardous Material Management

"Builders are advised to obtain a copy of the EPA publication Solutions to Pollution for Builders which provides environmental information including hazardous material management. The EPA can be contacted by phone on 131 555 or at www.epa.nsw.gov.au”

8. Hazardous waste removal (including asbestos)

Hazardous or intractable wastes arising from the demolition process must be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover and the EPA, and in accordance with the provisions of:

• New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1983; • New South Wales Construction Safety Act, 1912; Regulation 84A-J Construction Work

Involving Asbestos or Asbestos Cement 1983; • The Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 1996; • The Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 1996; and • The Waste Minimisation and Management Act and Regulations.

9. Storage of dangerous goods

Details of the exact nature, quantity, location, method of storage and packing of any material covered by the Dangerous Goods Act, 1975, must be submitted to the WorkCover Authority in accordance with its requirements.



10. Air conditioning Systems in Residential Premises

Clause 50 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000 provides that a person must not cause or permit an air conditioner to be used on residential premises in such a manner that it emits noise that can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises (regardless of whether any door or window to that room is open):

a) before 8am or after 10pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, or b) before 7am or after 10pm on any other day.

11. Model

If you submitted a model with the application it must be collected from the Council offices within fourteen (14) days of the date of this determination. Models not collected will be disposed of by Council.

12. Compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act

This decision does not ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. You should therefore investigate your liability under that Act. Australian Standard 1428 - Design for Access and Mobility, Parts 2, 3 and 4 may assist in determining compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act.

13. Modifications to the consent

Changes to the external configuration of the building, changes to the site layout or any changes to the proposed operation or use will require the submission and approval of an application under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

14. Tree preservation

Where tree work has not been approved by this Development Consent the developer is notified that a general Tree Preservation Order applies to all trees in the Municipality of Woollahra with a spread of branches greater than three (3) metres and also on all trees, irrespective of the spread of branches, with a height greater than five (5) metres. This order prohibits the ringbarking, cutting down, topping, lopping, pruning, transplanting, injuring, or wilful destruction of such trees except with the prior written consent of the council. Written consent from Council for such tree works must be in the form of a Tree Preservation Order Permit for Pruning or Removal of Protected Trees obtained from the Parks and Streetscape Section of Council.

15. Storage bins on footpath and roadway

Approval is required from Council prior to the placement of any storage bin on Council's footpath and/or roadway.

16. Home Building Act insurance

Home Building Act Insurance must be obtained from an insurance company approved by the Department of Fair Trading prior to the commencement of demolition or construction work.



17. Long Service Levy

The current rate of the levy required by this consent is 0.2% of the cost all building and construction work costing $25,000 or more.

18. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact Ms J Askin. However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34 Conference, instead of a full Court hearing. This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to agree, in writing, to the Court appointed assessor having the full authority to completely determine the matter at the conference.

19. Consent for access to neighbouring properties

The permission of neighbours must be obtained for all rock bolts or rock anchors which extend beyond site boundaries. Where such permission cannot be obtained from either adjoining neighbours or Court, the Applicant must provide, for the Principal Certifying Authority, alternative techniques for stabilising any potentially unstable block or wedges which may be exposed during rock excavation.

20. Adjoining Owners

All precautions must be taken to prevent any damage likely to be sustained to adjoining properties. Adjoining properties rights must be observed at all time.

21. Insurance

The required insurance cover shall note that Owners Corporation SP No. 1783 as a neighbour to the development.

Annexure: Development Assessment Report submitted to the Development Control

Committee at its meeting on Monday 26 September 2005.



DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE SITE INSPECTION REPORT ITEM No. D3

FILE No. DA 22/2005/1

ADDRESS:

206 Victoria Road BELLEVUE HILL 2023

PROPOSAL:

Alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including the construction of two new residential units

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Local Development

APPLICANT:

Innovac Dyer Architects Pty Ltd

OWNER:

Strata Plan 00468

DATE LODGED:

21/01/2005

AUTHOR:

Ms J Askin

Site Inspection A site inspection in relation to this Development Application was conducted on Wednesday 28 September 2005, 2005 with the following Councillors and staff present: Present: His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Petrie ex-officio

Councillors John Comino Christopher Dawson (Chair)

Staff: C McMahon (Team Leader – Team Central) B Daintry (Manager Development Control) B Herden (Team Leader Governance) J Askin (Senior Assessment Officer) Apologies: Councillor Gardner The following people addressed the Councillors: Mr Barry Dyer (Innovac Dyer Architects Pty Ltd) and Mr Keith Boskovitz for the applicant addressed Councillors on site. The Councillors at the site inspection submit the following recommendation for consideration by the Development Control Committee: (Comino/Petrie) Recommendation: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979



THAT the Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to the height development standard under Clause 12 is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as the proposal complies with the objectives of the height control

AND THAT the Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to the floor space ratio development standard under Clause 11 is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as the proposal complies with the objectives of the floor space ratio control AND THAT the Council, as the consent authority, being satisfied that the objection under SEPP No. 1 is well founded and also being of the opinion that the granting of consent to Development Application No. 22/2005 is consistent with the aims of the Policy, grant development consent to DA No. 22/2005 for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including the construction of two new residential units on land at 206 Victoria Road, Bellevue Hill, subject to the following conditions : 1. Approved Plans

This consent relates to the work, shown in colour, on plans numbered DA02, Issue B, DA03, Issue B, DA04, Issue B, DA05, Issue A, DA07, Issue B, DA08, Issue B, DA09, Issue C, DA10, Issue E, DA11, Issue B, DA12, Issue E, DA13, Issue B, DA14, Issue C dated September 2004 and DA16 dated 27.04.05 drawn by Innovac Dyer Pty Ltd, and in accordance with details shown on DA06, Issue C dated September 2004 and drawn by Innovac Dyer Pty Ltd, including landscape plans numbered L01, dated 22 December 2004, drawn by Ray Fuggle & Associates Pty Ltd, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved DA Plans” and the signature of a Council officer, except where amended by the following conditions.

2. Front fence

The front fence is to be constructed to a maximum height of 1.2 metres above footpath level to provide a more appropriate bulk and scale to Victoria Road. Details are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

3. Pergola The proposed pergola is to be reduced to a maximum length of 0.5 metres from the carport structure to reduce visibility of this structure from the adjoining Cooper Park. Details are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.



4. Deep soil landscaping

The paving proposed to the western corner of the site and to the eastern section adjoining the swimming pool is to be deleted and this area is to comprise deep soil landscaping with a minimum area of 35m². This condition is imposed to ensure that the development provides an appropriate level of landscaping on the site and to provide an appropriate interface between Cooper Park and the subject site.




Certificate by:





6. Drawings to show levels and heights

The reduced levels of the ground floor, first floor and the overall height of the roof in relation to Australian Height Datum must be shown on the drawings submitted with the Construction Certificate Application to ensure that building construction complies with the development consent.

7. Structural adequacy

A statement from a qualified practising Structural Engineer, certifying to the adequacy of the existing structural members, walls and footings to support the additional loads imposed by the proposed development, must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.













12. Levels

For the purpose of indicating relative levels in terms of Australian Height Datum and boundary clearances, and to ensure that building construction complies with the development consent, survey certificates must be provided to the PCA in respect of the building/s layout and ground floor level/s prior to pouring of concrete or laying of timber floor boards.






The premises (Unit A and Unit B) must not be occupied prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.


Approval is NOT granted for the removal of the following trees, which Council has determined to be significant landscape elements.



1 Araucaria heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine Front of property 9 metres x 6 metres 2 Lophostemon confertus Brush Box Front of property 16 metres x 5 metres

The Construction Certificate plans must include reference to the retention of the above mentioned trees and identify the trees by Councils reference number (Ref No:) and colour or shade them in the colour green for trees to be retained and yellow for trees to be transplanted.

16. Replacement trees which must be planted

The following replacement tree species must be planted to ensure the preservation of the landscape character of the area. Details in compliance with the following criteria specifying the species and planting locations of the replacement plants must be included on the Landscape Plan for approval by Council or the accredited certifier with or before the application for a Construction Certificate.

Species/Type Planting Location Container Size

or Size of Tree Minimum Dimensions at Maturity

1 x Evergreen Native Within natural ground of western corner of site

100 litres 10 metres x 4 metres





5 Cupressus macrocarpa ‘Brunniana’ Golden Brunning Cypress

Western corner of property 11 metres x 4 metres

6 Cupressus macrocarpa ‘Brunniana’ Golden Brunning Cypress

Western corner of property 12 metres x 6 metres








3 Olea europea var. africana African Olive

Front of garage to No. 206B

Raise canopy to 4 metres over driveway. Prune to provide 2 metre building clearance.

4 Magnolia grandiflora - Magnolia

Western corner of No. 206B

Raise canopy to 4 metres over driveway

7 Ficus rubiginosa Port Jackson Fig

Front of No. 206B Raise canopy to 4 metres over driveway


19. No excavation within tree root zones

To allow for the preservation of a viable root zone, excavation work must not be undertaken within the specified radius of the trunks of the following trees. Beyond this radius, excavation is permissible only after root pruning by hand along the perimeter line of such works has been carried out.



2 Lophostemon confertus Brush Box Front of property 2.5 metres 1 Araucaria heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine Front of property 2.75 metres

20. Level changes in the vicinity of trees

No level changes are to occur within 2.5 metres from the trunk of the following tree in order to allow for the preservation of their root zones.



2 Lophostemon confertus Brush Box Front of property 16 metres x 5 metres 21. Protective fencing mulching and irrigation around trees

To limit the potential for damage to trees to be retained, the area beneath their canopies must be fenced. The fencing must encompass the maximum possible area covered by the dripline of the canopy to allow for development and remain in place until the completion of building works. The fencing should be a minimum of a 1.8 metres high chainlink or welded mesh fencing. The fencing is to be maintained for the duration of the building works.



To ensure adequate moisture levels for the growing medium, protected within the fenced areas, all areas within the perimeter of the safety fencing are to be covered with woodchip mulch to a depth of 100mm. All steep gradients unable to be effectively covered with mulch are to be protected with hessian cloth to be kept at a moisture level sufficient to ensure the preservation of tree root systems. To ensure the continued preservation of the aforementioned existing trees by providing adequate soil moisture, a irrigation program or temporary irrigation system is to be installed and an irrigation program maintained during the full course of construction works.


To ensure the preservation of retained trees, NO APPROVAL is granted for severing of significant tree roots. Footings for any structures constructed within the area, defined by the canopy driplines of the following trees, shall be constructed using an isolated pier and beam construction method, to bridge any existing roots exceeding 100mm, where excavation identifies roots exceeding this diameter. The piers shall be located such that no roots of a diameter greater than 100mm shall be severed.

Approval is granted for the root pruning of all roots of a diameter less than 100mm, subject to all pruning works being undertaken by an experienced Tree Surgeon-Arborist with a minimum qualification of a Certificate in Arboriculture or other equivalent qualification acceptable to Council.



1 Araucaria heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine Front of property 9 metres x 6 metres 2 Lophostemon confertus Brush Box Front of property 16 metres x 5

metres 23. Removal of noxious weeds

To prevent the spread of undesirable and invasive species and to ensure the preservation of urban bushland within the Municipality, all weeds identified within the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (Order No 7) and the following identified Woollahra Municipality bushland invasive plant species must be removed from the development site.

Botanical Name Common Name e. Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster i. Olea africana African Olive k. Coprosma Mirror Plant

24. Connection to existing drainage system

Stormwater run-off from the proposed roof additions and paved areas to drain to the existing stormwater drainage system.



The existing stormwater drainage pipes on the property must be checked and certified by a practising hydraulic engineer to ensure that all existing stormwater pipes are in good condition and are operating satisfactorily. Certification and a plan showing pipe locations and diameters must be submitted to Council or the accredited certifier prior to the final building inspection. Note: connection of stormwater run-off to the Sydney Water sewer system is not permitted. If the existing stormwater pipes are not in good condition and/or not operating satisfactorily, the existing drainage system must be upgraded. Certification and a plan showing pipe locations and diameters of the upgraded system must be submitted to Council or the accredited certifier prior to the final building inspection. Stormwater disposal is to comply with the requirements and conditions as set out in Council’s Draft Stormwater Development Control and Local Approvals Policy.

25. Section 94 contributions

Pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, a monetary contribution of – • $1,896 towards the provision of recreational facilities; and • $28 towards the costs for administration of Woollahra Section 94 Contributions Plan

2002; Total contribution = $1,924

must be paid to Council: (a) prior to the issue of a construction certificate, where a construction certificate is

required; or (b) prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate, where only a subdivision certificate is

required; or (c) prior to the issue of an occupation certificate in any other instance.

This condition is imposed under the Woollahra Section 94 Contributions Plan 2002.

Indexation of Section 94 contributions To ensure that the value of monetary contributions is not eroded over time by increases in costs, the contribution rates specified in the Plan will be increased annually on the anniversary of the commencement of the Plan based on the formula specified in Clause 3.13 of the Plan.

If the required contribution is not paid before the next anniversary of the commencement of the Plan following the date of this development consent, the payable contribution will be the increased amount calculated by Council in accordance with the indexation formula set out in clause 3.13 of the Plan. Deferred periodic payment of Section 94 contributions Any request for deferred or periodic payment of the Section 94 contribution required by this consent must be made in writing by the applicant and must set out the reasons for the request. Council will consider any such request on the basis of the criteria set out in clause 3.8 of the Plan.



Where Council accepts payment by way of instalments, each instalment will be paid before work commences on the corresponding stage of the development and the amount of each instalment will be calculated on a pro-rata basis in proportion to the cost of the development. Council may, as a condition of accepting deferred or periodic payment, require the applicant to provide a bank guarantee where:

(a) the guarantee is by an Australian bank for the amount of the total outstanding

contribution;

(b) the bank unconditionally agrees to pay the guaranteed sum to Counc il on written request by Council on completion of the development or no earlier than 12 months from the provision of the guarantee whichever occurs first;

(c) the bank agrees to pay the guaranteed sum without reference to the applicant or

landowner or other person who provided the guarantee and without regard to any dispute, controversy, issue or other matter relating to this development consent or the carrying out of the development in accordance with this development consent; and

(d) the obligations of the bank are discharged when payment to Council is made in

accordance with the guarantee or when Council notifies the bank in writing that the guarantee is no longer required.

Any deferred or outstanding component of the contribution will be indexed in accordance with clause 3.13 of the Plan. If a deferred or periodic payment is not made before the next anniversary of the Plan, the amount payable will be the increased amount calculated by Council in accordance with clause 3.13 of the Plan. The applicant will pay any charges associated with establishing or operating the bank guarantee. Council will not cancel the bank guarantee until the outstanding contribution as indexed and any accrued charges are paid.



27. Stockpiles









30. Disposal of site water during construction

The disposal of site water (includes groundwater, seepage, dewatering and stormwater trapped in excavations) must be in accordance with the requirements contained within Council’s “Stormwater Development Control Plan and Local Approvals Policy”. Disposal of site water to Council’s stormwater system is not permitted. The applicant is advised to liase with Sydney Water regarding a Trade Waste Agreement.










• all overflow and splash must be contained within the boundaries of the site, to ensure reasonable levels of amenity for neighbouring properties and the locality;

• warning notices must be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 Section 17 and Regulation 8, to ensure reasonable levels of safety.







a. describe the anticipated impact of the construction works on: • local traffic routes • pedestrian circulation adjacent to the building site • and on-street parking in the local area, and; b. describe the means proposed to: • manage construction works to minimise such impacts, • provide for the standing of vehicles during construction, • provide for the movement of trucks to and from the site, and deliveries to the site, and; c. show the location of: • any site sheds and any anticipated use of cranes and concrete pumps, • any areas of Council property on which it is proposed to install a Works Zone





35. Site fencing


36. Works Zone

A Work Zone (Construction Zone) is required for this development. Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate an application for the required Works Zone must be submitted to Woollahra Council, for consideration by the Woollahra Local Traffic Committee.



Prior to commencement of any demolition, land clearing, piling, piering, excavation, construction or like work or the issue of a Notice of Commencement of building works, any Works Zone approval by the Woollahra Local Traffic Committee shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the Committee’s terms and conditions. Note: • The Woollahra Local Traffic Committee meets monthly. • A minimum of eight weeks is required for assessment and determination of a Works

Zone application. • Failure to comply with this condition may result in fines and proceedings pursuant to

Part 6 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. 37. Damage security deposit


Estimated cost of work Deposit Works up to $50,000 $2,000 Works in excess of $50,000 & up to $100,000 $4,000 Works in excess of $100,000 $4,000+$200/$10,000 estimated cost>$100,000


38. Footpath levels



Prior to any excavation works, the location and depth of all services (telephone, cable TV, electricity, gas, water, sewer, drainage, etc.) must be ascertained. The developer must meet all costs of any adjustment, relocation or reinstatement of any services.








A safe pedestrian circulation route a minimum of 1.5m wide and with a pavement free of trip hazards must be maintained at all times on or adjacent to the public footpaths fronting the construction site. Where the footpath is damaged, repair works must be carried when directed by Council officers and in accordance with the relevant clauses of Council's document "Standard Specifications for Roadworks, Drainage and Miscellaneous Works dated Jan 2003. Where circulation is diverted on to the roadway clear directional signage and protective barricades must be installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS1742-3 2002 “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”. Should the applicant propose to direct pedestrians onto the road pavement of a State road then an application is to be made to the RTA for a Road Occupancy Licence. Licence approval is to be submitted to Council. If pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily maintained, and action is not taken promptly to rectify the defects, Council may carry out remedial works and deduct the cost from the Damage Security Deposit.

43. Completion of infrastructure work

All infrastructure works must be completed and be certified by the accredited certifier as meeting all Council requirements and as-built drawings are to be submitted to Council’s Development Engineer, prior to the release of the Infrastructure Works Bond. Works generally must be in accordance with the relevant clauses of the current edition of AUS-SPEC.

44. Facilities for waste storage and collection

Details of facilities for waste storage and collection must be submitted to the accredited certifier prior to issue of a Construc tion Certificate. Details must meet the following requirements.

a) Multiple occupancies:

For developments containing four dwellings or less a communal bin bay external to the building is permitted subject to it being located within the property boundary with minimal impact on adjoining properties. For developments containing more than four units a Waste Storage Room is required. The waste storage room/bin bay must be sufficiently sized so as to accommodate;



i) 100 litres of putrescible waste per residential dwelling stored in 240 and/or 120 litre mobile garbage bins. Developments containing more than 4 dwellings must not use more than one 120 litre mobile garbage bin.

ii) 50 litres of recyclables per residential dwelling stored in colour coded, shared use, mobile garbage bins and/or 50 litre crates

iii) One 240 litre mobile garbage bin for garden organics, per 500 square metres of landscaped area.

iv) For residential developments with four storeys and greater, a waste storage cupboard must be provided on each floor. In each cupboard, storage must be provided for putrescible waste in mobile garbage bins and recyclables in colour coded crates.

v) For residential developments with three storeys or less, residents may use the central waste storage area.

vi) Residents must not be required to wheel bins a distance greater than 75m from the waste storage area to the collection point (usually the kerb) for collection. For development applications assessed using SEPP 5 (State Environmental Planning Policy 5: Housing for Older People or People with a Disability) the maximum distance is 50m.

b) Inside the Waste Storage Area

The interior of the Waste Storage Area must meet the following requirements i) Bins to be stored with lids down to prevent vermin from entering the waste

containers. ii) The area must be constructed with a smooth impervious floor graded to a floor

waste and provided with a tap and hose to facilitate regular cleaning of the bins. A waste storage area that is located internal to the building must be fitted with both a hot and cold water supply and hose cocks. Waste water must be discharged to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water.

iii) Walls and ceilings of the waste storage area must be constructed of an impervious material with a smooth finish. The junction between the walls and the floor must be coved with a minimum radius of 25mm to prevent the accumulation of waste matter.

iv) The garbage storage area must be well lit to enable use at night. A timer switch must be fitted to the light fitting to ensure the light is turned off after use.

v) Odour problems to be minimised by good ventilation. The air flow must not be close to units.

vi) Air-conditioned waste storage areas to be provided with a separate air-conditioning system to units.

vii) For developments of four storeys and above, waste storage areas, garbage and recycling rooms must be fitted with fire sprinklers and be rated to fire safety standards in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

viii) Both putrescible and recycling bins/crates must be stored together. Recycling bins must never stand alone. They must always be located beside putrescible waste bins. Putrescible bins must be located closest to the entrance to the waste storage room.

ix) Signage on the correct use of the waste management system and what materials may be recycled must be posted in the communal waste storage cupboard/ room or bin bay.



45. Car parking

Car parking bays numbered 15 and 16 are to be allocated to Unit A and Unit B.


Driveways and access ramps must be designed not to scrape the underside of cars. In all other respects, proposed garage/car park/basement car park, driveways and access ramps must be designed to comply with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 – “Off-Street car parking.”



(b) This condition does not apply to the extent to which an exemption is in force under


48. Change of building use

(a) A building in respect of which there is a change of building use must comply with the Category 1 fire safety provisions applicable to the proposed new use.

Note. The obligation under this condition to comply with the Category 1 fire safety provisions may require building work to be carried out even though none is proposed or required in the relevant development consent.


Clause 187 or 188 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in Clause 187 (6) or 188 (4).












Note: The amount referred to in paragraph (a) (iv) above is prescribed by regulations under the Home Building Act 1989. As at the date on which this Regulation was Gazetted, that amount was $5,000. As those regulations are amended from time to time, so that amount may vary.























(c) The provision of toilet facilities in accordance with this clause must be comple ted









Building Act 1989. Annexure: Development Assessment Report submitted to the Development Control

Committee at its meeting on Monday 26 September 2005.



DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE Meeting held on 17 October 2005

Item No. D4 MEMO TO ALL COUNCILLORS

File No. DA 286/2005/1

Address 2C Tarrant Avenue BELLEVUE HILL 2023

Proposal Alterations & additions to residence.

Date lodged 18/05/2005

Author MR T WONG – ASSESSMENT OFFICER

Please note that Item D3 was called at the Application Assessment Panel meeting held on 4 October 2005 by Councillors Comino & Boskovitz. Reason for calling item: - Setbacks - Amenity issues - Objectors concerns Referred to you for action. Les Windle Manager - Governance



DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSESSMENT REPORT ITEM No. D4

FILE No. DA 286/2005/1

ADDRESS:

2C Tarrant Avenue BELLEVUE HILL 2023

PROPOSAL:

Alterations & additions to residence.

ZONING:

Residential 2(a)

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Local

APPLICANT:

Mrs A Tome

OWNER:

Mr A V & Mrs R T Tome

DATE LODGED:

18/05/2005

AUTHOR:

Mr T Wong

LOCALITY PLAN

Subject Site Objectors

North

Locality Plan



1. SUMMARY Reason for report The concerns raised by the objectors to the application cannot be comprehensively satisfied via conditions of consent. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Application Assessment Panel for determination. Issues - Loss of privacy - Loss of view - Side setback to the ground floor - Overshadowing - Existing tree Objections Two (2) objections have been received. Cost of works The stated cost of the proposed work of $500,000 has been checked using the standard criteria specified in the Cordell Building Guide and is considered to be accurate. Recommendation Approval 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal includes the following works:- - first floor addition to the existing single storey dwelling - minor alterations to the existing ground floor to also include a single garage - extension of existing garage which is separated from the dwelling house - new garage attached to the dwelling house - addition of a loft studio above the existing garage - extension to the lower ground floor - new brick fence to replace existing timber fence alongside the right-of-way - new steel picket fence along the Tarrant Avenue frontage 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is located at the intersection of Tarrant Avenue and Kulgoa Lane. The site is generally rectangular in shape with a site area of 1,066m². The site also has a frontage (approx. 18m in width) to Bellevue Road at a lower level. Existing on the site is a single storey dwelling house with a single garage accessible from Tarrant Avenue. There is also a right-of-way in a form of a concrete driveway separating the garage from the dwelling and providing vehicular and pedestrian access to No. 2B Tarrant Avenue.



The site, which is currently densely vegetated with mature trees and shrubs, slopes steeply from Bellevue Road up to the northeast. A public walkway with steps is located to the southeast of the site providing pedestrian access from Bellevue Road up to Kulgoa Lane. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY A Development Application DA1091/2003 for alterations and additions to dwelling, new swimming pool and fencing was refused by Council Development Control Committee on 15 November 2004. 5. REFERRALS 5.1 Comments from external approval bodies Not applicable. 5.2 Building No objection subject to standard conditions. 5.3 Health Not applicable. 5.4 Heritage Not applicable. 5.5 Urban Design Not applicable. 5.6 Technical Services Council’s Development Engineer, Daniel Pearse, provided the following comments:-

Site Drainage comments The conceptual drainage plan allows for all proposed works to drain to Councils drainage infrastructure under gravity feed. The plan is generally acceptable accept with respect to the point of connection to Councils pipe located midway down the lower part of the site. In accordance with Councils requirements, the connection will require the construction of a new junction pit at this location. Technical Services notes that there is an existing kerb inlet pit located in Bellevue Road at the base of the site. A connection to this pit will permit the entire site to drain directly to Councils in ground infrastructure and will require minimal alteration of Councils infrastructure to provide. This requirement is conditioned.



Flooding & Overland Flow comments No changes are proposed that will reduce the existing degree of flood protection to the dwelling. No further comments are required. Impacts on Council Infrastructure comments The driveway crossing servicing the site is in a dilapidated state with cracking over its surface and not constructed in accordance with Councils standard specifications. It was also noted the crossing does not have a formed gutter to convey stormwater runoff efficiently to the existing kerb inlet pit located adjacent the crossing. To maintain serviceability of the garage consistent with that of the development it is conditioned that the driveway crossing must be reconstructed. These works have been specified. Vehicle Access & Accommodation comments Alterations to both garages maintain compliance with Australian Standard 2890.1 – “Off-Street car parking”. A condition assuring this and requirements concerning alteration to driveway ramps is conditioned. RECOMMENDATION Council’s Development Engineer has determined that the proposal satisfies Technical Services concerns, subject to the following conditions.

Accordingly, Condition Nos. 27 to 42 are recommended. 5.7 Landscaping/Trees Management Council’s Tree Officer, Louise Bennett, provided the following comments:-

Concern is raised that some trees, subject to the Woollahra Tree Preservation Order, located on this site were not represented on the supplied plans. The Council marked site plan has been amended to include these trees. The impacts of the proposed works on Tree 2 Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) are significant. They range from the point of demolition, construction methods and eventual building bulk and scale. Conditions have been included to address these issues. This tree is highly significant to the local environment and street scape and its preservation is of paramount importance. Removal of Tree 1 Willow Myrtle (Agonis flexuosa) is required given the location of the proposed building. Tree 2 is the larger of these two trees and therefore more contributory to the environment. Whilst it would be possible to retain this tree and Tree 2, it would place extremely stringent constraints on the use of the site. This is considered unreasonable provided that a compensatory planting is installed at the completion of the works. The supplied plans indicate the intention to plant a golden Robinia (Robinia pseudoacacia ‘Freesia’). This species of tree is not considered appropriate for a number of reasons and should be reconsidered. To adequately compensate for the loss of canopy to the area 2 replacement plantings have been required as part of the conditions.



To prevent damage to the roots of the trees located along the south-eastern boundary of the property (adjoining Tarrant Avenue), all post holes will be required to be hand dug. Positioning of the posts and associated holes will need to take into account the location of major structural roots (ie. those roots with a diameter equal to or in excess of 50mm) and be located such that no root severance is required. The proposed balcony to the west of the dwelling, will impact upon Tree 15 Sugarberry located adjacent to the western corner of the existing dwelling. The proposed additions would required excavation within 4 meters of this tree. Calculations for the minimum distance for excavation (Matheny & Clarke) indicate that there should be no excavation within 4.5 meters of this tree. This species is however relatively robust and could withstand disturbance closer provided that no major structural roots are cut or damaged. Conditions have been imposed to specify this. The proposed first floor addition to the dwelling should have no impact upon the canopies of any trees listed for retention therefore this aspect of the proposal has not been addressed in these conditions. The tree bonds for those trees located on Council land have been set at the valuation of the tree using the Thyer Tree Valuation Method (2000) rounded up to the nearest 100.

Accordingly, Condition Nos. 10 to 18 are recommended. 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: 6. RELEVANT STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION 6.1 SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 Under clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. An assessment of the Initial site evaluation provided by the applicant indicates the land does not require further consideration under clause 7 (1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 6.2 REPs SREP No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours The provision of Clause 18 and the objectives under Clause 2 of this instrument require Council to take into consideration the visual impact that the proposal will have upon Sydney Harbour. The proposed work will not be visible from any harbour perspective. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant matters for consideration listed under Clause 18 and the objectives under Clause 2 of this instrument.



6.3 Section 94 contribution Not applicable. 6.4 Other relevant legislation None relevant. 7. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995 7.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone (Clause 8(5)) The proposal is permissible and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the relevant objectives of the Residential 2(a) zone 7.2 Statutory compliance table

Site Area (1,066m²) Existing Proposed Control Complies

Overall Height (metres) 7.3 9.0 9.5 YES

7.4 Site area requirements Not applicable. 7.5 Height The proposed height does not exceed the statutory height control and would comply with the objectives of the control. 7.6 Floor space ratio Not applicable. 7.7 FSBL Not applicable. 7.8 Other special clauses/development standards Clause 24 Land adjoining public open space: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 24(2). Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils: The proposed works do not require the need for an assessment of acid sulfate soils under clause 25D of Woollahra LEP 1995. 8. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS Not applicable.



9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 9.1 Numeric Compliance table - Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003


Building Boundary Setbacks (metres): Front (SW) Rear (NE) Building Side (NW) G/F 1/F Side (SE) G/F 1/F

22.6

19.5

0.9

N/A

3.4 N/A

22.2

19.5

0.9

3.3 – 4

3.4 3.4

20

25% site length

2.5 2.75 – 3.6 (NE to SW)

2.5

2.75 – 3.6 (NE to SW)

YES

YES

NO a YES

YES YES

Ancillary Development (garage) Maximum Height Rear Setback (NE) Side Setback (NW) Side Setback (SE)

3.6m 0.9m 1m

10.8m

5.5m 0.9m 1.7m

10.1m

3.6m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m

NO

NO a YES YES

Setback from Significant Mature Trees 0.2m 1m 3.0m NO a

Building Footprint 21%

(224m2 ) 24.6%

(262m2 ) 30%

(319.8m2 ) YES

Floor Space Ratio 0.20:1

(211.6m2 ) 0.35:1

(373.2m2 ) 0.55:1

(586.3m2 ) YES

Floor to Ceiling Height – Habitable Rooms 2.7m 2.7m 2.7m YES

Solar Access to Open Space of Adjacent Properties (Hrs on 21 June)

> 50% > 2 hours

> 50% > 2 hours

50% (or 35m2) for 2 hours YES

Deep Soil Landscaping – Dwelling

> 50% of un-built upon area

> 50% of un-built upon area

50% of un-built upon area (373.1m2) YES

Deep Soil Landscaping – Front Setback >40% >40% 40% YES

Private Open Space at Ground Level – Total

> 35m² > 3m

> 35m² > 3m

35m² Min dimension 3m YES

Private Open Space at Ground Level – Principal Area

> 16m² > 4m

> 16m² > 4m


Side and Rear Fence Height 1.8m 1.8m 1.8m YES

Location of Garages and Car Parking Structures Rear of the site

Rear of the site Behind Front Setback YES

Car Parking Spaces – Dwellings 1 3 2 YES

a – Existing non-compliance Site analysis performance criteria (Part 3) The site analysis plan submitted by the applicant is considered satisfactory. Desired future precinct character objectives and performance criteria (Part 4) The proposal complies with the objectives and controls prescribed in Part 4.7 of the RDC 2003 and is considered satisfactory in this regard.



Streetscape performance criteria (Section 5.1) The subject site is located at the bend where Tarrant Avenue meets Kulgoa Lane adjacent to a public footpath and steps alongside a strip of landscaped land. The frontage upon Tarrant Avenue/Kulgoa Lane is limited to approximately 7m. A large portion of this frontage is occupied by a vehicular driveway to the existing garage alongside with two other driveways on both sides providing vehicular access to Nos. 2A and 2B Tarrant Avenue respectively. This vehicular access arrangement would not be altered as a result of the proposal. A new studio loft is proposed above the garage. The overall bulk of the garage is not considered excessive with the backdrop of the existing Camphor Laurel tree to the northwest of the garage. Given that the garage is setback considerably by 7m from Tarrant Avenue, and that Kulgoa Lane is currently dominated by garage structures, the proposed double garage with studio loft would have minimal and negligible impact upon the streetscape on both streets. With regard to the dwelling house itself, which is set back sufficiently from the Tarrant Avenue boundary, the apparent bulk of the proposed two storey structure is not considered excessive in the context of the area being dominated by two storey dwelling houses. Since the site is set back in a considerable distance from the Bellevue Road boundary by 22.6m, together with the existing mature vegetation as natural screening in the front setback, the visual bulk of the building when viewed from Bellevue Road would not be significant and would have minimal impact upon the existing streetscape. The proposal is therefore considered compatible with the existing dwelling on site as well as other adjoining buildings in terms of building bulk, scale, roof form etc. In view of the above, the proposal is considered acceptable in this regard. Building size and location performance criteria (Section 5.2) Floor space ratio The proposed floor space does not exceed the RDCP’s control. Setback The proposal would largely comply with the setback controls prescribed in Control C 4.7.4 of the RDCP 2003 except the north-western side setback on the ground floor of the dwelling house and the north-eastern (rear) setback of the ancillary garage. Council’s procedure when assessing non-compliance requires the following steps. Step 1 – Identify the applicable development controls

The setback requirements prescribed in the RDCP 2003 are set out below:- - Side setback: 2.5m

Step 2 – Determine compliance

The proposed north-western side setback does not comply with the RDCP’s requirements.



Step 3 – Determine the impact of non-compliance

The proposed alterations to the dwelling house would not alter the existing north-western side setback on the ground floor. The new windows to the garage would not have an impact to the adjoining property as it is not a habitable area. However, the new northwest- facing window to the meals area may result in direct overlooking impact to the adjoining property (i.e. No. 2B Tarrant Avenue). Condition No. 2 is therefore recommended to requiring this to be fixed and fitted with translucent glass to protect the privacy of the adjoining property. With respect to the rear setback to the garage (0.9m), though it does not comply with the RDCP’s control (1.5m), it is an existing non-compliance and the proposal would retain this non-compliance to its current extent. Given that the rear (northeast) boundary only abuts the driveway of the adjoining property (2B Tarrant Avenue), there would be no adverse environmental impacts as a result of the existing non-compliance. On this basis, with the imposition of Condition No. 2, the non-compliance with the RDCP’s requirements is considered minor and acceptable.

Step 4 – Identify applicable objectives

Relevant applicable objectives are:-

- Protect the visual and aural privacy of residents in adjoining buildings. - Avoid building or parts of buildings encroaching on adjoining properties. - Avoid unreasonable sense of enclosure. - Safeguard privacy and minimize noise impacts for dwellings.

Step 5 – Determine compliance with the applicable objectives

- With the imposition of Condition No. 2, privacy of adjoining property would be maintained.

- The building will not encroach on adjoining properties. - The proposal will not result in unreasonable sense of enclosure

The non-compliance with the side and rear setback controls would still meet the applicable objectives of the controls.

Step 6 – Determine if the non-compliance is acceptable.

In view of the above, with the imposition of Condition No. 2, the non-compliances are minor and the proposal would comply with the applicable objectives of the controls. The non-compliances are therefore considered acceptable.

Building footprint The proposed building footprint complies with the RDCP’s control. In view of the above, the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to the objectives stipulated under Section 5.2 of RDCP 2003.



Open space and landscaping performance criteria (Section 5.3) The proposal would provide sufficient private open space and deep soil landscape area as required by the RDCP 2003. Although the proposed garage would not set back 3m from the adjacent Camphor Laurel tree, the setback from this tree would be increased from 0.2m to 1m as compared with the existing garage on site. In addition, Council’s Tree Officer has recommended special conditions to preserve and protect this tree (See Condition Nos. 10, 11, 15 and 16). As such, the non-compliance with the setback from significant mature tree is considered acceptable and the tree would be preserved and protected by Condition Nos. 10, 11, 15 and 16. In view of the above, the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to the objectives prescribed in Section 5.3 of the RDCP 2003. Fences and walls performance criteria (Section 5.4) The proposed fences comply with the objectives and criteria prescribed in Section 5.4 of the RDCP 2003. Views performance criteria (Section 5.5) C5.5.6 of Council’s RDCP 2003 in relation to private views, requires building forms to enable a sharing of views with surrounding residences and to ensure that development does not fully obstruct existing views from the habitable rooms of neighbouring residences. The Land & Environment Court, in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd V Warringah Council (2004), adopted a four-step assessment of view sharing. These steps are as follows: 1. What is the value of the view? The Court said: "The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured." Council’s procedure for the assessment of view lost states: In addition to this principle established by the court greater weight should be given to public views and vistas compared to private views. This is because in planning terms the public interest should generally prevail over the private interest, because public views to the harbour and city are key elements of Woollahra's character and because many more citizens enjoy the benefits of public views. Therefore, greater weight should be given to maintaining public views from streets and open spaces so that vistas along streets and from public viewing areas are maintained to the fullest possible extent.

It is noted that there is a northwest- facing roof terrace located on the top floor of No. 2D Tarrant Avenue. Due to the existing dense vegetation and mature trees on the site which obscure the view towards the northeast, only partial view to the city skyline can be obtained from this roof terrace. There would be no view loss from the public domain.



2. From what part of the property the views are obtained? The Court said: "The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example, the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic." Council’s procedures states: This principle is consistent with the provisions of C5.5.6 of RDCP 2003. This control places greater weight on views enjoyed from the main habitable rooms of surrounding residences.

Views are obtained from the northwest- facing roof terrace located on the top floor of No. 2D Tarrant Avenue. The view from this roof terrace is across side boundaries and can be considered to be a “sitting view”. 3. What is the extent of the impact? The Court said: "The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating." As a result of the proposal, portion of the currently obscure view from the northwest- facing roof terrace to the city skyline would be lost. Notwithstanding that, assessment on the view impact to the neighbouring property (i.e. 2D Tarrant Avenue) as a whole is carried as prescribed in the Court’s principle. It is noted that there is another roof terrace on the same upper floor level facing the southwest. It has an open view from the south spread through to the northwest enjoying views towards Bondi Junction to the south and to the city skyline to the northwest (obscured by existing vegetation). The proposal would have negligible impacts upon the views from this southwest-facing roof terrace. 4. What is the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact? The Court said: "The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable. The following points are made: l The loss of view from the neighbouring property (i.e. 2D Tarrant Avenue) as a result of the

proposal is negligible. l The outlook to the city skyline from the northwest-facing roof terrace is rather obscure by the

existing dense vegetation, the impact upon this outlook is considered comparatively negligible.



l The development complies with the maximum height control under the Woollahra LEP and the FSR and southeastern side setback controls under the RDCP 2003.

l The proposal would not obstruct views from other private properties. On this basis, the proposal would satisfy the criteria set out by the Court and would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP 2003. Stormwater management performance criteria (Section 5.7) Council’s Engineer considered the proposal satisfactory subject to Condition No. 27. Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria (Section 5.8) In order to minimize direct overlooking to the adjoining property to the northwest (i.e. 2B Tarrant Avenue), Condition Nos. 3 to 8 are recommended to • delete the balcony of Bedroom 4 on the first floor; • fit fixed and translucent glass to the northwest- facing window of Bedroom 1, the bathroom and

en-suite on the first floor; • replace the window to study on the first floor with a highlight window of minimum sill height of

1.6m measured from the finished floor level; and • reduce the size of the balcony off Bedroom 1 on the first floor. With respect to the property to the southeast, as the proposal is set back adequate in accordance with the RDCP’s controls, together with the width of the existing walkway providing sufficient physical separation between properties, it is considered that the current level of privacy of the adjoining property to the southeast would be maintained. In order to minimize overlooking from the studio loft above the proposed garage to the adjoining property, Condition No. 9 is recommended to fit the northwest- facing dormer window with fixed and translucent glass. With the imposition of Condition Nos. 3 to 9, the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to the objectives prescribed in Section 5.8 of the RDCP 2003. Car parking and driveways performance criteria (Section 5.9) Performance criteria P4 under Section 5.9.5 of the RDCP requires two on-site parking spaces for dwelling houses on separate lots. The proposal will provide three on-site parking spaces which comply with the RDCP’s requirements. 9.2 DCP for off-street car parking provision and servicing facilities The proposal will provide three on-site parking spaces which comply with the DCP’s requirements. 9.3 Woollahra Access This proposal is for a class 1 building. The Access DCP encourages, rather than requires, visitor access for older people or people with a disability for class 1 buildings. Access has not been provided to the proposed upper floor, however due to the nature of the proposed works being limited to alterations and additions to the existing building constraining such provision, this is considered acceptable under the provisions of the DCP.



9.4 Other DCPs, codes and policies Not applicable. 10. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Not applicable. 11. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL All likely impacts of the proposal have been assessed elsewhere in this report. 12. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE The site is suitable for the proposed development. 13. SUBMISSIONS The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notifications DCP. Two submissions were received from: - James and Helen Stevens of 2A Tarrant Avenue - Tony and Anne Surtees of 2B Tarrant Avenue The objectors raised the following issues: Privacy to the property at 2B Tarrant Avenue This is acknowledged and has been discussed in Section 9.1 under Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria. Condition Nos. 3 to 9 are recommended to safeguard the privacy of the objectors’ property. Possible impact to the existing driveway leading to 2B Tarrant Avenue due to the proposed garage attached to the dwelling The owner of 2B Tarrant Avenue object to the proposed garage attached to the dwelling house. Since this garage would be located adjacent to the garage of their property, the objectors are in an opinion that there is insufficient space to manoeuvre a vehicle in and out of the garage. Council’s Development Engineer has examined the dimensions of the garage as well as the site context and considered that the arrangement is satisfactory with regard to AS 2890.1. Bulk and scale of the enlarged garage This issue has been discussed in Section 9.1 above under Streetscape performance criteria. The bulk and scale of the proposed garage is not considered excessive and the impact upon the existing streetscape is considered acceptable. The objector is opposed to the gable being turned at right angle from its existing position which will create a very tunnel like entry to his property (No. 2A Tarrant Avenue). It is noted that the proposed (and existing) garage abuts the driveway and the garage of No. 2 A Tarrant Avenue to its northeastern and northwestern sides. The bulk of the proposed garage would have no environmental impacts to the objectors’ property.



The studio loft above the proposed garage The owner of No. 2A Tarrant Avenue is opposed to the addition of a studio loft (as a habitable area) above the proposed garage. The RDCP has no specific control on the use of the loft area above a garage. Notwithstanding that, as discussed in the previous paragraph, the proposed garage is located away from the habitable areas of adjoining properties. It is only set adjacent to the garage and between two driveways. The studio loft only has two dormer windows which would not have any overlooking impact to adjoining properties. As such, the proposed studio loft above the garage is not considered unacceptable which warrant a refusal to the proposal. 14. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal is acceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C and would be in the public interest. 15. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT the Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development Application No. 286/2005 for alterations and additions to residence on land at 2C Tarrant Avenue, Bellevue Hill, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved Plans

This consent relates to the work, shown in colour, on plans numbered DA01 to DA10 (inclusive), dated 22/4/2005, drawn by BDT Design, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved DA Plans” and the signature of a Council officer, except where amended by the following conditions.

2. Northwest-facing Window to the Meals Area on the Ground Floor

In order to avoid overlooking to the adjoining property, the northwest- facing window to the meals area on the ground floor shall be fitted with fixed and translucent glass. Details are to be provided with the application for Construction Certificate.

3. Deletion of Balcony of Bedroom 4

In order to avoid overlooking to the adjoining property, the northwest-facing balcony of Bedroom 4 shall be deleted. Details are to be provided with the application for Construction Certificate.

4. Northwest-facing Window to Bedroom 1 on the First Floor

In order to avoid overlooking to the adjoining property, the northwest-facing window to Bedroom 1 on the first floor shall be fitted with fixed and translucent glass. Details are to be provided with the application for Construction Certificate.

5. Northwest-facing Window to the Bathroom on the First Floor

In order to avoid overlooking to the adjoining property, the northwest- facing window to the bathroom on the first floor shall be fitted with fixed and translucent glass. Details are to be provided with the application for Construction Certificate.



6. Northwest-facing Window to the En-suite on the First Floor

In order to avoid overlooking to the adjoining property, the northwest- facing window to the en-suite on the first floor shall be fitted with fixed and translucent glass. Details are to be provided with the application for Construction Certificate.

7. Northwest-facing Window to the Study on the First Floor

In order to avoid overlooking to the adjoining property, the northwest- facing window to the study on the first floor shall be replaced with a highlight window with a minimum sill height of 1.6m measured from the finished floor level. Details are to be provided with the application for Construction Certificate.

8. Balcony of Bedroom 1 on the First Floor

In order to reduce overlooking to the adjoining property, the curved edge of the balcony of Bedroom 1 on the first floor shall be set back 900mm inward to reduce the size of this balcony. Details are to be provided with the application for Construction Certificate.

9. Dormer window to the studio loft above garage

In order to minimize overlooking to the adjoining property, the northwest- facing dormer window to the studio loft above the garage shall be fitted with fixed and translucent glass. Details are to be provided with the application for Construction Certificate.

10. Relocation of Dormer Window to Garage

The dorm window, located within the north-western elevation of the garage, is to be relocated, along the same façade, in a north-easterly direction by 1.2m to prevent any conflict between the maximum ridge height of the structure and any lateral branches of Tree 2 Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora). Details are to be provided with the application for Construction Certificate.


Approval is NOT granted for the removal of the following trees, which Council has determined to be significant landscape elements. Where indicated a Tree Preservation Bond is required to be lodged with Council. The Bond has been applied in accordance with Council’s policy regarding the bonding of trees on or adjacent development sites, where an assessment has determined that the proposed development may impact on the preservation of the following trees.



Trees on Council Land



Tree Preservation Bond required

A Eucalyptus spp. Within Tarrant Avenue unmade road reserve, adjacent to eastern boundary of subject site.

8m $2 700.00

B Sugarberry (Celtis occidentalis)

Within Tarrant Avenue unmade road reserve, adjacent to eastern boundary of subject site.

10m $1 900.00

C Macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia)

Within Tarrant Avenue unmade road reserve, adjacent to southern corner of subject site.

10m $3 300.00

Total $7 900.00

Trees on Private Property



2 Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora)

Adjacent to southern corner of existing garage.

14m

3 Camellia (Camellia japonica)

Adjacent to eastern wall of existing dwelling.

7m

4 Cypress Pine (Cupressus spp.)

Adjacent to eastern wall of existing dwelling.

12m

5 Illawarra Flame (Brachychiton acerfolium)

Adjacent to eastern boundary of site. 12m

6 Sugarberry (Celtis occidentalis)


6A Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia)


7 Lilly Pilly (Syzygium australe)


8 Avocado (Persea americana)


9 Magnolia (Magnolia x soulangiana)

7m

10 Kentia Palm (Howea foresteriana)

Adjacent to southern boundary of site. 7m

11 Crepe Myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica)

Adjacent to western boundary of site. 6m








Adjacent to western corner of existing dwelling.

14m

16 Thuja spp. Adjacent to western boundary of site. 8m




A bond is placed on individual trees when considered appropriate by Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer. The value of the bond may represent the full value of the tree or the Officer’s Assessment of potential damage to the tree or a group of trees during development. The bond may be in the form of a bank guarantee and must be lodged prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The bond will not be released until Council has inspected and is satisfied with the condition of the trees. Council may use part or the entire bond to carry out works to trees or replace them, if they are not in a satisfactory condition.

Where trees have not been preserved and retained in accordance with the approval the developer may forfeit the total bond amount.



Species/Type Planting Location Container

Size or Size of Tree

Minimum Dimensions at Maturity

2 x Suitable Species Northern area of allotment to north of Right of Carriageway.

200 litre Height 8 x Spread 4m





1 Willow Myrtle (Agonis flexuosa) Adjacent to southern corner of existing garage.

H9 x W8








• Pruning of 2nd order lateral to the east back to branch junction only.

• Prune deadwood, to a minimum diameter of 30mm.




15. Hand excavation within tree root zones

To prevent compaction within the root zone, excavation undertaken within the specified radius of the trunks of the following trees must be hand dug. Any root pruning must be undertaken by hand along the perimeter line of such works by an experienced Tree Surgeon-Arborist with a minimum qualification of a Certificate in Arboriculture or other equivalent qualification acceptable to Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer.

Beyond this radius, mechanical excavation is permitted, when root pruning by hand along the perimeter line of such works is completed.


Species Location Radius from Trunk (Metres)



8m

5 Illawarra Flame (Brachychiton acerfolium)




6A Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia)


7 Lilly Pilly (Syzygium australe)



Adjacent to eastern boundary of site. 3.5m



4.5m

16 Thuja spp. Adjacent to western boundary of site. 4m A Eucalyptus spp. Within Tarrant Avenue unmade road

reserve, adjacent to eastern boundary of subject site.

4m

B Sugarberry (Celtis occidentalis)

Within Tarrant Avenue unmade road reserve, adjacent to eastern boundary of subject site.

3m

C Macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia)

Within Tarrant Avenue unmade road reserve, adjacent to southern corner of subject site.

3m

16. Establishme nt of Tree Protection

To limit the potential for damage to trees to be retained, Tree Protection Zones are to be established around the following trees to be retained on site. The Tree Protection Zones are to comply with the following requirements;

• The following trees are to have Tree Protection Zone established around them;







2m

16 Thuja spp. Adjacent to western boundary of site. 2.5m • Tree Protection Zones are to be fenced with a 1.8 meter high chainmesh or weldmesh

fence to minimise disturbance to existing ground conditions. The area within the fence must be mulched, to a depth of 75mm, irrigated and maintained for the duration of the construction works.

• The following trees are to have trunk protection installed;





H14 x W14m

• The following trees are to have impact protection installed on the branches specified;





H14 x W14m

• Branches, extending over the construction zone and to a height of 7 meters, are to be

wrapt with a padding material eg. hessian or similar, as far along their extension as practicable. This material is to be made thick enough to prevent any impact damage to the branches.

• To protect the trunk of the tree from impact damage the following trunk protection is to be installed to the maximum height permitted by the first branches;

A padding material eg. hessian or similar, is to be wrapt around the trunk and overlayed by hardwood planks, a minimum of 50 x 100mm, spaced at 150 mm and secured by 8 gauge wire at 300mm spacing.

• A sign must be erected on each side of the fence indicating the existence of a Tree Protection Zone and providing the contact details of the site Arborist.

• Existing soil levels must be maintained within Tree Protection Zones. Where excavation is undertaken adjacent such an area, the edge of the excavation must be stabilised, until such time as permanent measures are installed (eg. retaining wall etc) to prevent erosion within the Tree Protection Zone.

• Sediment control measures are to be installed around all Tree Protection Zones to protect the existing soil levels.

• The storage of materials, stockpiling, siting of works sheds, preparation of mixes, cleaning of tools or equipment is not permitted within Tree Protection Zones.

• Site personnel must be made aware of all Tree Protection requirements, measures and any actions that constitute a breach of the Conditions of Development Consent with regard to tree protection on site during their site induction.



17. Maintenance of Tree Protection Requirements

Compliance with the Conditions of Consent relating to trees to be retained and protected on the site must be certified by an Arborist (minimum qualification of Australian Qualification Framework Level 3 or equivalent) and copies of the certification supplied to the Principal Certifying Authority. Inspections are to be scheduled in accordance with the following stages of works;

(a) prior to the commencement of any works, including demolition work on the site (installation of Tree Protection measures),

(b) during excavation for and prior to the placement of, any footings,

(c) prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element,

(c) after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building.


No tree roots, with a diameter equal to or in excess of 50mm are to be cut. Footings for any structures constructed within the area defined by conditions above are to be constructed using the isolated pier and beam construction method, to bridge any roots equalling or exceeding 50mm in diameter. Where excavation identifies roots of this size, the piers must be located such that the roots are not damaged and sufficient room is permitted for future growth. Roots with a diameter less than 50mm may be cut following inspection and certification by a qualified Arborist (minimum qualification Australian Qualification Framework Level 4 or recognised equivalent). Certification is to take into account the long term viability, both health and structural, of the tree given the proposed action. All root pruning is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard 4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees, 1996 and current arboricultural practice.




Certificate by:



















25. Levels

For the purpose of indicating relative levels in terms of Australian Height Datum and boundary clearances, and to ensure that building construction complies with the development consent, survey certificates must be provided to the PCA in respect of the building/s layout and ground floor level/s prior to pouring of concrete or laying of timber floor boards.





27. Stormwater Management Plan

A Stormwater Management Plan for the site must be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate. This Condition is imposed to ensure site stormwater is disposed in a controlled and sustainable manner. The Stormwater Management Plan must be in accordance with Council’s Draft Stormwater Drainage Management Development Control Plan and generally in accordance with the drainage plans and documentation prepared by BDT Design (Refer to Dwg No. 11 dated 22nd April 2004) and as modified by the following requirements; • The main dwelling and drainage services must discharge directly to the existing kerb

inlet pit fronting the site within Bellevue Road. • The proposed line discharging to the kerb inlet pit in Tarrant Avenue must be fitted with

a non-return valve which must be located within the site. New drainage systems must be designed having regard to the need to prevent stormwater from entering buildings in accordance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). A detailed Stormwater Management Plan must be produced by a suitably qualified civil or hydraulic engineer. The plan must be at a scale of 1:100 and based on drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institute of Engineers Australia publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition or most current version thereof. It must include (as appropriate for the site and determined by the Hydraulic Consultant):

• All pipe layouts, dimensions, grades, lengths and material specifications • All invert levels reduced to Australian Height Datum (AHD) • Location and dimensions and of all drainage pits • Point of connection to Councils drainage infrastructure



• Overland flow paths over impervious areas. • Copies of certificates of title, showing the creation or existence of private easements to

drain water by gravity, if required. • Subsoil drainage details (layout, grades, material), clean out points and discharge point.

28. Connection to Council’s drainage system

The developer must meet all costs of relocation or reconstruction of any part of Council’s drainage system required to permit the site to connect to Councils drainage infrastructure. All works must be carried out to Council’s specifications. Council’s Works Engineer must inspect the forming of connection points to Councils drainage infrastructure prior to permanent fixing and backfilling. A minimum of one (1) working days notice must be given to Councils Works Engineer to obtain an inspection. Work must not proceed until the works or activity covered by the inspection is approved.


Erosion and sediment controls, designed in accordance with the SSROC Soil, Water Management Brochures titled “Do it Right on Site” and the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” (The Blue Book), must be implemented during demolition, excavation and construction of the development. All controls must be maintained at all times.

30. Stockpiles








The following works must be undertaken at the applicant’s expense prior to the final building inspection and the issue of the Occupation Certificate.



• Full reconstruction of the existing driveway crossing fronting the proposed garage. The

driveway is to be constructed generally in accordance with Council’s Standard Drawing RF2. A gutter must be formed from the existing crossing to the north and continued to the existing kerb inlet pit. The new gutter levels must vary linearly and be consistent and flush with adjoining surfaces. Liaison with Councils Works Engineer is required prior to commencing works.

• Reinstatement of road shoulder adjacent to the new driveway crossing as required.

An “Application to carry out works in a public road” must be completed and submitted to Council’s Customer Service Centre and approved by Council prior to commencement of construction of a new driveway. For any technical enquiries regarding alteration to existing footpath levels, alignments or inspections, please contact Council’s Works Supervisor on 9391 7982.

34. Driveways and associated works - Infrastructure works Bond

To ensure that works on Council property are carried out to Council’s requirements, the developer must lodge a bond to the value of $3,200 (Three thousand, two hundred Dollars). The Bond may be in the form of a bank guarantee and must be lodged prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The Bond will not be released until Council has inspected the site and is satisfied that the works have been carried out to Council’s requirements. Council may use part or the entire Bond to complete the works to its satisfaction if the works do not meet Council’s requirements.



36. Footpath levels





If Council’s infrastructure is damaged during the course of works, Council’s Development Engineer must be notified and necessary repairs must be undertaken within the time stipulated by Council, to Council’s specifications, and at no cost to Council. Works generally must be in accordance with the relevant clauses of the current edition of AUS-SPEC.



If work is not undertaken to the satisfaction of the Development Engineer with regard to time or quality, Council may carry out remedial works and deduct the cost from the Damage Security Deposit.

39. Damage security deposit

A security deposit of $ 12,000 (Twelve thousand Dollars) for the cost of making good any damage to Council property caused as a consequence of the construction work, plus an administration fee of $158.00, must be paid to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The security deposit, which may be in the form of a bank guarantee, has been calculated in accordance with the following schedule.

Estimated cost of work Deposit Works up to $50,000 $2,000 Works in excess of $50,000 & up to $100,000 $4,000 Works in excess of $100,000 $4,000+$200/$10,000

estimated cost>$100,000

The security or bank guarantee must not have an expiry date.





A safe pedestrian circulation route a minimum of 1.5m wide and with a pavement free of trip hazards must be maintained at all times on or adjacent to the public footpaths fronting the construction site. Where the footpath is damaged, repair works must be carried when directed by Council officers and in accordance with the relevant clauses of Council's document "Standard Specifications for Roadworks, Drainage and Miscellaneous Works” dated Jan 2003. Where circulation is diverted on to the roadway clear directional signage and protective barricades must be installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS1742-3 2002 “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”. Should the applicant propose to direct pedestrians onto the road pavement of a State road then an application is to be made to the RTA for a Road Occupancy Licence. Licence approval is to be submitted to Council. If pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily maintained, and action is not taken promptly to rectify the defects, Council may carry out remedial works and deduct the cost from the Damage Security Deposit.




Driveways and access ramps must be designed and constructed not to scrape the underside of cars. In all other respects the proposed double garage and single car space, driveways and access ramps must be designed to comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 – “Off-Street car parking”.


A Long Service Levy under Section 34 of the Building & Construction Industry Long Service Payment Act, 1986, must be paid and proof of payment provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The Levy can be paid directly to the Long Services Payments Corporation or to Council.

44. Wet areas

















Note:The amount referred to in paragraph (a) (iv) above is prescribed by regulations under the

Home Building Act 1989. As at the date on which this Regulation was Gazetted, that amount was $5,000. As those regulations are amended from time to time, so that amount may vary.





































accredited sewage management facility means a sewage management facility to which Division 4A of Part 3 of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993 applies, being a sewage management facility that is installed or constructed to a design or plan the subject of a certificate of accreditation referred to in Clause 95B of the Regulation.



approved by the Council means the subject of an approval in force under Division 1 of Part 3 of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993.






Building Act 1989. Mr T Wong Cathy McMahon ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER ADVISINGS 1. Other approvals

This development consent does not remove the need to obtain any other statutory consent or approval necessary under any other Act.

2. Application for a Construction Certificate

The required Application for a Construction Certificate may be lodged with Council. Alternatively, you may apply to an accredited private certifier for a Construction Certificate. WARNING: Failure to obtain a Cons truction Certificate prior to the commencement of any building work is a serious breach of Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. It is also a criminal offence which attracts substantial penalties and may also result in action in the Land and Environment Court and orders for demolition.

3. Occupational Health and Safety












8. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. T Wong. However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34 Conference, instead of a full Court hearing. This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to agree, in writing, to the Court appointed assessor having the full authority to completely determine the matter at the conference.

ANNEXURES 1. Plans and elevation



DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE Meeting held on 17 October 2005

Item No. D5 MEMO TO ALL COUNCILLORS

File No. DA 242/2005/1

Address 91 Sutherland Street PADDINGTON 2021

Proposal Change of stair at front to first floor entry.

Date lodged 06/05/2005

Author MR R HEDSTROM – ASSESSMENT OFFICER

Please note that Item D4 was called at the Application Assessment Panel meeting held on 11 October 2005 by Councillors Huxley & Shapiro. Reason for calling item: - Impact on the Heritage Conservation Area - Non-compliance with the Paddington DCP - Impact on the streetscape of Sutherland Street - Amenity impacts on the neighbouring residential properties Referred to you for action. Les Windle Manager - Governance




FILE No. DA 242/2005/1

ADDRESS:

91 Sutherland Street PADDINGTON

PROPOSAL:

Change of stair at front to first floor entry.

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Local Development

APPLICANT:

Mr R Bernabei

OWNER:

Mr R Bernabei

DATE LODGED:

06/05/2005 17/08/2005 (Amended plans)

AUTHOR:

Mr R Hedstrom

LOCALITY PLAN


North

Locality Plan

The Paddington Society – 250 Oxford Street, Paddington



1. SUMMARY Reason for report This report assesses the impact of replacement of the existing stair with a new stair to the terrace dwelling at 91 Sutherland Street, Paddington. The application is referred to the Application Assessment Panel because two objections which are unable to be addressed by conditions of consent, were received by the owners of the adjoining property, 89 Sutherland Street and the owner of 87 Sutherland Street. Issues

• Streetscape Objections Two (2) objections to the modified proposal were received. Three (3) objections were received to the original proposal. Cost of works The stated cost of the proposed work of $20,000.00 has been checked using the standard criteria specified in the Cordell Building Guide and is considered to be accurate. Recommendation The proposed development is recommended for conditional approval as it:

• is related to a permissible use consistent with the aims and objectives of the WLEP 1995 and the Residential 2(a) zone

• satisfies the objectives and provisions of the Paddington DCP 1999 • poses no substantial detrimental impacts within the locality • is an appropriate modification to the front of the existing dwelling and is not considered to

be contrary to the public interest. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal is to replace the existing front external stair with a new stair including new concrete pad footings and minor extension of existing entry patio. The existing stair does not comply with the BCA in terms of tread depth and riser height. The new stair is proposed in light weight steel framed construction, clad with compressed fibre cement, finished with a render face coat and painted. The new stair is proposed to occupy the same footprint as the existing stair but with a reconfigured layout of treads and risers incorporating winders and to comply with the BCA. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The site is located on the south eastern side of Sutherland Street near the intersection with Elizabeth Street. It is rectangular in shape with a 4.8m frontage to Sutherland Street. Hargrave Lane bounds the site to the rear. The site contains the original three storey Victorian terrace, which is one terrace in the middle of a group with similar characteristics.



4. PROPERTY HISTORY

• Original Plan – the plan originally submitted proposed a replacement stair to be open on the underside of the stringer. This would have resulted in a disruption to the continuity of the group of terraces which have solid masonry stairs. The opening-up of the underside of the proposed new stair was unacceptable to the Council’s Heritage Officer.

• Amended Plan – the applicant was informed of the above and decided to submit amended

plans modifying the design to fully enclose the stair beneath the stringer.

• Re-notification – the amended plans were re-notified in accordance with the Council’s policy. Two objections were received from the adjoining and nearby owners. It is noted that the Paddington Society did not object to the amended proposal.

5. REFERRALS 5.1 Comments from external approval bodies No comments from external approval authorities were required. 5.2 Heritage Council’s Heritage Officer, Ms L Thom, assessed the original design as being unacceptable and recommended that it be redesigned to enclose the stair beneath the stringer to be solid and match the appearance of the front stairs of the properties adjoining. The subsequent referral response to the amended plans from Ms Thom reported that the revised design is in accordance with the Paddington DCP and approval was recommended subject to protection of the party wall (See Condition No. 6). 5.3 Landscape Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer, Peter Richards has reported that the proposal is considered to be satisfactory and is recommended for approval. 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: 6. STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION 6.1 SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 Not relevant to the subject application.



State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land Under clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. An assessment of the Initial site evaluation provided by the applicant indicates the land does not require further consideration under clause 7 (1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 6.2 REPs None relevant. 6.3 Other legislation No other legislation is relevant to the subject application. 7. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995 7.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone The proposal is permissible and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the relevant objectives of the Residential 2(a) zone. 7.2 Statutory compliance table

Site Area (154m²) (approximately) Existing Proposed Control Complies

Overall Height of stairs(metres) 4 4 9.5 YES

7.3 Height The proposed replacement stair complies with the height requirement. 7.4 Other special clauses/development standards Clause 18 Excavation: The proposed excavation for two new small pad footings is acceptable in terms of Clause 18. Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils: The proposed works do not require the need for an assessment of acid sulfate soils under clause 25D of Woollahra LEP 1995. Clauses 26-33 Heritage and conservation area provisions: The site does not contain a heritage item nor is it in the vicinity of a heritage item. It is located within the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s Heritage Officer has assessed the modified proposal and recommended approval. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the heritage conservation provisions under Part 4 of the LEP. 8. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS None relevant to the subject proposal.



9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 9.1 Compliance table Paddington Development Control Plan

Site Area (154m²) Existing Proposed Control Complies

Building Setback to Street (from stair) 2.47 2.47 (no change)

Maintain Existing Setback YES

Height at Street Frontage (existing stair) (metres) 4.0 4.0 (no change)

Maintain Existing Height YES

Street frontages The proposal as shown on the original plans would not have complied with the Paddington DCP: Part 5.1.1 Street frontages G1 there is to be no alterations or additions made to the original forms, details and materials of

street frontages G4 Where a building forms part of a group, any work to the street front zone must be designed to

acknowledge the contribution and relationship of that building to the other buildings or building which comprise the group.

The modified proposal would comply with the Objectives of 5.1.1 Street frontages and also the above Guidelines and controls (subject to conditions related to ensuring that the new stair areas is in exactly the same footprint as the existing stair and that the materials, finishes and colours comply with the requirements of the DCP) (See Condition Nos. 2 & 3). 9.2 Other DCPs, codes and policies None relevant . 10. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Clause 92 of the EPA Regulation 2000 requires Council to consider Australian Standard AS 2601-1991: The demolition of structures. It also requires compliance with this standard by condition of consent. The proposal will comply by condition. 11. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL

• Streetscape impact As the modified stair has the same height and setback from the street as the existing stair, it is considered that its visual impact when viewed from Sutherland Street would be acceptable subject to suitable finishes and colours being used as recommended by the conditions (See Condition No. 3).

12. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE The site is suitable for the proposed development.



13. SUBMISSIONS

The original plans for the DA were advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notifications DCP and the amended plans were renotified accordingly. Three submissions were received to the original advertising and notification and two submissions were received (from two of the original objectors) to the renotification as follows: Submissions to original proposal:

• The Paddington Society • Max Robertson – 87 Sutherland Street, Paddington • Kirsten Garrett – 89 Sutherland Street, Paddington

The objections raised the following issues:

• The staircase should be rebuilt to match the original which has solid masonry. Response: The new stair is proposed to be built using lightweight steel- framed construction clad with compressed fibre cement with a render face coat. This is considered to be acceptable as it would be similar in appearance to the existing stair. It is noted that The Paddington Society did not object to the modified proposal and that its primary concern was that the new staircase should be rebuilt to match the original. The staircase is proposed to be rebuilt not using solid masonry, however, Council’s Heritage Officer has considered that the lightweight framed solution is acceptable as it would approximate the appearance of the existing solid masonry stair when viewed from Sutherland Street.

• The new stair would not be symmetrical or match the stair of the adjoining terrace house or the other front stairs of surrounding terraces.

Response: The new stair is located in exactly the same footprint as the existing and has the same setback from the street alignment. When viewed from the street the proposed stair would be slightly different as it contains winders and a new riser and tread layout to comply with the Building Code of Australia. It is considered that the replacement stair would be a reasonable match to the existing stair of the adjoining terrace house when viewed from the street.

• The new stair would be built closer to the street. Response: The new stair is not proposed to be closer to the street.

• The new stair would cause structural damage to adjoining stairs on 89 Sutherland Street. Response: The new stair is separate structure however this matter is responded to by a Condition requiring structural engineers details and certification (See Condition Nos. 5 & 6). Submissions to the amended proposal:

• Max Robertson – 87 Sutherland Street, Paddington • Kirsten Garrett – 89 Sutherland Street, Paddington



The above two objectors reiterated their previous objections. It is noted that The Paddington Society did not object to the amended plan. 14. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal is acceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C and would not be contrary to the public interest. 15. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT the Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development Application No. 242/2005 for change of stair at front to first floor entry to the existing terrace house on land at 91 Sutherland Street Paddington, subject to the following conditions:

1. Approved Plans

This consent relates to the work, shown in colour, on un-numbered plan , dated August 2005, drawn by John Tilden, which carries a Council stamp “Approved DA Plans” and the signature of a Council officer, except where amended by the following conditions.

2. Footprint of new stair

The new stair shall be constructed in exactly the same footprint area as the existing stair (ie. no closer to the street frontage boundary). This condition is imposed to protect the streetscape. Details shall be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate.

3. Materials, finishes, colours and detailing

The materials, finishes, colours and detailing of the new stair including the balustrade shall match those of the existing stair and terrace house.




Certificate by:












This condition is imposed to ensure the structural integrity of the proposed building work, the existing party wall between 91 & 89 Sutherland Street and the existing stair at the front of 89 Sutherland Street.







9. Stockpiles








A security deposit of $2000.00 for the cost of making good any damage to Council property caused as a consequence of the construction work, plus an administration fee of $158.00, must be paid to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The security deposit, which may be in the form of a bank guarantee, has been calculated in accordance with the following schedule.










(b) This condition does not apply to the extent to which an exemption is in force under Clause 187 or 188, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in Clause 187 (6) or 188 (4) of the Regulation.

















Building Act 1989.




A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building (within the meaning of section 109H (4) of the Act) unless an occupation certificate has been issued in relation to the building or part.

Note: new building includes an altered portion of, or an extension to, an existing building. Note: In circumstance where the works do not relate to occupation the required occupation certificate is essentially a certificate of completion of the approved work.

Mr R Hedstrom Ryan Keys ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER ADVISINGS 1. Other approvals

This development consent does not remove the need to obtain any other statutory consent or approval necessary under any other Act, including: • an application for an Occupation Certificate under Section 109(C)(2) of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. • An application for an Occupation Certificate may be lodged with Council if the

applicant has nominated Council as the Principal Certifying Authority. 2. Application for a Construction Certificate

The required Application for a Construction Certificate may be lodged with Council. Alternatively, you may apply to an accredited private certifier for a Construction Certificate. WARNING: Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate prior to the commencement of any building work is a serious breach of Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. It is also a criminal offence which attracts substantial penalties and may also result in action in the Land and Environment Court and orders for demolition.













8. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact Mr R Hedstrom. However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34 Conference, instead of a full Court hearing. This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to agree, in writing, to the Court appointed assessor having the full authority to completely determine the matter at the conference.

ANNEXURES 1. Plans and elevations.



Memorandum Item No. D6 Date 6 October, 2005

File No. DA 845/2004/1

To Development Control Committee

CC All Councillors

From Mr D Waghorn

Address 20 RAY AVENUE VAUCLUSE 2030

At its meeting of 26 September 2005, Council’s Development Control Committee resolved as follows: THAT the Council defer Development Application No. 845/2004 for the demolition of the existing dwelling-house and detached garage; erection of a new dwelling house with basement level carparking and a roof terrace; landscaping and siteworks on land at 20 Ray Avenue Vaucluse, to the next Development Control Committee scheduled 17 October 2005 in order for the applicant to confer with Mr Liebmann (50 Captain Pipers Road Vaucluse) with respect to the rear setback of the development and the size and location of the roof terrace.

No correspondence has been forwarded to Council’s planning staff on this matter. David Waghorn Nick Economou SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER




FILE No. DA 845/2004/1

ADDRESS:

20 Ray Avenue, Vaucluse

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of the existing dwelling-house and detached garage; erection of a new dwelling house; landscaping and siteworks

ZONING:

Residential 2(a)

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Local Development

APPLICANT:

Michael Dysart & Partners

OWNER:

Mr D B Hudson

DATE LODGED:

22/12/2004 (original submission) 8/08/2005 (additional information)

AUTHOR:

Mr D Waghorn

LOCALITY PLAN

Subject Site Submissions

North

Locality Plan



1. SUMMARY Reason for report Objector’s concerns could not be comprehensively addressed by conditions of consent. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Application Assessment Panel for determination in accordance with Council delegations. Issues • height non-compliance • number of storeys non-compliance • boundary setback non-compliances • setback from significant mature trees non-compliance • building footprint non-compliance • FSR non-compliance • floor to ceiling height non-compliance • access driveway width non-compliance • objector’s concerns Submissions Two (2) Cost of works The stated cost of the proposed work of $1.6 million has been checked using the standard criteria specified in the Cordell Building Guide and is considered to be accurate. Recommendation The application is recommended for conditional approval because it: 1. is permissible under the zoning 2. satisfies the underlying objectives contained in WLEP 1995 and WRDCP 2003 3. is an appropriate design for the site 4. would not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality such that

refusal is justified. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Additional information was submitted on 8 August 2005 and includes the following: • elevations and sections of the proposed lift shaft, access stairs and pergola for the roof terrace

(see Annexure No 2) • a section detailing the setback of the existing and proposed dwelling-house from the Norfolk

Island Pine (Tree Reference No 3) which will be set back 5.6m and 6.6m, respectively (see Annexure No 3)

The proposal involves the following works:



• the demolition of the existing dwelling house and detached garage • the construction of a new three-storey dwelling house incorporating a roof terrace and basement

level car parking • landscaping and siteworks

3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The site is located on the eastern (high) side of Ray Avenue, is irregular in shape and has an area of 1,238m² . The site has a western frontage to Ray Avenue of 24.38m in length, a northern (side) boundary of 49.43m in length, a southern (side) boundary of 52.42m in length, and an eastern (rear) boundary of 24.79m in length. The topography of the site is such that the land slopes downwards from the eastern (rear) boundary to the street frontage; a maximum fall of approximately 4.4 metres. The site is currently occupied by a two-storey dwelling house with a detached double garage located forward of the front building line. The existing swimming pool located in the south-eastern corner of the site is to be retained. The adjoining property to the north (No 18 Ray Avenue) is occupied by a three-storey dwelling house. The adjoining property to the south is the Sydney Water Reserve. The adjoining property to the east (No 50 Captain Pipers Road) is occupied by a two-storey dwelling house. The surrounding locality is characterised by a mix of one, two and three-storey dwelling houses of various architectural styles. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY None relevant. 5. REFERRALS 5.1 Comments from external approval bodies None applicable. 5.2 Building Satisfactory, subject to Condition No 52. 5.3 Health Not applicable. 5.4 Heritage Council’s Heritage Officer – Louise Thom, provided the following comments in relation to the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling-house: I refer to the following documents received for this report: Demolition Report by City Plan Heritage, November 2004



Heritage Status: Heritage item: no Conservation area: no Vicinity of heritage item: no Potential heritage item: no Significance of property The subject property features a highly modified early 20th century dwelling. The original dwelling was called “Santoine” and occupied a part of a much larger property. That property was subdivided and the house retained on a single block. Since its construction the building has had substantial modifications which according to Councils Building Applications records date from 1915, 1920, 1929, 1933, 1949, 1970, 1983 and 1988. Some of the original features are evident but most have been modified so that the original character is masked. Assessment of heritage impact The subject building has low heritage significance and does not meet the threshold for inclusion in the WLEP heritage Schedule. The demolition is permissible as there is insufficient heritage value to warrant the buildings retention. Recording of the site is advised. Recommendation The application for demolition can be approved. Refer to Condition No 45. 5.5 Urban Design Not applicable. 5.6 Technical Services Council’s Technical Services Division has provided the following comments in relation to stormwater drainage, parking/traffic and geotechnical issues: I refer to the following documents received for this report: 1. Architectural plans by Michael Dysart & Partners P/L (Refer to Dwgs DA-01 to DA-13 dated

November 2004) 2. Survey plan dated 9th December 2004 3. Statement of Environmental Effects by Michael Dysart & Partners (Not dated) 4. Stormwater disposal concept plan prepared by Warren Smith & Partners P/L (Refer to Dwgs

DA-H-01 to DA-H-05 Rev A dated 2nd December 2004) 5. Geotechnical Report by Douglas Partners P/L (Refer to Project No. 37149 dated July 2004) Comments have been prepared on the following. Where Approval is recommended, Conditions of Consent follow at the end of the comments. Site Drainage The submitted stormwater drainage plan has proposed a gravity fed drainage system, discharging to Council’s kerb in Ray Avenue through an on site detention unit. Submission of a detailed plan, certification and WAE has been conditioned.



Flooding & Overland Flow The site is located at the top of the catchment and is well elevated above Ray Avenue. Flooding or inundation of the site due to stormwater runoff does not warrant concern. Impacts on Council Infrastructure An inspection of the existing driveway crossing reveals that the footpath has been flattened across the vehicle entry, resulting in a kink in the gradient of the footpath. This has also inadvertently steepened the section of footpath either side of the crossing and also the gradient of the northern edge of the access ramp. Some scrape marks on the driveway are evident. The applicant has proposed only to correct the access ramp up from the footpath as the existing boundary levels are well elevated. Due to this, it is supposed that the current owner has no issues with the driveway crossover gradient. Nonetheless, the access ramp does not comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 – “Off-Street car parking” and future owners of the property may have a vehicle that has less clearance than required. The proposal presents an opportunity to lower the footpath and correct the “kink” thereby reducing the change in gradient of the access ramp. The works have been directed and specified within the condition of consent. Vehicle Access & Accommodation All aspects of the proposed basement garage comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 – “Off-Street car parking”. The applicant has submitted a driveway profile that is in accordance with this Standard. Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and/or Structural A considerable area of excavation up to 1.8 metres deep will be required to accommodate the proposed basement garage. The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical report containing a satisfactory level of subsurface investigation and recommendations appropriate to the site. It is expected the excavation will entirely be within sandy soils that may be battered back within the site. As such, there is no great concern regarding potentially adverse effects to neighbouring properties that would warrant further specific conditions. Compliance with the Geotechnical report is conditioned. RECOMMENDATION Council’s Development Engineer has determined that the proposal satisfies Technical Services concerns, subject to the following conditions. Accordingly, the following conditions are recommended. Refer to Condition Nos 12-34. 5.7 Landscaping/Trees Management Council’s Trees and Landscape Officer – Louise Bennett has provided the following comment:



I refer to the following documents received for this report:

• Architectural Plan No. DA-01 to DA-14, designed by Michael Dysart & Partners, dated November 2004,

• Hydraulic Plans No. DA.H.01 to DA.H.05, drawn by Warren Smith & Partners, dated November 2004,

• Landscape Plan No. DA.L.01 to DA.L.02, drafted by John Happ, dated December 2004. A site inspection was carried out on the following day: 1 July 2005 The following plans have been reference in this document and scanned into the system as attachments. They should be read in conjunction with this referral response;

• Site Survey Plan No.l 29922A01.DWG, drafted by Degotardi, Smith & Partners, dated 9 December 2004.

COMMENTS

Council Reference

No.

Species Location Dimensions (Metres)


Adjacent to northern boundary (front yard).

H8 x D0.3

2 African Olive (Olea europaea ssp. Africana

Adjacent to northern boundary (front yard).

H8 x D0.3

3 Norfolk Island Pine (Araucaria heterophylla)

North-eastern corner of property (rear yard).

H25 x D1.0


Adjacent to eastern (rear) boundary of property.

H8 x D0.4


Adjacent to southern boundary of property (rear yard).

H8 x D0.3

6 Fiddlewood (Citharexylum spinosum)

Adjacent to southern boundary of property (rear yard).

H10 x D0.5


Adjacent to southern boundary of property (front yard).

H12 x D0.4

The application proposes removal of one tree, being identified as Tree 6. The retention of a number of other trees on site would not be viable should the application be approved in its current form. To protect existing trees on site, a number of alterations are required to the application. The location of the proposed stormwater system would have a negative impact on Trees 5, 6 and 7. Trees 5 and 7 are listed for retention. The location of the stormwater system in relation to these trees should have been an issue addressed at the design stage. Tree 5 is an African Olive (Olea europaea ssp. africana). The submitted plans indicate that this tree is to be retained. Considering the proposed stormwater system will be located directly underneath this tree and excavation for the proposed dwelling would be located within 1 metre, retention of this tree is not considered viable. Additionally, there is a pathway proposed for construction between the new dwelling and the side boundary. In these circumstances, a fruiting tree such as this is not considered appropriate to the location. The application should be amended to indicate that this tree is to be removed.



Tree 7 has been identified as a specimen worthy of retention. Installation of the proposed stormwater line, along the southern boundary, and the proposed rainwater tank and OSD will adversely affect this tree. Calculation of appropriate excavation distances indicate that there should be no excavation within a minimum radius of 5 metres from this tree (Matheny & Clarke). Plans submitted indicate location of these items at 5 metres from the tree. This distance does not allow for the extent of the excavation to install them. To protect the tree, the proposed rainwater tank and OSD must be relocated to permit all excavation outside of the 5 metre radial Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). Tree 3 has been identified as an extremely significant tree within the context of the site, the local area and the municipality. This tree is a prominent skyline feature of the area when viewed from the harbour. Protection of this tree is of primary concern during development of this site. Works as indicated on the supplied plans would place excavation to within 6 metres of this tree. Accepted formula for the calculation of TPZ’s indicate that the minimum radial distance from the tree that excavation should be undertaken is 12 metres (Matheny & Clarke). It is possible however, that there is an area within this 12 metre zone that does not contain major structural roots. Structural roots are considered those with a diameter in excess of 800mm. This is possible because there is an existing building that, from information supplied in the heritage study, probably predates the tree. This would depend upon the construction method of the existing dwelling (ie. type of footings). To clearly ascertain the location of roots within this area root mapping would be required. Without this information however, the TPZ has been set at 9 metres. This is an average of the existing setback and the recommended TPZ. The plans indicate that a masonry wall is proposed for construction along the northern boundary of the site, immediately adjacent to Tree 3. For the above stated reasons, this wall is to be deleted from the application. Any fencing within this area is to be constructed by hand and must not sever any structural roots from Tree 3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer has determined that the development proposal is satisfactory in terms of tree preservation and landscaping, subject to compliance with the following Conditions of Consent and amendments to the proposal to include the following;

1. Alter the location of the proposed rainwater tank and OSD to a minimum radial distance of 7 metres from Tree 7 Norfolk Island Pine (Araucaria heterophylla).

2. Amend plans to delete excavations within a radial distance of 9 metres from Tree 3 Norfolk Island Pine (Araucaria heterophylla) located in the north-eastern corner of the site.

3. Deletion of the proposed masonry wall along the northern boundary of the property. Council’s Senior Assessment Officer concurs with the above-mentioned response with the exception of Recommendation No 3. The masonry walls along the northern boundary are existing and will not be altered by the proposal. As such, Recommendation No 3 will not form a condition of development consent (refer to Condition Nos 5-11).



The applicant submitted additional information on 8 August 2005 (see Annexure 3) detailing the existing and proposed setbacks of the dwelling-house from the Norfolk Island Pine (Tree Reference No 3). The section details that the existing dwelling-house has footings that are set back 5.6m from the base of the Norfolk Island Pine, while the footings for the proposed guest room on the basement level are set back 6.6m from the base of the Norfolk Island Pine. The applicant has submitted the following: We engaged the services of John Happ of 3rd Dimension Design who is a qualified arborist to advise on tree conditions and landscape generally. As a result of his impact we located the proposed dwelling on the same footprint as the existing dwelling to avoid undue bulk excavation and damage to existing trees. As you can see from the sketch there is no additional bulk excavation proposed adjacent to the Norfolk Pine. The proposed guest room slab is at the same level as the existing sunroom terrace footing, so no additional excavation is required. The arborist also advises that the tree root system for the Norfolk Pine is a (caged) root pattern, which does not exhibit a wide root pattern such as a Moreton Bay Fig. It is conceded that the set back of the proposed guest room on the basement level does improve the existing situation. Notwithstanding this, Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer – Louise Bennett maintains that no excavation is to be carried out within a 9m radius from the trunk of the Norfolk Island Pine (see Condition No 10). As such, the deletion of the guest bedroom on the basement level (Condition No 5) is to be maintained. 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: 6. RELEVANT STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION 6.1 SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land Under Clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. An assessment of the documentation provided by the applicant indicates that the land does not require further consideration under Clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") applies to the proposed development. The development application was accompanied by BASIX Certificate No. 13470 committing to environmental sustainability measures. These requirements have been imposed by standard condition prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (Condition No 42).



6.2 REPs Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy No 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbour The provisions of Clause 18 of the instrument together with Part 5 of the WRDCP require the consideration of the likely aesthetic appearance of the proposal when viewed from the waters of Sydney Harbour. The proposal will be distantly visible from Sydney Harbour and will not appear incongruous with surrounding development when viewed from the harbour and adjoining foreshore areas. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of SREP No 23 and the DCP for SREP No 23. 6.3 Section 94 contribution Not applicable. 6.4 Other relevant legislation Not applicable. 7. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995 7.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone (Clause 8(5)) The proposal is permissible and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the relevant objectives of the Residential 2(a) zone. 7.2 Statutory compliance table

Site Area: 1,238m² Existing Proposed Control Complies

Site Area and Lot Frontage 1,238m² 1,238m² 675m² Yes

Overall Height 9.8m 11.1m 9.5m No

7.3 Site area requirements The subject site has an area of 1,238m² and complies with Council’s minimum allotment size for dwelling house developments of 675m². 7.4 Height Under the provisions of Clause 12 of WLEP 1995, a maximum height of 9.5 m applies to the subject site. The existing building on the site has a maximum height of 9.8 m (RL 104.81) and the proposed new dwelling-house will have a maximum height of 11.1m (RL 106.5). The proposal complies with the 9.5m height requirement with the exception of the lift overrun, stair access and pergola, resulting in a maximum non-compliance of 1.6m.



The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards in relation to this non-compliance. The SEPP No. 1 objection forwarded by the applicant is paraphrased as follows: Rooftop lift access, associated stair and pergola slightly exceed the 9.5 metre height limit. The maximum height of these structures is 2.4 metres, which is only 1.6 metres above the height standard for these small structures. It is considered the proposed development satisfies the objectives of the development standard: • the proposed development will have no impact on existing views of Sydney Harbour, ridgelines,

public and private open spaces or views of the Sydney City Skyline • to ensure compatibility with the adjoining residential neighbourhood the proposed house has

been sited in the same location as the existing dwelling and lies within the same envelope. The lift overrun, stair access and pergola structures are not visible from the street and have been sited adjacent to the existing stand of fig trees on the Water Board Reserve to ensure no impact on the neighbourhood

• the careful siting of the proposed roof terrace, lift and stair access will ensure no loss of visual privacy to the interior or exterior living areas of any neighbouring dwellings

• the shadow diagrams submitted with the DA show no additional or detrimental impacts on the interior living rooms or exterior open space of any neighbouring dwellings. This also applies to the lift and stair access and pergola structure

• public views of the Harbour are not affected by the lift and stair access or by the landscaped pergola. Ray Avenue is not identified as having special streetscape qualities and the lift and stair access and pergola structure are not even visible from the street

In applying the principles set out in the Hooker case, the proposed SEPP 1 objection has been considered by reference to the following tests: 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? 3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in

particular, does the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act?

4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the

case? 5. Is the objection well founded? 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? The planning control in question is the height standard set by Clause 12 of the Woollahra LEP 1995. As such, any variation of this standard requires a SEPP 1 objection, as has been prepared in this case. 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? The objectives of the height standard listed under Clause 12AA of Woollahra LEP 1995 are:



(a) to minimise impact of new development on existing views of Sydney Harbour, ridgelines, public and private open spaces and views of the Sydney city skyline,

(b) to provide compatibility with the adjoining residential neighbourhood, (c) to safeguard visual privacy of interior and exterior living areas of neighbouring dwellings, (d) to minimise detrimental impacts on existing sunlight access to interior living rooms and

exterior open space areas and minimise overshadowing, (e) to maintain the amenity of the public domain by preserving public views of the harbour and

surrounding areas and special qualities of streetscapes. 3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in


It is considered that allowing a variation to the height standard, in this instance, would still enable the objectives of this standard to be upheld. Having regard to the objectives, it is considered that: • the non-compliance with the height is limited to the lift overrun, access stairs and pergola; a

maximum non-compliance of 1.6m • the proposal, with the exception of the lift overrun, access stairs and pergola (maximum RL

106.5), will have a height of RL 104.1, which is lower than the height of the existing building RL 104.81 and No 18 Ray Avenue RL 104.38

• the proposed dwelling-house has been deliberately located adjacent the southern boundary given that the subject site adjoins a Sydney Water Reserve to the south. As such, the location of the proposed roof terrace allows for increased separation between adjoining properties

• the proposal will have no impact on any views to Sydney Harbour, ridgelines or the city skyline • Ray Avenue is characterised by three storey dwelling houses that contain roof terraces, as such,

the proposal is considered to be compatible with surrounding residential development • the proposal will have no adverse impact on the visual and acoustic privacy of adjoining

properties (see Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria below) • the proposal will have no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of

overshadowing. Further, the proposal complies with Council’s solar access requirements • the proposed roof terrace will not be seen from Ray Avenue 4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the

case? The proposal would satisfy the underlying intent of the objectives of Council's height standard and therefore the SEPP No 1 objection to the standard is supported. It is recommended that Council resolve to vary the standard in this instance as compliance is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary. 5. Is the objection well founded? The SEPP 1 objection in relation to non-compliance with the height standard is considered to be well founded as it establishes that the application of the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. As such, it is considered that granting development consent would be consistent with the aims and objectives set out in Clause 3 of SEPP No. 1. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council support the applicant’s height SEPP 1 objection.



7.5 Other special clauses/development standards Clause 18 Excavation Clause 18 of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires Council to consider the impact of excavation, associated with a development proposal, upon the local environment. The proposal involves excavation for the footings of the proposal and bulk excavation to the basement level. The proposal involves the following areas of bulk excavation: • basement level and garage: to a maximum depth of 1.8m over an area of approximately 266m²;

a volume of approximately 298m³. All excavation will be sited in excess of Council’s requirements of 1.5 metres from all boundaries (C 5.2.16 of WRDCP 2003). The extent and siting of excavation is considered to satisfy the provisions of Clause 18 for the following reasons: • subject to Condition Nos 5-11, Council’s Trees Officer, Louise Bennett considers the proposal

to be satisfactory in terms of the impact of excavation upon existing significant trees • Council’s Development Engineer Team Leader, Nick Tomkins, has assessed the geotechnical/

hydrogeological report submitted with the development application and considers the extent of excavation to be satisfactory, subject to Conditions No 34 requiring compliance with recommendations of the geotechnical/ hydrogeological report

• the amenity of the adjoining properties (No 18 Ray Avenue and No 50 Captain Pipers Road) will not be adversely affected by the proposal

Subject to the above conditions, the extent and siting of excavation is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Clause 18 of WLEP 1995. Clause 25 Water, wastewater and stormwater Clause 25(1) and (2) of WLEP 1995 requires council to consider the provisions of adequate stormwater drainage and the provisions of adequate water and sewage services. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Clause 25 and is considered to be satisfactory, subject to Conditions Nos 2-3 and 12-15 and Advising Nos 2-3. Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils The subject site is within the Class 5 Acid Sulphate Soil area identified in the Planning NSW Acid Sulphate Soil Risk Map. However, the subject works are not likely to lower the water table below 1 m AHD on any land within 500 m with a 1, 2, 3 or 4 land classification and therefore, there is no issue of acid sulphate affectation in this instance. 8. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Act requires that in determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration any draft environmental planning instrument "EPI" that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority.



Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 ("the proposed SEPP") was publicly exhibited from 10 May to 18 June 2004. In considering how much weight should be placed upon an exhibited draft environmental planning instrument under section 79C of the Act one must assess how likely it is that the draft EPI will commence, in what form it is likely to commence and consider what effect the instrument would have if applied. The proposed SEPP received significant criticism from the development industry in submissions. Officers of DIPNR have advised that it will not be made in the form it was exhibited and that it will now be included as part of the new Integrated LEP Template. This template will be placed on public exhibition in late April/May 2005. Therefore, it is not known in what form the draft SEPP will be made. Clause 14 of the draft SEPP provides Saving and Transitional provisions. These provisions provide that any application submitted prior to the commencement of the proposed SEPP and within 28 days after the commencement of the proposed SEPP is to be determined in accordance with the former SEPP No.1 as if the former SEPP No.1 had not been repealed by the proposed SEPP. It is likely that the draft SEPP, if made, will contain transitional provisions. The draft SEPP would, if it commenced in its exhibited form, require a higher threshold test in order for an objection against a development standard to be sustained. However, the draft policy should not be given determining weight in the assessment of development applications for the following reasons: 1. The draft SEPP will not be made in the form it was exhibited 2. It is not known whether the threshold tests contained in the exhibited SEPP will be retained 3. It is likely that, if made, the draft SEPP will contain savings and transitional provisions. This means that objections submitted under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 must be assessed under the current policy. Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2004 This draft planning instrument is aimed at repealing several existing planning instruments including SREP No 23 Sydney and Middle Harbours. The draft SEPP requires the consideration of similar issues as SREP No 23 such as the visual impact of development upon Sydney Harbour and adjacent foreshore areas. The proposal will be distantly visible from Sydney Harbour and will not appear incongruous with surrounding development when viewed from the harbour and adjoining foreshore areas. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of the draft planning instrument. 9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS



9.1 Numeric Compliance table - Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003

Site Area (1,238m²) Proposed Control Complies

Maximum Number of Storeys – Dwelling 3 2 No

Building Boundary Setbacks Front (west) Rear (east) Side (north) Basement Ground Floor First Floor Roof terrace Side (south) Basement Ground Floor First Floor Roof terrace

17.1-22m 6.8-12.5m

5.14m 5.14m 5.14m 15.5m

1.5-6.2m

1.5m 1.5-3.6m

3.6m

14m

12.7m

2.5m 2.5-2.75m 2.5-4.25m

4.25m

2.5m 2.5m

2.5-4m 4m

Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No

Setback from Significant Mature Trees 2m 3.0m No**

Building Footprint 36.8%

(455.8m2 ) 30%

(371.4m2 ) No

Floor Space Ratio 0.64:1*

(791.6m2 )* 0.55:1

(680.9m2 ) No*

Floor to Ceiling Height – Habitable Rooms 2.6-3m 2.7m No

Maximum Unarticulated Length to Street <6m 6.0m Yes

Solar Access to Open Space of Adjacent Properties (Hrs on 21 June) >50% for 2 hours

50% (or 35m2) for 2 hours Yes

Excavation Piling and Subsurface Wall Setback 1.5m 1.5m Yes

Deep soil landscaping - dwelling 444.3m² 433.3m² Yes

Deep Soil Landscaping – Front Setback 304.6m² 175.9m² Yes

Private Open Space at Ground Level – Total >35m² by 3m

35m² Min dimension 3m Yes

Private Open Space at Ground Level – Principal Area >16m² by 4m


Private Open Space at Ground Level – Maximum Gradient <1:10 1:10 Yes

Front Fence Height 1.8m 1.2m/1.5m where 50% transparent No

BASIX – Water 40% 40% Yes

BASIX – Energy 25% 25% Yes

Solar Access to North-Facing Living Areas of Development (Hrs on 21 June) >3 hours 3.0 hours Yes

Minimum Number of North Facing Habitable Rooms 2 1 Yes

Setback of Bedroom Windows from Streets/Parking Areas of Other Dwellings >3m 3.0m Yes

Car Parking Excavation Within building

footprint Within building

footprint Yes



Site Area (1,238m²) Proposed Control Complies

Location of Garages and Car Parking Structures Behind front

setback Behind Front

Setback Yes

Garage Frontage Width 17%

(4.2m2) 30%

(7.3m) Yes

Car Parking Spaces – Dwellings 2 2 Yes

Minimum Access Driveway Width 3.2-4m 3.5m – 6.0m 6.0m – 9.0m No

Access Driveway Grades – Overall <15% 15% Yes

Access Driveway Grades – Transitional <12% 12% Yes

Area of Lockable Storage Spaces per Dwelling >8m³ 8m³ Yes

* subject to Condition No 5 ** subject to Condition No 9 Site analysis performance criteria (Part 3) Part 3 of Council’s WRDCP 2003 requires adequate site analysis documentation for development applications. The application is considered to be satisfactory in this regard. C 3.2.1 requires development to fit into the surrounding environment and pattern of development responding to the surrounding neighbourhood character and streetscape. The locality is characterised by a mix of one, two and three storey dwelling houses of various architectural styles. The architectural design of the proposed dwelling-house is considered to be of a high-quality design and will result in a development which will have a positive visual impact upon the streetscape and respond satisfactorily to the urban context of the locality. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the above-mentioned criteria. Desired future precinct character objectives and performance criteria (Part 4) The objectives of the Vaucluse East precinct relate to the mitigation of adverse impacts upon the local public domain, maintaining the existing landscape character of the locality and ensuring that development responds to the existing built forms in the streetscape. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons: • the proposal will have a positive impact upon the streetscape and respond appropriately to the

built form of the surrounding locality • subject to Condition Nos 5-11, the landscape character of the locality will be maintained The proposal involves the following non-compliances with the relevant performance criteria stipulated under Part 4.14 of WRDCP 2003:



Side boundary setbacks C 4.14.4 stipulates that where the site lot width is equal to or exceeds 18m at the frontage, development has a minimum side boundary setback of 2.5m. This side setback is increased on a pro rata basis for each metre of the building height adjacent to the boundary exceeds 5.5m. In this regard, the proposal is required to be setback 2.5-4.25m from the northern (side) boundary and 2.5-4m from the southern (side) boundary. The proposal will be set back 5.14m from the northern (side) boundary and 1.5-3.6m from the southern (side) boundary. The proposal results in the following side setback non-compliances: • a maximum setback non-compliance of 1m for the basement level for a length of 7.3m from the

southern elevation (plant room) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 1m for the entire length of the ground floor level

(22.8m) from the southern elevation (children’s study, kitchen, family room, verandah) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 2.5m for the entire length of the first floor level (24.5m)

from the southern elevation (bedroom and ensuite, master ensuite, master bedroom and balcony) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 0.4m for the entire length of the roof terrace (16.8m)

from the southern elevation (roof terrace) The underlying objectives of the setback control are to protect the visual and aural privacy of residents, provide side access to the rear of properties, avoid buildings or part of buildings encroaching onto adjoining properties, enable opportunities for screen planting, protect significant vegetation, avoid an unreasonable sense of enclosure, safeguard privacy and minimise the noise impacts for dwellings. The non-compliances with the setback requirements are considered to be consistent with the abovementioned objectives for the following reasons: • the proposed dwelling-house has been deliberately located adjacent the southern boundary given

that the subject site adjoins a Sydney Water Reserve to the south. As such, the location of the proposed dwelling-house allows for increased separation between the northern elevation of the proposal and No 18 Ray Avenue

• the proposal will not result in any adverse impact on views from adjoining properties (see Views Performance Criteria below)

• subject to Condition No 4, the proposal will not result in any adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts on adjoining properties (see Acoustic and Visual Performance Criteria below)

• the proposal will retain side access to the rear of the dwelling • subject to Condition Nos 5-11, the proposal will not result in the loss or removal of any

significant trees on the site • the proposal will not result in any unreasonable sense of enclosure • the proposal will not result in any adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of

overshadowing and furthermore, complies with Council’s solar access requirements • the scale and bulk of the proposal is compatible with that of surrounding development Building height – storeys C 4.14.7.3 stipulates that development is to have a maximum height of two storeys. Where the land form of the site falls more than two (2) metres from the street to the rear of the property an additional basement storey may be permitted provided that all other RDCP controls are met.



By definition the proposal is a three-storey dwelling-house. Notwithstanding this, the three-storey height of the proposal is considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons: • the proposal complies with the maximum height control of 9.5m, with the exception of the lift

overrun, access stairs and pergola to the roof terrace, resulting in a maximum non-compliance of 1.6m

• the proposal, with the exception of the lift overrun, access stairs and pergola (maximum RL 106.5) will have a height of RL 104.1, which is lower than the height of the existing building RL 104.81 and No 18 Ray Avenue RL 104.38

• the proposal will largely present as a two-storey dwelling-house, as the basement level would only be visible from a limited public vantage point and will be suitably screened by the density of the proposed landscaping in the front yard

• the proposal is consistent with the scale and character of adjoining three storey dwelling house to the north (No 18 Ray Avenue)

• properties on the eastern (high) side of Ray Avenue are characterised by three storey dwelling-houses

• the western (front) elevation contains a high degree of articulation that ensures the proposal does not present as a sheer three storey building

Accordingly, no objection is raised to the non-compliance in this instance. Front fence height C 4.14.7.4 stipulates that front fences, if solid, are no greater than 1.2 metres in height and existing sandstone walls are to be retained. The proposal will fully retain the existing 1.8 metre high stone wall along the Ray Avenue frontage, with the only exception being the construction of a new pedestrian entrance and driveway entrance to replace the double garage. The proposed reconstruction of the new sections within the front fence will have a maximum height of 1.8 metres and will match the materials used in the existing stone wall. Accordingly, no objection is raised to the non-compliance in this instance. Streetscape performance criteria (Section 5.1) The objectives of Council’s streetscape performance criteria require development to achieve a scale and character in keeping with the desired future character for the locality and development contributes to cohesive streetscapes and desirable pedestrian movements, a safe environment and recognise predominant streetscape qualities. The proposed three-storey dwelling house is considered to be of a high-quality design and result in a development which will have a positive impact upon the streetscape and satisfactorily relate to the urban context and built form within the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.1 of WRDCP 2003. Building size and location performance criteria (Section 5.2) The proposal involves the following non-compliances with the performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.2 of WRDCP 2003:



Setback from significant mature vegetation C 5.2.1 stipulates that where significant mature trees are to be retained, buildings are located at least 3 metres from the base of the tree to minimise root damage. The proposed pedestrian entrance pathway will be located a minimum of 0.5m from a Cypress Pine (Tree Reference No 1) and an African Olive tree (Tree Reference No 2), located adjacent to the northern boundary. Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer – Louise Bennett has examined the proposal and subject to Condition No 9, the proposal will be set back 2m from the trunks of the Cypress Pine (Tree Reference No 1) and the African Olive (Tree Reference No 2) trees. The 2m setback will ensure the retention and longevity of the trees and accordingly, is considered to be satisfactory in this instance. In addition, Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer – Louse Bennett has expressed concerns regarding the proximity of excavation to the following trees within the site: • a Norfolk Island Pine (Tree Reference No 3) located in the north-eastern corner • a Norfolk Island Pine (Tree Reference No 7) located adjacent the southern boundary • a Fiddlewood (Tree Reference No 6) located adjacent the southern boundary • an African Olive (Tree Reference No 5) located adjacent the southern boundary Council’s Trees and Landscape Officer considers the removal of the African Olive and Fiddlewood trees necessary given the location of the proposed stormwater drain adjacent the southern boundary (refer to Condition No 8). No objection is raised to the removal of these two trees. However, Condition No 10 recommends a 9m set back of excavation from the Norfolk Island Pine located in the north-eastern corner of the subject site (Tree Reference No 3) and a 7m set back from the Norfolk Island Pine (Tree Reference No 7) located adjacent to the southern boundary. In order to achieve compliance with Condition No 10, it is recommended that the basement level guest bedroom is deleted (see Condition No 5) and the proposed rainwater tank and OSD system are to be relocated within the front setback area to be a minimal radial distance of 7m from the Norfolk Island Pine (see Condition No 6). Subject to the above-mentioned conditions the setback of significant mature vegetation from development is considered to be satisfactory in this instance. Setbacks Rear: C. 5.2.3 stipulates that buildings have a minimum rear setback of 25% (12.7m) of the average site length. The existing dwelling house is setback 8-11.2m from the eastern (rear) boundary, which does not comply with the abovementioned requirement. The proposed new dwelling-house will be setback 6.8-12.5m from the eastern (rear) boundary, thereby resulting in a maximum non-compliance of 5.9m for a width of 17.6m on the basement, ground and first floor levels. The underlying objectives of the setback control are to protect the visual and aural privacy of residents, provide side access to the rear of properties, avoid buildings or part of buildings encroaching onto adjoining properties, enable opportunities for screen planting, protect significant vegetation, avoid an unreasonable sense of enclosure, safeguard privacy and minimise the noise impacts for dwellings. The non-compliances with the setback requirements are considered to be consistent with the abovementioned objectives for the following reasons:



• in the case of Woollahra Municipal Council v Noel Elmowry, Hon. Moore held that variation of

the rear building setback would be acceptable given that no substantive impacts upon the amenity of adjoining properties would arise. Having regard to the findings of this case, it is considered that the proposed dwelling-house would not adversely impact upon the amenity of No 50 Captain Pipers Road given the proposed dwelling-house will be separated by approximately 22m from the habitable room windows and is comparable with the rear setback of No 18 Ray Avenue

• the topography of the locality results in a staggered rear building alignment. The proposed rear setback of the proposal will not result in any disharmony to continuity of rear setback patterns within the locality

• the non-compliances with the setback controls would not result in any adverse impact on views from adjoining properties (see Views Performance Criteria below)

• subject to Condition No 4, the proposal will not result in any adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts on adjoining properties (see Acoustic and Visual Performance Criteria below)

• the proposal will retain side access to the rear of the dwelling • subject to Condition Nos 5-11, the proposal will not result in the loss or removal of any

significant trees on the site • the proposal will not result in any unreasonable sense of enclosure • the proposal will have no adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing and

complies with Council’s solar access requirements • the scale and bulk of the proposal is compatible with that of surrounding development Building footprint C 5.2.8 requires dwelling houses to have a maximum footprint of 30% (371.4m²) of the site. The proposed dwelling house will have a footprint of 36.8% (455.8m²) for the site, resulting in a non-compliance of 84.5m². The underlying objectives of the building footprint control is to limit the site coverage and excavation, minimise on-site filtration of stormwater, maximise deep soil landscaping areas, maintains subterranean water flows, protect significant vegetation and minimise the likelihood of instability due to excavation. The non-compliance with the building footprint control is considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons: • the non-compliance represents 6.8% of the site area. Further, the building footprint for the

subject site is comparable with that of No 18 Ray Avenue (approximately 407m² or 46% of the site area)

• subject to Condition Nos 5 and 34, the extent of excavation is considered to be acceptable in terms of geotechnical and hydrogeological issues

• the proposal complies with the deep soil landscaping requirements thereby ensuring adequate on-site filtration of water. Further, on-site filtration will be maximised through the provision of on-site detention (refer to Condition Nos 12-15)

• subject to Condition Nos 5-11, the proposal will not result in the loss or removal of any significant trees on the site



Floor space ratio (FSR) C. 5.2.9 stipulates a maximum FSR of 0.55:1 (680.9m²) for the site. The purpose of floor space ratio control relate to preserving and promoting tree and vegetation networks and minimising overshadowing, loss of views, building bulk and loss of privacy. Subject to Condition No 5, the proposal will have an FSR of 0.64:1 (791.6m²) for the site, resulting in a non-compliance of 110.7m². The extent of the non-compliance (110.7m²) can be attributed to the floor area associated with the partially excavated basement level and covered decks. The basement leve l and covered decks account to 208.9m² of the floor area included in the gross floor area calculation. Notwithstanding this, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with the abovementioned purpose of the FSR control for following reasons: • the proposed basement level (145.2m² of floor area) will be partially excavated and not readily

discernible from Ray Avenue • subject to Condition Nos 5-11, the proposal will not result in the loss or removal of any

significant trees on the site. Further, the landscape plan drawn by 3rd Dimension Designs details the additional planting to be included in the proposal which will soften the bulk and scale of the proposal when viewed from Ray Avenue

• the proposal complies with Council’s solar access requirements stipulated under WRDCP 2003 • the proposal will not result in any adverse impact on views from adjoining properties (see Views

Performance Criteria below) • subject to Condition No 4, the proposal will not result in any adverse visual and acoustic

privacy impacts (see Acoustic and Visual Privacy Performance Criteria below) • the scale and bulk of the proposal is comparable with that of No 18 Ray Avenue and

surrounding development • the proposal will have a positive visual impact on the streetscape Overshadowing C 5.2.13 stipulates that sunlight is provided to at least 50% of the main ground level of private open space of adjacent properties for a minimum of 2 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. C 5.2.14 stipulates that north facing windows to habitable rooms of neighbour ing dwellings do not have sunlight reduced to 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The owners of the adjoining property to the east (No 50 Captain Pipers Road) have objected to the proposal on the grounds of additional overshadowing. An inspection of the subject site and an analysis of the shadow diagrams submitted with the development application demonstrate the proposal complies with the relevant Council requirements for solar access. Floor to Ceiling Heights C 5.2.10 stipulates that dwelling houses have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres. The proposed dwelling house will have a floor-to-ceiling height of 2.6-3 metres, resulting in a non-compliance of 0.1 metres. Notwithstanding the non-compliance, the BCA stipulates a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.4 metres. The proposal satisfies the provisions of the BCA and accordingly, no objection is raised to the non-compliance in this instance.



Open space and landscaping performance criteria (Section 5.3) The proposal satisfies the numerical requirements for open space and landscaping. Subject to Condition Nos 5-11, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.3 of WRDCP 2003. Fences and walls performance criteria (Section 5.4) The height of the front fence is discussed the Desired future precinct character objectives and performance criteria above. The proposal will not alter the existing side or rear boundary fences. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with the relevant objectives and performance criterion stipulated under Part 5.4 of WRDCP 2003. Views performance criteria (Section 5.5) No views will be adversely affected by the proposed development. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.5 of WRDCP 2003. Energy efficiency performance criteria (Section 5.6) The development application was accompanied by BASIX Certificate No. 13470 committing to environmental sustainability measures. Accordingly, the proposal demonstrates compliance with the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.6 of WRDCP 2003. Stormwater management performance criteria (Section 5.7) Subject to Condition Nos 12-15, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.7 of WRDCP 2003. Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria (Section 5.8) The owners of the adjoining property to the east No 50 Captain Pipers Road have objected to the proposal on the basis of loss of visual and acoustic privacy. C 5.8.5 stipulates habitable room windows with a direct sightline to a habitable room window in an adjacent dwelling within 9 metres is offset, contain obscure glazing or have a sill height of more than 1.7 metres. C 5.8.6 stipulates that balconies, terraces, decks and other like areas within a development are suitably screened to prevent direct views into habitable rooms or private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. Privacy Impact on No 50 Captain Pipers Road An inspection of the subject site revealed that the proposed first floor level eastern elevation windows and roof terrace will not have an adverse impact on the visual and acoustic privacy of No 50 Captain Pipers Road for the following reasons: • the habitable room windows for No 50 Captain Pipers Road are approximately 22m from the

eastern elevation windows of the subject site



• the first- floor level eastern elevation windows are for bedrooms which are neither used frequently or for extended periods during the day

• the height of the existing rear boundary fence coupled with the location and density of the existing landscaping will effectively mitigate potential overlooking from the eastern elevation windows

• No 50 Captain Pipers Road has a maximum height of RL 97.38 while the proposed roof terrace will have a floor level of RL 104.1; a difference of 6.72m. As such in the proposed roof terrace will look over and above No 50 Captain Pipers Road

• the 27 metre setback of the roof terrace from the habitable room windows of No 50 Captain Pipers Road coupled with the size and location of the proposed planter box will effectively mitigate direct overlooking to No 50 Captain Pipers Road

• the proposed roof terrace has an area of 62m² and will be used for residential purposes Privacy impact on No 18 Ray Avenue Although the owners of the adjoining property to the north (No 18 Ray Avenue) have not objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of visual and acoustic privacy, the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the privacy of No 18 Ray Avenue for the following reasons: • Condition No 4 stipulates that the northern side of the ground floor level front around and first-

floor level front balcony contain a 1.7 metre high privacy screen with horizontal louvres angled upwards at 45°

• the height of the existing side boundary fence coupled with the location and density of the existing landscaping on the northern boundary will effectively mitigate overlooking from the ground floor level

• the proposed dwelling house has been deliberately sited adjacent to the southern boundary to provide increased separation between the proposed dwelling and No 18 Ray Avenue

• the eaves for No 18 Ray Avenue has a maximum height of RL 99.94, while the proposed roof terrace will have a floor level of RL 104.1; a difference of 4.16m. As such, the proposed roof terrace will look over and above No 18 Ray Avenue

• the 16 metre setback of the roof terrace from habitable room windows coupled with the size and location of the proposed planter box will effectively mitigate direct overlooking to No 18 Ray Avenue

• the proposed roof terrace has an area of 62m² and will be used for residential purposes Car parking and driveways performance criteria (Section 5.9) The proposal involves the following non-compliances with the performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.9 of WRDCP 2003: Access Driveways C 5.9.8 stipulates that the width of access driveways be 3.5-6m. The proposed access driveway will have a width of 3.2-4m, resulting in a maximum non-compliance of 0.3m. The 3.2m width of the access driveway is considered to be acceptable as it complies with the requirements of AS 2890. Accordingly, no objection is raised to the non-compliance in this instance. Site facilities performance criteria (Section 5.10) The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.10 of WRDCP 2003.



9.2 DCP for off-street car parking provision and servicing facilities The proposal satisfies the provisions of this DCP. 9.3 Woollahra Access The proposal is for a Class 1 building. The Access DCP encourages, rather than requires, visitor access for older people or people with a disability. A lift has been provided within the proposed dwelling house that provides uninterrupted and level access to all levels. As such, the proposal is to be considered acceptable under the provisions of this DCP. 9.4 Other DCPs, codes and policies None relevant. 10. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Clause 92 of the EPA Regulation 2000 requires us to consider Australian Standard AS 2601-1991: The demolition of structures. This is addressed via Condition No 47. 11. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL All likely impacts have been addressed elsewhere in this report. 12. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE The site is suitable for the proposed development. 13. SUBMISSIONS The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notifications DCP. Two (2) submissions were received from: • Sydney Water Corporation – Australia PO Box A53 Sydney South NSW 1232 (owns the reserve

adjoining the site to the south • Mr R & M Liebmann – No 50 Captain Pipers Road, Vaucluse The objectors raised the following issues: 1. Section 73 Compliance Certificate 2. building over Sydney Water pipes 3. Sydney Water supply facility 4. setbacks 5. overshadowing 6. loss of visual and acoustic privacy 7. floor space ratio 8. roof terrace These concerns have been addressed elsewhere in the report, with the exception of Points 1-3 which are addressed by Condition Nos 2 and 3 and Advising No 2.



The additional information submitted on 8 August 2005 was not renotified under Clause 5.1 of the DCP because, having considered Clause 9 of the DCP, the additional information is substantially the same development as the original proposal as is considered to have no greater environmental impact upon neighbours. 14. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal is acceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C of EPA Act 1979. 15. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT the Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to Clause 12–Height under WLEP 1995 is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case.

AND

THAT the Council, as the consent authority, being satisfied that the objection under SEPP No. 1 is well founded and also being of the opinion that the granting of consent to Development Application No. 845/2004 is consistent with the aims of the Policy, grant deve lopment consent to DA No. 845/2004 for the demolition of the existing dwelling-house and detached garage; erection of a new dwelling house with basement level carparking and a roof terrace; landscaping and siteworks on land at 20 Ray Avenue, Vaucluse, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved Plans

The development must be carried out in accordance with plans numbered DA-01 – DA-11, dated November 2004, drawn by Michael Dysart & Partners, including landscape plans numbered DA L-01 and DA L-02, dated December 2004, drawn by 3rd Dimension Design, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved DA Plans” and the signature of a Council officer, except where amended by the following conditions.

2. Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney water’s Pipes and Structures

A 100mm Sydney Water water main and a 225mm sewer main border the site. These are shown on the attached plans. Any development on site, which may impact on these assets, will be required to comply with Sydney water’s Guidelines on Precautions to be Taken when Building over or adjacent to Sydney Water’s Assets.

3. Compliance Certificate from Sydney Water

A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92. Following application, a “Notice of Requirements” will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.



The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to Council or the accredited certifier prior to the issue of an occupation or subdivision certificate.

4. Privacy screens

The northern edges of the ground and first floor level western (front) balconies are to contain privacy screens comprising of horizontal timber louvres to a maximum height of 1.7m from the floor level. Further, the horizontal timber louvres are to be angled upwards at 45°. This condition has been imposed to protect the visual and acoustic privacy of No 18 Ray Avenue. Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted with the construction certificate application.

5. Deletion of lift shaft and pergola for the roof terrace

No details were submitted with regard to the height and elevation of the proposed lift shaft and pergola structure on the roof terrace. As such, the pergola and lift access to the roof terrace are to be deleted. Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted with the construction certificate application.

6. Deletion of guest bedroom

The guest bedroom on the basement level is to be deleted. This condition has been imposed to ensure there is no bulk excavation within 9m of the Norfolk Island Pine (Tree Reference No 3) in the north-eastern corner of the site. Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted with the construction certificate application.

7. Tree Condition

The proposed rainwater tank and OSD is to be setback a minimum radial distance of 7 metres from the Norfolk Island Pine (Tree Reference No 7) adjacent the southern boundary. This condition has been imposed to ensure the retention and longevity of the Norfolk Island Pine. Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted with the construction certificate application.






Adjacent to the northern boundary of the site (front yard).

8 metres

2 African Olive (Olea europaea ssp. Africana)


8 metres


North-eastern corner of the site (rear yard). 25 metres


Adjacent to the eastern boundary (rear) of the site.

8 metres


Adjacent to the southern boundary of the site (front yard).

12 metres



The Construction Certificate plans must include reference to the retention of the above mentioned trees and identify the trees by Councils reference number and colour or shade them in the colour green for trees to be retained and yellow for trees to be transplanted.






Adjacent to the southern boundary of the site (rear yard).

8 metres

6 Fiddlewood (Citharexylum spinosum)

Adjacent to the southern boundary of the site (rear yard).

10 metres

The Construction Certificate plans must include reference to the removal of the above mentioned trees and identify the trees by Council’s reference number and colour or shade them in the colour red.

10. Establishment of Tree Protection Zones

To limit the potential for damage to trees to be retained, Tree Protection Zones are to be established around all trees to be retained on site. The Tree Protection Zones are to comply with the following requirements;

i) Tree Protection Zone areas





2 metres



2 metres


North-eastern corner of the site (rear yard).

5 metres


Adjacent to the eastern boundary (rear) of the site.

2 metres



3 metres

ii) Tree Protection Zones are to be fenced with a 1.8 metre high chainmesh fence to

minimise disturbance to existing ground conditions. The area within the fence must be mulched, to a depth of 75mm, irrigated and maintained for the duration of the construction works.

iii) A sign must be erected on each side of the fence indicating the existence of a Tree Protection Zone and providing the contact details of the site Arborist.

iv) Existing soil levels must be maintained within Tree Protection Zones. Where excavation is undertaken adjacent such an area, the edge of the excavation must be stabilised, until such time as permanent measures are installed (eg. retaining wall etc) to prevent erosion within the Tree Protection Zone.



v) The storage of materials, stockpiling, siting of works sheds, preparation of mixes, cleaning of tools or equipment is not permitted within Tree Protection Zones.

vi) Site personnel must be made aware of all Tree Protection requirements, measures and any actions that constitute a breach of the Conditions of Development Consent with regard to tree protection on site during their site induction.

In this regard, the pedestrian entrance path is to be redesigned to provide a 2m setback from the trunks of the Cypress Pine (Tree Reference No 1) and the African Olive tree (Tree Reference No 2). Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted with the construction certificate application.

11. Excavation limitations adjacent to trees

To maintain a viable root zone, excava tion work must not be undertaken within the specified radius of the trunks of the following trees. Beyond this radius, excavation is permissible only after root pruning along the perimetre line of the excavation. Root pruning must be undertaken by a qualified Arborist (Australian Qualification Framework Level 3 or equivalent) and must be completed in accordance with Australian Standard 4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees and accepted Arboricultural practices.




North-eastern corner of the site (rear yard).

9 metres



5 metres

If roots with a diametre equal to, or in excess of, 800mm are required to be severed, these roots are to be certified by a qualified Arborist PRIOR to them being cut. The certification must make specific reference to the potential impact such root severance will have on the stability, structural integrity and long term health of the subject tree.

11. Preservation of protected trees

Compliance with the Conditions of Consent relating to trees to be retained and protected on the site must be certified by an Arborist (minimum qualification of Australian Qualification Framework Level 3 or equivalent) and copies of the certification supplied to the Principal Certifying Authority. Inspections are to be scheduled in with accordance with the following stages of works;

a. prior to the commencement of any works, including demolition work on the site

(installation of Tree Protection measures), b. during excavation for and prior to the placement of, any footings, c. prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element, d. after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate

being issued in relation to the building. 12. Stormwater Management Plan including On-Site Detention

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, a Stormwater Management Plan for the development site must be submitted and approved by the Accredited Certifier. This Condition is imposed to ensure site stormwater is disposed in a controlled and sustainable manner.



The Stormwater Management Plan must be in accordance with Council’s Draft Stormwater Drainage Management Development Control Plan and generally in accordance with the drainage plans and documentation prepared by Warren Smith & Partners P/L (Refer to Dwgs DA-H-01 to DA-H-05 Rev A dated 2nd December 2004). Stormwater run-off from the proposed development must drain to Councils kerb in Ray Avenue. New drainage systems must be designed having regard to the need to prevent stormwater from entering buildings in accordance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). An on-site stormwater detention (OSD) system must be provided. The minimum (On) Site Storage Requirements (SSR) and the Peak Site Discharge (PSD) from the site must be designed according to the following storage/discharge relationships taken from Council’s Draft Stormwater Development Control Plan. 2 year ARI P.S.D 29.1 L/s

Min. Volume 5.0 m3

100 Year ARI P.S.D 42.1 L/s

Min. Volume 31.0 m3

(Single) The Stormwater Management Plan must include the following specific requirements: a. Layout plan

A detailed drainage plan at a scale of 1:100 based on drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institute of Engineers Australia publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition or most current version thereof. It must inc lude:

• All pipe layouts, dimensions, grades, lengths and material specification • Location of On-Site Detention unit • All invert levels reduced to Australian Height Datum (AHD) • Location and dimensions of all drainage pits • Point and method of connection to Councils drainage infrastructure • Overland flow paths over impervious areas.

b. On-site Detention (OSD) details:

• Internal dimensions and volume of the proposed detention storage. • Diametre of the outlet to the proposed detention storage basin. • Plans, eleva tions and sections showing the detention storage basin invert level,

centre- line level of outlet, top water level, finished surface level and adjacent structures.

• Details of access and maintenance facilities. • Construction and structural details of all tanks and pits and/or manufacturer’s

specifications for proprietary products. • Details of the emergency overland flow-path (to an approved Council drainage

point) in the event of a blockage to the on-site detention system. • Non-removable fixing details for orifice plates where used.



c. Subsoil Drainage

• Subsoil drainage details, clean out points, discharge point. 13. On-Site Detention requirements

The on-site detention system must be designed having regard to the following requirements: a. Where all of a site cannot be drained through the OSD storage, additional storage

(attenuation) is required in accordance with the following table.

% of site bypassing OSD % increase in required storage 0 0 5 2.5 10 5 15 7.5 20 10

The area bypassing the OSD system must not exceed 20 percent of the total site area and the total outflow from the site (from the OSD tank and from any bypass areas) must not exceed the required Peak Site Discharge (PSD) specified. Areas not draining to the OSD system must be discharged to a Council approved drainage point.

b. Discharge restriction from OSD systems must be by the use of appropriately sized short

length of reduced diametre pipe or non-removable orifice plate (Dyna-bolted with 2-part epoxy). Discharge control pits must be fitted with screens. Screens must be able to be easily removed for routine maintenance. The screen must:

• Protect the outlet from blockage, • Dissipate the kinetic energy of inflows creating static conditions around the

discharge restriction, which help to achieve predictable discharge coefficients, and • Retain litter and debris, which would degrade downstream waterways

c. Below-ground Storage

• Building floor levels must be set above the top water level (TWL) of OSD storages with 150mm freeboard where the OSD storage is located near buildings. This requirement applies to both new and existing buildings.

• Backwater protection device(s) must be provided where there is the potential for backwater from OSD system into areas that are below the OSD system overflow level.

d. Construction, Access and Maintenance

• Bondek must not be used in a composite slab design. • Internal supporting walls must be minimised to ease maintenance. Typically,

internal supports must only be considered for spans greater than 3m. • Tank needs to be checked for normal earth, surcharge, traffic and hydrostatic

loads. Where free draining soils do not exist around the tank, buoyancy must be considered.

• Excavation for the tank must be checked for impact on the zone of influence of adjacent footings and structures.



• A depression within the OSD system is not to be used to provide a silt/sediment trap. Where required a proprietary silt/oil arrestor must be provided (treatment of runoff from vehicle parking areas)

• Access for cleaning (typically flushing) must be provided at the upstream and downstream ends of the tank. Access must also be provided in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point. Generally, grated access points must be provided to enable venting. Where access points need to be sealed, alternative means of ventilation (incl mechanical if required) must be provided.

• The on-site detention must have a minimum access opening size of 600mm x 600mm for tank depths less than 1.5m and 900mm x 900mm opening size for deeper tanks. The access point must be fitted with a hinged, lockable galvanised grate and be placed over the outlet. Step irons must be placed at the access point to enable entry for maintenance and inspection. The designer must consider the provisions of AS 2865-1986 ‘Safe working in a confined Space’ and other work cover requirements.

14. Positive Covenant - Drainage system

A Positive Covenant, pursuant to Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act, must be created on the title of the subject property. The Covenant must provide for the indemnification of Council from any claims or actions and the on-going maintenance of the on-site detention and/or pump and sump system in the development. This includes all ancillary gutters, pipes, drains, walls, kerbs, pits, pumps, grates, tanks, chambers, basins and surfaces designed to temporarily detain stormwater. The wording of the Instrument must be in accordance with Council’s standard format (available from Councils web-site http://www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au) and the Instrument must be registered at the Land Titles Office prior to the Final Building Inspection and issuance of the Certificate of Occupation.




a. Certification that:

• The drainage system has been installed in accordance with the drainage

Conditions of Development Consent and relevant Australian Standards. • That all drainage components, including the on site detention, are structurally

adequate and have been installed in accordance with the relevant Codes and Standards and/or specifications.

• That the on-site detention system will provide the detention storage volume and attenuation in accordance with the submitted calculations.



b. Work-As-Executed (WAE) plans showing: • Pipe and drainage system layout, including all pits, pipe diametres, grades,

materials, invert levels and surface levels. • Details (exact point and method) of connection to Council system • OSD tank dimensions, location and orifice plate/outlet details. • Contours indicating the direction in which water will flow should the OSD storage

overflow.


An erosion and sediment control plan, designed in accordance with the SSROC Soil and Water Management Brochures titled “Do it Right on Site” and the current version of the NSW Landcom publication “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” (The Blue Book), must be prepared to show erosion and sediment control measures which are to be installed. The Plan must be submitted to Council or the accredited certifier for approval before commencement of excava tion or construction work.



18. Sediment removal from vehicle wheels

A vehicle wheel wash, cattle grid, wheel shaker or other appropriate device, must be installed to prevent mud and dirt leaving the site and being deposited on the street.

19. Display of Council’s warning sign for soil and water management

Throughout the demolition, excavation and construction period, Council’s warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed on the most prominent point of the building site, visible both from the street and site. A copy of the sign is available from Council.

20. Stockpiles









23. Site fencing



The following works must be undertaken at the applicant’s expense prior to the final building inspection and the issuance of the Occupation Certificate.

• The kink in the footpath created by the level driveway access ramp must be removed.

This will require regrading the footpath and driveway access ramp such that a linear grade is established between the northern boundary alignment to the southern edge of the driveway ramp. It is estimated that levels on the southern edge of the driveway ramp will be reduced by 100mm (approximate only, adjust to suit on site).

• The footpath fronting the site between the northern boundary alignment and the existing driveway crossing must be reconstructed. The levels of the footpath must be adjusted as specified above. A crossfall on the footpath no greater than 3%, must be provided falling to the kerb.

• Full reconstruction of the existing driveway crossing, kerb laybacks and access ramp to 3.50 metres wide and generally in accordance with Councils Standard Drawing RF2. Levels within the footpath region to be adjusted as specified above. The driveway must provide a transition gradient no greater than 12.5% extending up from the footpath.

An “Application for permission to construct a vehicle and special crossing by private contractor” must be completed and submitted to Council’s Customer Service Centre prior to commencement of construction of a new driveway. For any technical queries regarding alteration to existing footpath levels or alignments, please contact Council’s Works Supervisor.

25. Driveways and associated works - Infrastructure works Bond

To ensure that works on Council property are carried out to Council’s requirements, the developer must lodge a bond to the value of $ 7,400 (Seven thousand, four hundred Dollars). The Bond may be in the form of a bank guarantee and must be lodged prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The Bond will not be released until Council has inspected the site and is satisfied that the works have been carried out to Council’s requirements. Council may use part or the entire Bond to complete the works to its satisfaction if the works do not meet Council’s requirements.





27. Footpath levels









If Council’s infrastructure is damaged during the course of works, Council’s Development Engineer must be notified and necessary repairs must be undertaken within the time stipulated by Council, to Council’s specifications, and at no cost to Council. Works generally must be in accordance with the relevant clauses of the current edition of AUS-SPEC.



If work is not undertaken to the satisfaction of the Development Engineer with regard to time or quality, Council may carry out remedial works and deduct the cost from the Damage Security Deposit.


A security deposit of $ 34,000 (Thirty four thousand Dollars) for the cost of making good any damage to Council property caused as a consequence of the construction work, plus an administration fee of $154.00, must be paid to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The security deposit, which may be in the form of a bank guarantee, has been calculated in accordance with the following schedule.

Estimated cost of work Deposit Works up to $50,000 $2,000 Works in excess of $50,000 & up to $100,000 $4,000 Works in excess of $100,000 $4,000+$200/$10,000

estimated cost>$100,000



Driveways and access ramps must be designed and constructed not to scrape the underside of cars. In all other respects the proposed basement garage, driveway and access ramps must be designed to comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 – “Off-Street car parking”.

34. Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical and hydrogeological reports

The development works are to be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical and Hydrogeological report/s prepared by Douglas Partners P/L (Refer to Project No. 37149 dated July 2004).




Certificate by:




















The Applicant, Owner and Builder, jointly and severally, must ensure that they call their Principal Certifying Authority ("the PCA") to carry out such critical phase building inspections required by the PCA, the PCA Service Agreement and that the PCA is satisfied with the level of compliance achieved before the Builder proceeds to the next phase of construction. Ample notice of required inspections must be given to the PCA in accordance with the PCA Service Agreement. The Applicant, Owner and Builder must comply with the PCA Service Agreement (Service Contract) and any lawful direction given by the Principal Certifying Authority.



Note: It is the responsibility of the PCA to ensure that critical phase building inspections are undertaken in accordance with a PCA Service Agreement and issue to the Applicant, Owner and Builder appropriate Notice under Section 109L of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 ("the Act") where any breach of this consent occurs. Failure of the PCA to issue such notice may result in Council taking action under Section 109V of the Act. Failure of the Applicant, Owner and Builder to comply with a PCA Service Agreement and comply with lawful directions of the PCA under this condition may result in Council issuing fines, notices, orders and commencing legal proceedings. Council will only enter into PCA Agreements with the Owner of the land being developed. Council, if appointed as the PCA, will report to the owner of the land being developed.


The development must be implemented and all BASIX commitments thereafter maintained in accordance with BASIX Certificate No. 13470 other than superseded by any further amended consent and BASIX certificate. Note: Clause 145(1)(a1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 provides: "A certifying authority must not issue a construction certificate for building work unless it is satisfied of the following matters: (a1) that the plans and specifications for the building include such matters as each relevant BASIX certificate requires," Note: Clause 154B(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 provides: "A certifying authority must not issue a final occupation certificate for a BASIX affected building to which this clause applies unless it is satisfied that each of the commitments whose fulfilment it is required to monitor has been fulfilled." Note: For further information please see http://www.basix.nsw.gov.au

43. Wet areas




45. Photographic archival recording of buildings with little or no heritage significance that are to be demolished:

A photographic archival record of the building and landscape elements to be demolished is to be submitted, to the satisfaction of Council’s heritage officer, prior to the commencement of demolition work and prior to the issue of a Construction certificate. The photographic archival recording is to be bound in an A4 format and is to include the following:



• Site plan at a scale of 1:200 (or 1:500) if appropriate of all structures and major landscape elements including their relationship to the street and adjoining properties.

• Postcard sized photographs of:

(i) each eleva tion, (ii) each structure and landscape feature; (iii) internal or external details if nominated in Council’s heritage officer’s assessment

report; and (iv) views to the subject property from each street and laneway or public space.

Each photograph to be mounted, labelled and cross-referenced in accordance with recognised archival recording practice. One original coloured photographic set and a coloured photocopy are to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council s heritage officer prior to the commencement of demolition work and prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The original will be retained by Council and the coloured photocopy will be provided to the Woollahra Local History Library.

46. Water conservation

Water saving showerheads must be fitted to all showers within the development to reduce water consumption and promote energy efficiency.







49. Mechanical ventilation/services

Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate

Detailed mechanical ventilation system plans and specification prepared by a professional engineer, as defined by the Building Code of Australia, must be submitted to Council or an Accredited Certifier with the application for a Construction Certificate certifying compliance with AS/NZS 1668 The Use of Mechanical Ventilation and Air Conditioning in Buildings, Part 1-1998: Fire and smoke control in multi-compartment buildings and Part 2-1991: Mechanical ventilation for acceptable indoor-air quality.

Installation and Commissioning

The mechanical ventilation system must be installed and commissioned in accordance with AS/NZS 1668 The Use of Mechanical Ventilation and Air Conditioning in Buildings, Part 1-1998: Fire and smoke control in multi-compartment buildings and Part 2-1991: Mechanical ventilation for acceptable indoor-air quality under the supervision of a professional engineer.

Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate

Detailed "works as executed" mechanical ventilation system plans and specification prepared by a professional engineer, as defined by the Building Code of Australia, must be submitted to Council or an Accredited Certifier together with certification from the supervising professional engineer that the system as commissioned complies with AS/NZS 1668 The Use of Mechanical Ventilation and Air Conditioning in Buildings, Part 1-1998: Fire and smoke control in multi-compartment buildings and Part 2-1991: Mechanical ventilation for acceptable indoor-air quality.

Note: Part 1 of AS/NZS 1668 only applies to multiple compartment buildings.

50. Rainwater tanks over 10,000 litres

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. The approved plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then see Building & Renovating under the heading Building & Developing, or telephone 13 20 92. The consent authority or a private accredited certifier must ensure that a Quick Check agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the issue of any Construction Certificate.

51. Noise from mechanical ventilation This condition has been applied to maintain a reasonable level of amenity to the area. Prior to the issue of any construction certificate, the developer must submit to the Council or accredited certifier a report from a qualified practicing acoustic engineer (who is a member of either the Australian Acoustical Society or the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants).



The report must certify that the method of treating the mechanical ventilation system will ensure that the noise level, as measured at the boundaries of the subject property, will not exceed the ambient noise level. After completion of the works and prior to the issue of an occupation certificate or occupation, the developer must submit to the principal certifying authority, a report from a qualified practicing acoustic engineer (who is a member of either the Australian Acoustical Society or the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants) certifying that the works have been undertaken to meet the above design criteria.

























Building Act 1989.

Mr D Waghorn Mr N Economou SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER ADVISINGS 1. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact Mr D Waghorn. However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34 Conference, instead of a full Court hearing. This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to agree, in writing, to the Court appointed assessor having the full authority to completely determine the matter at the conference.

2. Sydney Water’s Water Supply Facility

Council may be aware that Sydney Water owns the land adjacent to the proposed development site. This land is presently occupied by a water pumping Station (WPS) and to water supply reservoirs. These facilities are operational 24 hours a day. Adjacent land may be subject to the amenity in packs under certain circumstances (e.g. noise, visual impacts).





Contact Sydney Water, Rockdale (Urban Development Section) regarding the water and sewerage services to this development. • Australia Post has requirements for the positioning and dimensions of mail boxes in




• Telstra has requirements concerning access to services that it provides.





6. Relocation of stormwater drainage

Council is not responsible for the cost of relocating Council’s stormwater drainage pipes through the subject property.

7. Air Conditioning Systems Residential Premises

Under Clause 52 of the Noise Control Regulation 2000 a person must not cause or permit an air conditioner to be used on residential premises in such a manner that it emits noise that can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises (regardless of whether any door or window to that room is open):



(a) before 8am or after 10pm on any Saturday, Sunday or Public Holiday, or (b) before 7am or after 10pm on any other day.

8. Model

If you submitted a model with the application it must be collected from the Council offices within fourteen (14) days of the date of this determination. Models not collected will be disposed of by Council.











ANNEXURES 1. Plans and elevation 2. Details of lift overrun, access stairs and pergola 3. Details of the setbacks of the existing and proposed dwelling from the Norfolk Island Pine




FILE No. DA 158/2005

ADDRESS:

2A Pacific Street, Watsons Bay

PROPOSAL:

Alterations and additions to a dwelling-house, double garage and swimming pool

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Integrated development

APPLICANT:

Mr P Low

OWNER:

Mr G T Low

DATE LODGED:

30/03/2005 (original lodgement) 17 May 2005 (amended pool plan/additional information) 23 May 2005 (revised heritage report) 14 July 2005 (further amended plans/harbour frontage height analysis)

AUTHOR: Mr D Booth LOCALITY PLAN


North

Locality Plan



1. SUMMARY Reason for report The subject site has a southern frontage to Sydney Harbour. The proposal involves significant alterations and additions to an existing dwelling-house. In accordance with Council's delegations, the proposal is referred to the Development Control Committee for determination. Issues • objectors’ concerns • side and rear setback non-compliances • solar access to ground level main private open space areas of adjoining properties non-

compliances • adverse residential amenity impacts • floor space ratio non-compliance • overall height non-compliance • site coverage non-compliance • foreshore building line non-compliance • No of storeys non-compliance Objections Nine Cost of works The stated cost of the proposed work of $700,000 has been checked using the standard criteria specified in the Cordell Building Guide and is considered to be accurate. Recommendation The application is recommended for refusal because it: • is unsatisfactory with regard to planning provisions contained in WLEP 1995 and the Watsons

Bay Heritage Conservation Area DCP • is an inappropriate design for the site and • will have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties and the public domain such that

refusal is justified 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal was initially amended on 17 May 2005 in terms of accurately describing the scope of the proposed alterations and refurbishment to the existing swimming pool. The proposal was further amended on 14 July 2005 in terms of fenestrational changes and the introduction of a timber slat screen into the stairwell window to the northern (Pacific Street) elevation and altering the proposed fully enclosed powder room adjacent to the western side elevation at ground floor level to a porch open on the western side, front and rear elevations in an attempt to address heritage related concerns.



The proposal, as amended, involves the following alterations and additions to an existing dwelling-house, double garage and in-ground swimming pool: • the refurbishment and reduction to the size of the existing in-ground swimming pool located in

the southern section of the site adjacent to the harbour frontage • new tiling to the pool surrounds • a new garage door, fenestrational changes and the reduction to the size of the existing garage

located in the north-eastern corner of the site by increasing the setback of the structure from the street alignment by 1.3-5.5 m

• a timber sliding gate to the driveway opening which is proposed to be widened • re-paving of the existing driveway • new paved front courtyard area adjacent to garage/driveway • the substantial demolition of the existing dwelling-house including the entire roof and rear

elevation and the majority of the front elevation • the rear extension of the dwelling-house, including terraces, by 0.5-5.8 m at lower ground floor

level, 1.6-5.8 m at ground floor level and 4.4-5.1 m at first floor level • the extension to the central section of the western side elevation by 1.5 m to facilitate a porch at

ground floor level and ensuite above at first floor level • the western extension of the rear patio at lower ground floor level by 1 m • the construction of new metal (zinc sheeting) low pitched, hipped roofs to the dwelling-house

and garage • internal alterations to all three existing levels of the dwelling-house • fenestrational changes to all elevations of the dwelling-house • painted cement rendering to the exterior of the dwelling-houses and garage • stainless-steel horizontal balustrades to the rear boundaries at ground and first floor levels 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is located on the southern side of Pacific Street, Watsons Bay. The street frontage is 15.24 m. The site has a southern (harbour) frontage to Watsons Bay of 10.38 m. The western side boundary is 82.97 m in length and the eastern side boundary is 92.15 m in length. Whilst the total site area is 1060 m², the site area excluding the southern section of the site which extends beyond the existing seawall (in accordance with the definition of “site area” under Woollahra LEP 1995 and Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area DCP) has been calculated to be approximately 673 m². The site is currently occupied by a part 2 (street elevation) and part 3 (harbour elevation) storey dwelling-house with a low pitched tiled roof. The adjoining property to the west (No 2 Pacific Street) is occupied by a recently constructed part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling-house with a flat roof. The adjoining property to the east (No 6 Cove Street) is occupied by a part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling-house with a tiled pitched roof. Existing and recently approved development in the locality is characterised by receding, terraced, 3 storey rear elevations presented to Watsons Bay, 2 storey front elevations to Pacific/Cove Street and either flat or low pitched roof forms. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY No relevant history applies to the subject site.



5. REFERRALS 5.1 Comments from external approval bodies The proposal constitutes Integrated Development as it involves excavation within 40 metres of Sydney Harbour, and accordingly was referred to NSW Maritime who advised that if Council is of a mind to grant development consent, a Part 3A Permit under the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948, would not be required provided that certain requirements are met. Such requirements would need to be included as a condition of any development consent.

5.2 Heritage Council's Team Leader Heritage-Development Assessment has provided the following heritage related comments in relation to the amended proposal: Assessment of heritage impact The revised drawings have not addressed the issues raised previously. In order to provide a view corridor along the western side: • the porch and area above the porch should be deleted • the rear corner of the building should be set back from the western boundary • the sliding gate shall be open to allow a view through The extent of glazing on the front façade has been reduced to a satisfactory level. Recommendation Revised drawings addressing the above-mentioned concerns are to be provided. If you do not wish to do this then the concerns above should be conditioned. Should the Committee recommend the approval of the proposal, the conditions recommended by Council's Team Leader-Heritage Assessment should be included as conditions of consent. Council's Team Leader Heritage-Development Assessment provided the following further heritage related comments based on photomontages submitted to Council on 19 August 2005 by the planning consultant acting on behalf of the owners of the adjoining property to the west (No 2 Pacific Street): The aerial photograph indicates the proposed rear addition will result in the building extending further towards the harbour boundary edge than do adjoining buildings. This means that the proposed building would be visually prominent to such an extent that it would be an unacceptable element in the view from the public areas along Watsons Bay. 5.3 Technical Services Council's Team Leader Development Engineer has provided the following engineering related comments in relation to the proposal:



Site Drainage comments There are no objections to Stormwater disposal concept plan prepared by Ian Young & Assoc Engineers Dwg No. 0427-1 & 2 dated Feb 2005. This concept plan is subject to the submission and approval of Stormwater Management Plan for the site prior to release of the Construction Certificate. Details are to be in accordance with Council’s Draft Stormwater Development Control Plan and Local Approvals Policy. This is to ensure that site stormwater is disposed in a controlled and sustainable manner. Flooding & Overland Flow comments Not affected. Impacts on Council Infrastructure comments Council's road and footpath assets are in satisfactory condition (see "Vehicle Access & Accommodation comments" below regarding driveway access) - no specific conditions Traffic comments The expected traffic generation from the proposed development is typical for the zoning of the site. Vehicle Access & Accommodation comments In this location it is essential that vehicle enter and exit the site in a forward direction. There is to be sufficient room on the property to enable a vehicle to turn around on site. The aisle area for turning is restricted and should be desirably 6m with a minimum of 5.8m clearance from the garage. To achieve the compliance with AS 2890.1 the following amendments are required: • the internal clear length of the garage is to be 5.4m as required in AS2890.1. This would

shorten the garage by approx 0.5m and provide sufficient clear manoeuvring area to enable the vehicles to turn to exit the property in a forward direction

• in Pacific St, vehicles are parked opposite the driveway and as such, the left turn into the

property is restricted. To enable vehicles to achieve an easier turn from Pacific St, the layback and driveway should be extended by 1.5m in an easterly direction.

Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and/or Structural comments Not affected. RECOMMENDATION The proposal is considered to be satisfactory, subject to conditions. Should the Committee recommend the approval of the proposal, the conditions recommended by Council's Team Leader Development Engineer should be included as conditions of consent.



5.4 Landscaping/Trees Management Council's Trees Officer has provided the following landscape related comments in relation to the proposal: Several over–mature camphor laurels at the property frontage proposed for removal are to be compensated by the transplanting of palms. A large Norfolk Island Pine located within the neighbouring property (No 2 Pacific St) could be adversely impacted by the proposed paving adjacent to the western side boundary. RECOMMENDATION The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of tree preservation and landscaping, subject to conditions. Should the Committee recommend the approval of the proposal, the conditions recommended by Council's Trees Officer should be included as conditions of consent. 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: 6. STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION 6.1 SEPPs SEPP No. 55-Remediation of Land Under clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. An assessment of the initial site evaluation provided by the applicant indicates the land does not require further consideration under clause 7 (1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. SEPP No. 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries

The site has a Sydney Harbour frontage and, accordingly, the matters for consideration listed under Clause 7 of this instrument apply. The relevant matters for consideration involve the assessment of any impact upon the harbour, foreshore area, marine ecology, heritage items or other land uses. In this regard, concern is raised that the proposed extension of the existing dwelling-house by as much as 5.8 m towards Watsons Bay will result in the building extending substantially beyond the rear alignment of adjoining development (by approximately 4.0-14.2m). Further, the rear elevation of the proposed extension is not of a recessive, terraced design, and as such is incongruous with the design of the rear sections of surrounding existing and approved development which are predominantly of such a character. Due to the above, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to the matters for consideration listed under Clause 7 of the instrument due to an envisaged significant adverse visual impact upon Watsons Bay and the adjacent foreshore areas.



6.2 REPs SREP 23–Sydney and Middle Harbours The provisions of Clause 18 and the objectives stated under Clause 2 of this instrument require Council to consider the visual impact that a deve lopment proposal may have upon Sydney Harbour. As discussed previously under “SEPP No. 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries”, the proposed rear extension to the existing dwelling-house is considered to extend excessively beyond adjoining development and is not of a recessive, terraced design. As such, the proposal would have a significant adverse visual impact upon Watsons Bay and the adjacent foreshore areas.

Clause 11 of the instrument requires Council to refer the component of the proposal extending beyond the mean mark watermark, to the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee. This aspect of the proposal, involving the re-tiling of the southern section of the pool surround and the harbour frontage stair landing, was referred to the Committee on 2 May 2005. In response, the Committee advised as follows:

The Committee has no in-principle objection to the proposed development subject to:

a) further landscaping being considered seaward of the proposed dwelling to help soften the visual impact of the proposed development when viewed from Watsons Bay and

b) consideration being given to reducing the extent of glazing on the seaward elevation of the building

The proposal does not increase the extent of paving or reduce landscaping to the component of the subject development extending beyond the mean high watermark. The second part of the recommendation does not relate to the aspect of the proposal extending beyond the mean high watermark. Therefore, the above-mentioned recommendations made by the Committee are not relevant to the subject proposal. 7. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995 7.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone The proposal is permissible in the Residential 2(a) zone. However, it is considered to be inconsistent with specific aims and objectives of the LEP and the Residential 2(a) zone: Objective 2 (k) (iii) of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires the design and siting of new development to enhance the attributes of the site and improve the quality of the public environment. Objective 2, (h) (ii) of Woollahra LEP 1995 aims to encourage development which, through its form, scale, materials and design is compatible with the natural and environmentally acceptable built landform of the foreshore areas as viewed from the water. Objective (a) of the Residential 2 (a) zone aims to maintain the amenity and existing characteristics of areas predominantly characterised by dwelling-houses.



Concern is raised that the proposed extension of the existing dwelling-house by as much as 5.8 m towards Watsons Bay will result in the building extending substantially beyond the rear alignment of adjoining development (by approximately 4.0-14.2m). Further, the rear elevation of the proposed extension is not of a recessive, terraced design and as such is incongruous with the design of the rear sections of surrounding existing and approved development which are predominantly of this character. Due to the above, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to the above-mentioned objectives due to the significant adverse visual impact upon Watsons Bay and the heritage significance of the locality. Concern is also raised that the proposed extensions to the rear and western side elevations and the proposed driveway gate will prevent public views of Watsons Bay from being obtained from Pacific Street via the western setback corridor. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the above-mentioned objectives. 7.2 Statutory compliance table

Site Area (673m²) Existing Proposed

alterations and additions

Control Complies

Overall Height (m) 11 9.8 8.2 NO

FSBL (m) <12 <12 12 NO

7.3 Height The existing dwelling-house involves a maximum height of 11 m above the existing ground level (immediately below the basement level of the existing dwelling-house). The proposed alterations and additions involve a maximum height of 9.8 m which exceeds Council's 8.2 m height standard. The non-compliances relate to the upper one-third of the proposed alterations and additions at first floor level and the new roof to the dwelling-house. The applicant has submitted an objection to the height standard, under the provisions of SEPP No 1-Development Standards, which is summarised as follows: • the proposed alterations and additions involve a lesser overall height than the existing

dwelling-house and as such, there will be no increase to the obstruction of public or private views

• the proposed alterations and additions are consistent with the height and scale of adjoining development (2 storeys presented to Pacific Street and 3 storeys presented to Watsons Bay)

• the proposed alterations and additions will maintain the privacy of adjoining properties • adequate solar access will be maintained to adjoining properties Based on these circumstances, the applicant is of the opinion that strict adherence to the height standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. In applying the principles set out in the Hooker case, the proposed SEPP 1 objection has been considered by reference to the following tests: 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard?



3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular, does the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act?

4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

5. Is the objection well founded? 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? The planning control in question is the height standard set by Clause 12 of the Woollahra LEP. As such any variation of this standard requires a SEPP 1 objection, as has been prepared in this case. 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? The objectives of Council's height standard are as follows: (a) to minimise impact of new development on existing views of Sydney Harbour, ridgelines,

public and private open spaces and views of the Sydney City skyline (b) to provide compatibility with the adjoining residential neighbourhood (c) to safeguard visual privacy of interior and exterior living areas of neighbouring dwellings (d) to minimise detrimental impacts on existing sunlight access to interior living rooms and

exterior open space areas and minimise overshadowing (e) to maintain the amenity of the public domain by preserving public views of the harbour and

surrounding areas and the special qualities of the streetscapes 3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and

in particular, does the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act?

The proposed extension of the rear (southern) section of the first floor level of the existing dwelling house by approximately 5 m towards Watsons Bay substantially increases the encroachment beyond the rear alignment of the upper level of the adjoining property to the east (No 6 Cove Street) to approximately 14.2 m thereby obstructing views from the upper level of the adjoining property towards the south-west. The non-compliant component of the first floor level will also partially obstruct views of Marine Parade from the upper level of the adjoining property to the west (No 2 Pacific Street) due to the rear alignment of the proposed rear extension of the first floor level increasing the protrusion beyond the alignment of the rear elevation of the first floor level of the adjoining property to approximately 13.5 m. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with objective (a).



The proposed alterations and additions will maintain the presentation of 3 storeys to Watsons Bay. Whilst this is consistent with the existing/approved height of surrounding development, the proposed rear extension of the first floor level of the existing dwelling-house by as much as 5.1 m towards Watsons Bay will result in the increase to the extent of the first floor level extending beyond the rear alignment of upper levels of the adjoining development to approximately 13.5-14.2m. Further, the rear elevation of the proposed extension is not of a recessive, terraced design and as such is incongruous with the design of the rear sections of surrounding existing and approved development. As such, the rear section of the non-compliant first floor level extension will have an adverse visual impact upon Watsons Bay, and as such is considered to be inconsistent with objectives (b) and (e). The portion of the proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling-house which exceed Council's 8.2 m height standard will not result in any significant loss of privacy to adjoining properties. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be consistent with objective (c). A study of the shadow diagrams submitted with the development application reveal that the non-complying component of the proposed alterations and additions would cause additional overshadowing to the southern (harbour front) section of the adjoining property to the east (No 6 Cove Street) during winter midday periods and the southern sections of the adjoining properties to the east (Nos 4 and 6 Cove Street) during winter afternoon periods. Significantly, solar access is reduced to the main ground level private open space areas of Nos 4 and 6 Cove Street to below the minimum required by the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area DCP (35m² for 2 hours). Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with objective (d). It is considered that allowing a variation to the height standard, in this instance, would result in inconsistencies with the above-mentioned objectives. 4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the

case? The non-complying component of the proposed alterations and additions do not achieve consistency with the majority of the objectives of Council's height standard and therefore the SEPP No 1 objection to the standard is not supported. It is recommended that Council resolve to refuse to vary the standard in this instance as compliance is considered to be reasonable and necessary. 5. Is the objection well founded? The objection advanced by the applicant that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary is not well founded as the non-compliance would have detrimental impacts on the amenity of the public domain and adjoining properties and therefore would be inconsistent with the aims and objectives set out in Clause 3 of SEPP 1. 7.4 FSBL The subject site is affected by Council's 12 m foreshore building line as measured from the mean high water mark of Watsons Bay. The proposed extension to the rear patio at lower ground floor level, refurbishment of the existing swimming pool, re-tiling of the pool surrounds, the reduction to the size of the existing swimming pool, series of planters and new external stairs encroach beyond the 12 m foreshore building line.



The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in relation to the non-compliance. The SEPP No. 1 objection forwarded by the applicant is summarised as follows: • the non-complying works are above an existing seawall and will not affect the natural shoreline

below the seawall • the subject site is neither at a point or head of a bay. The works involve a minor adjustment to

the levels between the house and the foreshore. The works are consistent with the form and materials of surrounding development and will not have any significant impact on the visual amenity of the foreshore or harbour

• the subject works will not adversely affect views from or solar access to adjoining properties • the existing main building does not encroach beyond the 12 m foreshore building line • the subject works will not affect the rock platform or any aspect of the intertidal ecology Based on these circumstances, the applicant is of the opinion that strict adherence to the 12 m foreshore building line standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. In applying the principles set out in the Hooker case, the SEPP 1 objection has been considered by reference to the following tests: 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? 3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in



case? 5. Is the objection well founded? 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? The planning control in question is the foreshore building line standard set by Clause 22 of the Woollahra LEP. As such, any variation of this standard requires a SEPP 1 objection, as has been prepared in this case. 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? The objectives of the foreshore building line standard listed under Clause 22AA of Woollahra LEP 1995 are: • retain Sydney Harbour’s natural shorelines; • provide larger foreshore setbacks at the points and heads of bays in recognition of their visual

prominence; • protect significant areas of vegetation and, where appropriate, provide areas for future

planting which will not detrimentally impact on views of the harbour and its natural foreshore; • protect the amenity of adjoining lands in relation to reasonable access to views and sunlight; • preserve the rights of property owners to maintain an encroachment on the foreshore building

line by an existing main building; and



• protect rock platforms and the intertidal ecology. 3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in


It is considered that allowing a variation to the foreshore building line standard, in this instance, would enable the objectives of this standard to be upheld. Having regard to the objectives, it is considered that: • the areas of non-compliance do not encroach upon the natural foreshore area of Sydney Harbour • the subject site is not located at a point or head of Watsons Bay • the proposed planters will facilitate an increase to the landscaping that is currently visible from

Watsons Bay • the areas of non-compliance will not adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties in

terms of views and solar access • the areas of non-compliance do not conflict with the rights of property owners to maintain an

encroachment on foreshore building line by an existing main building. • the areas of non-compliance do not threaten any rock platforms or the intertidal ecology The proposed works beyond the 12 m foreshore building line will not have any adverse visual impact upon Sydney Harbour or the adjacent foreshore area. 4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the

case? The proposal would achieve consistency with the objectives of Council's foreshore building line standard and therefore the SEPP No 1 objection to the standard is supported. It is recommended that Council resolve to vary the standard in this instance as full compliance is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary. 5. Is the objection well founded? The SEPP 1 objection in relation to the non-compliances with the foreshore building line standard is considered to be well founded as it has established that the application of the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. As such, it is considered that granting development consent would be consistent with the aims and objectives set out in Clause 3 of SEPP No. 1. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council support the applicant’s foreshore building line SEPP 1 objection. 7.7 Other special clauses/development standards Clause 18 Excavation:



Clause 18 of WLEP 1995 requires Council to consider the impact of excavation, associated with a development proposal, upon the local environment. Excavation associated with the proposed alterations and additions is limited to the extension of the rear section of the lower ground floor level and the front patio and courtyard areas involving excavation to a depth of approximately 300 mm. Council’s Trees Officer has assessed the development application and considers it to be satisfactory in terms of the impact of excavation upon an existing significant tree located in the front yard area of the adjoining property to the west, subject to conditions requiring hand excavation and porous paving within its rootzone. Council’s Team Leader-Development Engineer has raised no geotechnical/hydrogeological concerns in relation to the proposed excavation. Subject to the imposition of the conditions recommended by Council's Trees Officer, the extent of excavation is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Clause 18 of WLEP 1995. Clause 19 HFSPA

Clause 19 of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires Council to take into consideration the visual impact of a development upon Sydney Harbour and adjoining foreshore areas. The development will be highly visible from Watsons Bay and adjoining foreshore areas. As discussed previously, the proposed extension to the southern section of the dwelling-house is considered to be incongruous with the recessive terraced design and rear alignment of adjoining development to the detriment of the visual amenity of Watsons Bay and the adjacent foreshore areas.

Clause 25 Water, wastewater and stormwater The provisions of Clause 25 require the consideration of whether adequate water and sewerage services are available to the land that is proposed to be developed. Further, Council must ensure that adequate provision has been made for the disposal of stormwater. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard, subject to conditions recommended by Council’s Team Leader Development Engineer. Clause 28 Heritage conservation areas The provisions of Clause 28 require Council to consider the impact of the proposal upon the heritage significance of a heritage conservation area. The subject site is located within the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area. Council's Team Leader Heritage-Development Assessment has raised concerns that the proposal, as amended, has not addressed Council's request to provide a view corridor adjacent to the western side boundary in order to facilitate public views from Pacific Street and that the protrusion of the proposed rear addition beyond the rear alignment of adjoining development would have adverse visual impact upon public vantage points within Watsons Bay (in particular Marine Parade) Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to the provisions of Clause 28 of Woollahra LEP 1995.



Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils The proposed works do not require the need for an assessment of acid sulfate soils under clause 25D of Woollahra LEP 1995. 8. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Act requires that in determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration any draft environmental planning instrument "EPI" that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority. Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 ("the proposed SEPP") was publicly exhibited from 10 May to 18 June 2004. In considering how much weight should be placed upon an exhibited draft environmental planning instrument under section 79C of the Act one must assess how likely it is that the draft EPI will commence, in what form it is likely to commence and consider what effect the instrument would have if applied. The proposed SEPP received significant criticism from the development industry in submissions. Officers of DIPNR have advised that it will not be made in the form it was exhibited and that it will now be included as part of the new Integrated LEP Template. This template will be placed on public exhibition in late April/May 2005. Therefore, it is not known in what form the draft SEPP will be made. Clause 14 of the draft SEPP provides Saving and Transitional provisions. These provisions provide that any application submitted prior to the commencement of the proposed SEPP and within 28 days after the commencement of the proposed SEPP is to be determined in accordance with the former SEPP No.1 as if the former SEPP No.1 had not been repealed by the proposed SEPP. It is likely that the draft SEPP, if made, will contain transitional provisions. The draft SEPP would, if it commenced in its exhibited form, require a higher threshold test in order for an objection against a development standard to be sustained. However, the draft policy should not be given determining weight in the assessment of development applications for the following reasons: 1. The draft SEPP will not be made in the form it was exhibited 2. It is not known whether the threshold tests contained in the exhibited SEPP will be retained 3. It is likely that, if made, the draft SEPP will contain savings and transitional provisions. This means that objections submitted under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 must be assessed under the current policy. Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2004 This draft planning instrument is aimed at repealing several existing planning instruments including SREP 23 Sydney and Middle Harbours. The draft SREP requires the consideration of similar issues as SREP 23 such as the visual impact of development upon Sydney Harbour and adjacent foreshore areas.



The development will be highly visible from Watsons Bay and adjoining foreshore areas. As discussed previously, the proposed extension to the southern section of the dwelling-house is considered to be incongruous with the recessive terraced design and rear alignment of adjoining development to the detriment of the visual amenity of Watsons Bay and the adjacent foreshore areas.

9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 9.1 Compliance table Watsons Bay Development Control Plan

Site Area (673 m²) Existing Proposed Control Complies

Private open space dwelling house (m²) > 35 m² > 35 m²

Minimum 35m² and minimum

dimension 3m; Principal area min

16m² min dimension 4m

YES


(336.5m²) 0.676:1

(455.2 m²) 0.55:1

(370.15 m²) NO

Boundary Setbacks (Dwelling-house) Front (street) (north) Rear (waterfront) (south) Side (west) Side (east)

17-22

12.4-21.4 0.8-3.0 0-1.8

16.8-26.1 11.9-15.5 0.1-3.0 0.5-1.8

10.9

13.9-27.1 1.2 1.2

YES NO

NO (Partial) NO (Partial)

Boundary Setbacks (Garage/swimming pool) Front (street) (north) Side (west) Side (east)

2.5 0-6.0 0-0.4

3.5-7.1 0-6.0 0-1.1

1.5 1.5 1.5

YES NO (Partial)

NO

Siting of swimming pool Within

waterfront yard area

Within waterfront yard

area

Within waterfront yard area YES

Sunlight to private open space of adjacent properties > 35m²-2 hours <35m²-2 hours

Minimum 2 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June

NO

Floor to ceiling heights (m) Unknown 2.7-3.5 Habitable rooms

minimum 2.7 YES

Site coverage (paved areas plus dwelling-house and garage footprint)

87% (585.7m²)

80.4% (541.3m²)

75% (504.75m²)

NO

Soft Landscaping 87.3m² 131.7m² 26.25m² ) YES

Deep soil landscape area 87.3m² 131.7m² 10.5² YES

Landscaping to site frontage width 74.8% 66.35 50% YES

Number of storeys 2/3 2/3 2 NO

Part 3 Precinct specific controls The subject site is located within the Pacific Street Waterfront precinct. Topography and vegetation The proposal complies with the performance criteria stipulated under J.1.



Townscape The proposal complies with the performance criteria stipulated under J.2. The waterfront The proposal complies with the performance criteria stipulated under J.3. Views and vistas The proposal complies with the performance criterion stipulated under J.4. Significant buildings The proposal complies with the performance criteria stipulated under J.5. Landscaping and private open space The proposal involves a site coverage (dwelling-house, garage and paved areas) of 80.4% of the site area which exceeds the maximum requirement of 75% stipulated by C27 under J.7. However, considering that the proposal complies with the private open space, soft landscaping and deep soil landscape area requirements stipulated under Part 4.7 Landscaping and private open space, no objection is raised relation to this area of the non-compliance. Carparking The proposal complies with the performance criteria stipulated under J.9. Stormwater management The proposal complies with the performance criteria stipulated under J.10. Part 4 General development controls Topography and vegetation Control C3 states that new development is not to be overly assertive in form, scale or character such that it competes with or dominates its immediate context. Concern is raised that the proposed extension of the existing dwelling-house by as much as 5.8 m towards Watsons Bay will result in the building extending substantially beyond the rear alignment of adjoining development (by approximately 4.0-14.2m). Further, the rear elevation of the proposed extension is not of a recessive, terraced design, and as such is incongruous with the design of the rear sections of surrounding existing and approved development which are predominantly of such a character, to the detriment of the visual amenity of Watsons Bay and adjacent foreshore areas and the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area. Townscape Control C7 requires new development to be no greater than 2 storeys, with scale and massing to reflect that of significant items in the vicinity.



The nearest significant items are two-storey Victorian weatherboard houses located at 14-14a and 16 Pacific Street which are 7-8 properties removed to the west. These significant items are separated from the subject site by a series of existing/approved dwelling-houses that present 2 storeys to the street and 3 storeys to Watsons Bay. Whilst the proposed alterations and additions are considered to be satisfactory in terms of number of storeys, concern is raised that the proposed extension of the existing dwelling-house by as much as 5.8 m towards Watsons Bay will result in the building extending substantially beyond the rear alignment of adjoining development (by approximately 4.0-14.2m). Further, the rear elevation of the proposed extension is not of a recessive, terraced design and as such is incongruous with the design of the rear sections of surrounding existing and approved development which are predominantly of this character. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to the above-mentioned control. The waterfront Objective 5 requires the protection of the scenic quality of the natural landscape and built environment when viewed from Sydney Harbour. As discussed previously, concern is raised that the proposed extension of the existing dwelling-house by as much as 5.8 m towards Watsons Bay will result in the building extending substantially beyond the rear alignment of adjoining development (by approximately 4.0-14.2m). Further, the rear elevation of the proposed extension is not of a recessive, terraced design and as such is incongruous with the design of the rear sections of surrounding existing and approved development which are predominantly of this character. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to the above-mentioned objective due to an envisaged significant adverse visual impact upon Watsons Bay and adjacent foreshore areas and the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area. Views and vistas Objectives 2 and 3 and Control C7 require the creation/reinstatement of views/vistas from the public domain. Due to the failure to provide a view corridor adjacent to the western side boundary of the site so as to provide public views from Pacific Street, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to the above-mentioned objectives. Objective 6 encourages view sharing as a means of ensuring equitable access to views from dwellings. Control C2 states that the development is to be designed and located to minimise impact on existing views and vistas. The owners of the adjoining property to the west (No 2 Pacific St) have objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of views of Marine Parade as a result of the proposed rear extension to the existing building. Whilst the owners of the adjoining property to the east (No 6 Cove Street) have not objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of views, it is anticipated tha t the proposed rear extension will partially obstruct views towards the south-west from this property. The LEC in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd V Warringah Council has adopted a four-step assessment of view affectation. The steps are as follows:



• the assessment of the views affected • consideration from what part of the property the views are obtained • the extent of the impact and • the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact This four-step assessment has been adopted for No 2 Pacific St and No 6 Cove Street. No 2 Pacific St The assessment of the views affected Views affected from this property are of Marine Parade. Consideration from what part of the property the views are obtained The affected views are obtained from windows to the southern elevation and rear terraces. The extent of the impact The proposed rear extension to the existing dwelling house will result in a minor loss of views from this property. The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact Considering that the proposed rear extension extends substantially beyond the rear alignment of adjoining development and that the proposed alterations and additions substantially exceed Council's maximum floor space ratio control and height standard, the extent of view loss is considered to be unreasonable despite its minor nature. No 6 Cove St The assessment of the views affected Whilst an inspection was not undertaken of this property due the absence of any objection, it has been calculated that views affected from this property are of Sydney Harbour, foreshore areas and possibly the city skyline. Consideration from what part of the property the views are obtained The affected views are obtained from windows to the southern elevation and rear terraces. The extent of the impact The proposed rear extension to the existing dwelling house will result in a minor loss of views from this property. The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact Considering that the proposed rear extension extends substant ially beyond the rear alignment of adjoining development and that the proposed alterations and additions substantially exceed Council's maximum floor space ratio control and height standard, the extent of view loss is considered to be unreasonable despite its minor nature.



Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the above-mentioned provisions. Built form The proposed alterations and additions increase the floor space ratio of the existing development from 0.5:1 to 0.676:1 which exceeds Council's maximum of 0.55:1 specified by Control C1 (Floor Space Ratio) by approximately 85.05m². Concern is raised that the proposed extension of the existing dwelling-house by as much as 5.8 m towards Watsons Bay will result in the building extending substantially beyond the rear alignment of adjoining development (by approximately 4.0-14.2m). Further, the rear elevation of the proposed extension is not of a recessive, terraced design and as such is incongruous with the design of the rear sections of surrounding existing and approved development which are predominantly of this character. Due to the above, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to the above-mentioned objectives due to an envisaged significant adverse visual impact upon Watsons Bay and the heritage significance of the locality. Further, the rear extension will adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing, adverse visual impact, loss of views and loss of privacy. Concern is also raised that the proposed alterations and additions do not provide a view corridor adjacent to the western side boundary. Given the adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed southern and western extensions to the existing dwelling-house, the non-compliance with Council's floor space ratio control is not supported in this instance. Control C2 (Siting and Alignment) requires building alignments at the rear to be similar to the rear alignment of the adjoining buildings and the prevailing deve lopment pattern. The proposed southern extension to the existing dwelling-house reduces the rear setback from 12.4-21.4 m to 11.9-15.5 m which is substantially less than the average rear alignment of the adjoining dwelling-houses of 13.9-27.1 m. As discussed previously, concern is raised that the proposed extension of the existing dwelling-house by as much as 5.8 m towards Watsons Bay will result in the building extending substantially beyond the rear alignment of adjoining development (by approximately 4.0-14.2m). Further, the rear elevation of the proposed extension is not of a recessive, terraced design and as such is incongruous with the design of the rear sections of surrounding existing and approved development which are predominantly of this character. Due to the above, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to the above-mentioned objectives due to an envisaged significant adverse visual impact upon Watsons Bay and the heritage significance of the locality. Further, the rear extension will adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing, adverse visual impact, loss of views and loss of privacy. Given the adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed southern and western extensions to the existing dwelling-house, the non-compliance with Council's rear setback requirement is not supported in this instance.



Control C5 (Siting and Alignment) requires a minimum of 2 hours of solar access between 9 am and 3 pm on June 21 to a minimum area of 35 m² of the main ground level private open space area of adjacent properties. The proposed rear extension would reduce the solar access to the rear private open space areas of Nos 4 and 6 Cove Street to less than 35 m². Due to the proposed southern extension extending excessively beyond that of adjoining development and the excessive floor space ratio and height of the proposal, this area of non-compliance is not supported. Control C3 (Building Height) requires additions to facilitate the sharing of views with the surrounding buildings and from public roads. As discussed previously, the proposed extension of the rear (southern) section of the existing dwelling-house will partially obstruct views from the adjoining dwelling-houses at No 2 Pacific Street and No 6 Cove Street. Further, the proposed additions fail to facilitate a view corridor adjacent to the western boundary. Alterations and additions to non-contributory buildings Objective 4 requires additions to be located such that they allow for the sharing of views and preserve privacy and reasonable sunlight access for neighbouring properties. The proposed rear extension to the existing dwelling-house will result in the loss of views, loss of privacy and overshadowing to adjoining properties. Accordingly, the proposed alterations and additions are unsatisfactory with regard to the above-mentioned objective. Control C2 requires minimum side boundary setbacks of 1.5 m. The proposed alterations and additions partially encroach within the required setback zones. In relation to the western side boundary, the proposed extension to the western pool surround is setback 0.1-0.2 m, the proposed rear patio at lower ground floor level involves a setback of 0.1-1.0 m and the rear extension extends to within 1.2 m at ground floor level and 1.0 m at first floor level. The areas of non-compliance involving the south-western corners at ground and first floor levels are considered to be unsatisfactory due to an adverse visual and loss of privacy impacts upon the adjoining property to the west (No 2 Pacific Street). Further, the potential view corridor adjacent to the western side boundary is partially obstructed by the non-compliance involving the south-western corners at ground at first floor levels. Accordingly, these areas of non-compliance are not supported. In relation to the eastern side boundary, the proposed front extension extends to within 1 m, the proposed rear patio to within 500 mm and the re-tiling of the eastern pool surround maintains the current zero setback. No objection is raised in relation to these areas of non-compliance on the basis that a view corridor adjacent to the eastern side boundary is not possible due to the existing garage and the amenity of the adjoining property to the east (No 6 Cove Street) will not be adversely affected to any significant extent. Landscaping and private open space The proposal is considered satisfactory with the provisions of Section 4.7 of the DCP. Carparking and access The proposal is considered satis factory with the provisions of Section 4.9 of the DCP.



Stormwater management The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with the provisions of Section 4.11 of the DCP. Design for energy efficiency The proposal complies with the provisions of Section 4.12 of the DCP. Acoustic and visual privacy Objective 2 and Controls C10 and C11 require the maintenance of acoustic and visual privacy to adjoining properties. Due to the proposed rear extension extending substantially beyond the rear alignment of adjoining properties, the proposed rear windows and balconies at ground and first floor levels would facilitate an unreasonable degree of overlooking to the rear private open space areas of adjoining properties. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to the above-mentioned provisions. Access and mobility The proposal complies with the provisions of the Section 4.14 of the DCP. 9.2 Other DCPs, codes and policies DCP for SREP No. 23 The proposal is considered to be satisfactory, with regard to the matters for consideration stipulat the ed under this policy in relation to the design and siting of development guidelines. Woollahra Access DCP The provisions of Council's Access DCP require the provision of adequate access to the development by all people in the community including people with disabilities. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of this policy. DCP for off-street car parking provision and servicing facilities The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of this policy. 10. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Clause 92 of the EPA Regulation 2000 requires that Council take into consideration Australian Standard AS 2601-1991: The demolition of structures, as in force at 1 July 1993. In the event that the proposal is granted development consent, Council's standard condition addressing this issue would need to be included. 11. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL All likely impacts of the proposed development have been assessed elsewhere within this report.



12. SUBMISSIONS The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notifications DCP. In response, 9 objections have been received from: 1. M. Rolfe-Sydney Harbour and Foreshores Committee-Level 2, 362 Kent Street, Sydney

2000. 2. J. Baird and G. Debono-15 Cove Street, Watsons Bay 3. L. Dayan-11 Cove Street, Watsons Bay 4. J. and J. Neill-5 Cove Street, Watsons Bay 5. H. and M. Matsoukas-3 Cove Street, Watsons Bay 6. S. Robinson-83 Fletcher Street, Tamarama 2026 on behalf of A. and S Vidor-2 Pacific

Street, Watsons Bay 7. M. Deverell-3 Pacific Street, Watsons Bay 8. J. Keegan-7 Cove Street, Watsons Bay 9. C. Roth-13 Cove Street, Watsons Bay The above objectors have raised the following concerns: • inadequate rear setback • adverse visual impact • excessive height • excessive floor space ratio • excessive bulk and scale • inadequate side boundary setbacks • loss of privacy • loss of views • unsatisfactory design These concerns have been addressed previously. 13. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal is unacceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C. 14. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent to Development Application No. 158/2005 for alterations and additions to a dwelling-house, double garage and swimming pool on land at 2A Pacific Street, Watsons Bay, for the following reasons: 1. Due to the excessive height, floor space ratio and inadequate rear setback, the proposal will

have an adverse visual impact upon Watsons Bay and Marine Parade and adversely impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of loss of views, overshadowing, loss of privacy and excessive bulk and scale. In this regard, the proposal is unsatisfactory with the following planning provisions:

• Clause 7 of SEPP No 56–Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries • Clauses 2 and 18 of SREP 23-Sydney and Middle Harbours • Objectives 2 (k) (iii) and (h) (ii) of Woollahra LEP 1995



• Objective (a) of the Residential 2 (a) zone under Woollahra LEP 1995 • Clause 12 of Woollahra LEP 1995 • All objectives under 12 AA of Woollahra LEP 1995 • Clause 19 of Woollahra LEP 1995 • Clause 28 of Woollahra LEP 1995 • Draft SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2004 • Control C3 of the of the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area DCP Topography

and Vegetation general development controls • Control C7 of the of the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area DCP Townscape

general development controls • Objective O5 of the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area DCP The Waterfront

general development controls • Objective O6 of the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area DCP Views and vistas

general development controls • Controls C1-Floor Space Ratio, C2 and C5-Siting and Alignment and C3-Building

Height of the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area DCP Built Form general development controls

• Objective O4 of the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area DCP Alterations and Additions to Non-contributory Buildings general development controls

• Objective O2 and Controls C10 and C11 of the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area DCP Acoustic and visual privacy general development controls

2. Due to the inadequate setback from the western side boundary and insufficient transparency to

the driveway gate, the proposal will not facilitate public views from Pacific Street and will have adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining property to the west (No 2 Pacific Street) in terms of visual impact and loss of privacy. In this regard, the proposal is unsatisfactory with the following planning provisions:

• Objective 2 (k) (iii) of Woollahra LEP 1995 • Objective (a) of the Residential 2 (a) zone under Woollahra LEP 1995 • Clause 28 of Woollahra LEP 1995 • Objectives O2 and O3 and Control C7 of the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation Area

DCP Views and vistas general development controls • Objective O2 and Controls C10 and C11 of the Watsons Bay Heritage Conservation

Area DCP Acoustic and visual privacy general development controls Mr D Booth Mr N Economou SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER



ADVISINGS 1. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact D Booth. However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34 Conference, instead of a full Court hearing. This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to agree, in writing, to the Court appointed assessor having the full authority to completely determine the matter at the conference.

ANNEXURE 1. Plans and elevations




FILE No. DA 263/2005/1

ADDRESS:

144 Old South Head Road, Bellevue Hill

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a new residential flat building consisting of 3 x 2 bedroom units with basement level car parking

ZONING:

Residential 2(b)

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Integrated Development

APPLICANT:

Cracknell & Lonergan Architects

OWNER:

Mr T M & Mrs S G Yates

DATE LODGED:

12/05/2005

AUTHOR: Mr D Waghorn LOCALITY PLAN


North

Locality Plan



1. SUMMARY Reason for report Council’s delegations require all development applications for new residential flat buildings to be determined by the Development Control Committee. Issues • site frontage non-compliance • FSR non-compliance • building footprint non-compliance • setback non-compliances • setback of excavation non-compliance • deep soil landscaped area non-compliance • car parking excavation non-compliance • on-site car parking spaces non-compliance • objector’s concerns Objections Two (2) Cost of works The stated cost of the proposed work of $750,000 has been checked using the standard criteria specified in the Cordell Building Guide and is considered to be accurate. Recommendation The application is recommended for refusal because it: 1. does not comply with the relevant planning standards and controls contained in WLEP 1995

and RDCP 2003; 2. is an inappropriate design for the site; and 3. will have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties and the locality such that

refusal is justified. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal involves the following:- • the demolition of the existing dwelling-house • the erection of a new four (4) storey residential flat building containing three (3) x two (2)

bedroom units with a partially excavated basement level facilitating car parking for three (3) resident vehicles and two (2) visitor car spaces

• landscaping works



3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is located on the northern side of Old South Head Road, Bellevue Hill. The site has a street frontage of 14.89m in length, an eastern (side) boundary 30.97m in length; a western (side) boundary 31.285m in length and a northern (rear) boundary 3.98m in length. The site has an area of 293m². The site slopes downwards from the northern (rear) boundary to the southern (front) boundary; a fall of approximately 3.6m. Currently occupying the site is a two storey dwelling-house. One property removed to the west (No 136 Old South Head Road) is a five (5) storey residential flat building. Adjoining the site to the north (No 142 Old South Head Road) is a nine (9) storey residential flat building which is accessed via a driveway which abuts the western boundary of the subject development site. Adjoining the site to the east (No 146 Old South Head Road) is a single storey dwelling-house. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY None relevant. 5. REFERRALS 5.1 Comments from external approval bodies The subject site is located on an arteria l or “classified” road and therefore constitutes integrated development. Accordingly, the application was referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority on 19 May 2005. The Roads and Traffic Authority responded on 1 July 2005 as follows:- The RTA has reviewed the development application and would grant its concurrence under section 138 (2) of the Roads Act to the development application subject to Council’s approval and the following comments being included in the Council’s conditions of development consent. 1. The driveway onto Old South Head Road shall be designed in accordance with AS 2890.1-

2004. 2. The design and construction of the gutter crossing shall be in accordance with RTA

requirements. Details of these requirements should be obtained from RTA’s Project Services Manager, Traffic Project Section, Blacktown (Ph 02 88 14 2144).

3. All works associated with the proposed development shall be at no cost to the RTA. In addition to the above, the RTA provides the following advisory comments to Council for consideration in the determination of the development application: 4. The proposed development should be designed such that road traffic noise from Old South

Head Road is mitigated by durable materials, in accordance with EPA criteria for new land-use developments (The Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise, May 1999). The RTA’s Environmental Noise Management Manual provides practical advice in selecting noise mitigation treatments.



Where the EPA external noise criteria would not practically or reasonably be met, the RTA recommends that council applies the following internal noise objectives for all habitable rooms under ventilated conditions complying with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia:

• All habitable rooms other than sleeping rooms: 45dB(A)Leq(15 hour) and 40dB(A)Leq(9 hour)

• Sleeping rooms: 35 dB(A)Leq(9 hour).

5. Council should ensure that post development stormwater discharge from the subject site into the Authority’s drainage system does not exceed the pre-development discharge.

Detailed design plans and hydraulic calculations of any changes to the stormwater drainage system are to be submitted to the RTA for approval, prior to the commencement of any works. Details should be forwarded to: The Sydney Asset Management P.O. Box 558 Blacktown NSW 2148

A plan checking fee will be payable and a performance bond may be required before the RTA’s approval is issued. With regard to the Civil Works requirement please contact the RTA’s Project Engineer, External Works on Ph 8814 2114 or Fax: 88 14 2111.

6. Redundant driveways along the Old South Head Road frontage are to be removed and the curve and gutter is to be reinstated (Type SA) to match the existing.

7. The layout of the car parking areas associated with the subject development (including grades, aisle widths, site distance requirements, and parking bay dimensions) should be in accordance with AS 2890. 1-2004.

5.2 Building No referral required. 5.3 Health No referral required. 5.4 Heritage Council’s Heritage Officer, Louise Thom, raises no objection to the demolition of the existing dwelling-house, subject to it being recorded. 5.5 Urban Design No referral required.



5.6 Technical Services Council’s Development Engineer Team Leader – Nick Tomkins has provided the following comment: I refer to the following documents received for this report: 1. Architectural plans by Cracknell & Lonergan P/L DA 01 to 04 issue A dated June 04 2. Traffic & Parking Report by Transport & Traffic Planning Assoc Ref 05116 dated July 2005 3. Statement of Environmental Effects by Cracknell & Lonergan P/L dated July 2004 4. Stormwater disposal concept plan prepared by T.O.P Consulting Group P/L Sheet D2 to D4

dated 29/7/03 5. Geotechnical Report by GDK Report 05083/GK/1 Rev0 dated 18 July 2005 Comments have been prepared as follows: 1. The number of carparking spaces does not comply 2. The stacked parking to the north is unclear and does not appear to be included in the

architectural plans 3. Car parking layout does not comply with AS2890.1. Space 3 is virtually impossible to enter or

exit in a forward direction. There is no room for Blind Aisle requirements 4. The development fronts Old South Head Rd which is a high volume State Road. For access

purpose's vehicles are to enter and exit the site in a forward direction 5. Excavation of the site is to the property boundaries and not to 1.5m 6. Ground anchors to support the excavation are likely and adjoining owner's consent will be

required 7. OSD storage is to be relocated to the front of the property to gravity drain and to provide a safe

failure mode 8. Driveway does not have sufficient width RECOMMENDATION Council’s Development Engineer has determined that the proposal is not satisfactory in its current state as detailed above. It is considered that the application is so far away from complying with Council's requirements that the DA submission should be refused. 5.7 Landscaping/Trees Management Council’s Trees and Landscape Officer – Louise Bennett has provided the following comment: I refer to the following documents received for this report:

• Statement of Environmental Effects, prepared by Cracknell & Lonegran, dated July 2004, • Architectural Plan No.s DA01 to 04, drawn by Cracknell & Lonegran, dated June 2004, • Survey Plan No. 67128, drafted by Lovegrove Oxley Consultants, dated 19 April 2004.

A site inspection was carried out on the following day: 6 September 2005. COMMENTS A number of serious concerns are raised regarding this application. The information supplied is inadequate to fully assess the proposal, however, the following issues are raised;



1. The plans supplied show that the cut required to install the driveway along the western boundary of the property, would damage and probably remove at least ½ the root plate of the tree located on the adjoining property. Apart from this tree being of sufficient size to be covered by Councils Tree Preservation Order, Council is unable to approve works that are knowingly going to damage the property of another person. For this reason, installation of the driveway at this location and in the proposed manner is unacceptable.

2. Council’s tree retention policy requires the retention of mature canopy trees on a

development site wherever practicable. The trees, located in the northern corner of the site are located in a position whereby they do not unduly inhibit development of the site for a use permissible under its zoning. The plans provided show that these trees are to be retained. They also show that it is proposed to install an on site detention tank within 0.4 and 0.5 metres of them. Excavation within such close proximity is inappropriate and would result in either the death of the trees or their failure. At the very least, their structural integrity would be compromised to an unacceptable level and therefore such a proposal cannot be approved.

3. Further to the above, no details with regard to the proposed location of subterranean

services (eg. gas, stormwater, sewerage, telephone, electricity etc) has been provided. The potential impact of these service line locations, in relation to trees proposed for retention on the site and the potential for impact to trees on adjoining sites, must form part of any assessment process undertaken by Council.

4. Whilst the landscaped area, as proposed in the submitted plans, may comply mathematically

with Council’s requirements, it does not comply with the intent of that policy. Where the proposal to be approved, compensatory plantings for the resultant required tree removals would not be possible. Insufficient deep soil area, capable of supporting medium to large trees, would not be available if the proposed development were constructed.

5. Whilst it is accepted that the landscape plan was submitted as a ‘concept’ plan, basic

information has not been included that would be required to assess the application fully. Identification of all trees, subject to the Tree Preservation Order located both on the subject site and on adjoining sites within 5 metres of the common boundary, is required. It is also expected that where trees are shown to be retained, that such retention is viable. As has been discussed previously, this is not the case with the submitted plans.

RECOMMENDATION Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer has determined that the proposal is not satisfactory in its current form. It is recommended that this application be refused for the following reasons;

1. Inadequate information supplied with regard to landscaping and trees 2. Plans do not comply with Council’s Tree retention policy 3. Proposal would result in damage to an adjoining property

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:



6. RELEVANT STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION 6.1 SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land Under Clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. An assessment of the documentation provided by the applicant indicates that the land does not require further consideration under Clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") does not apply to the proposed development. 6.2 REPs Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy No 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbour The provisions of Clause 18 and the objectives stated under Clause 2 of this instrument require the Council to consider the likely aesthetic appearance of the proposal when viewed from the waters of Sydney Harbour. The proposal would not be visible from Sydney Harbour and, accordingly, is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of this instrument. 6.3 Section 94 contribution If approval were recommended, a recreation contribution under Council's Section 94 Contributions Plan 2002 of $1,775.24 would be levied on the proposal. 6.4 Other relevant legislation None relevant. 7. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995 7.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone (Clause 8(5)) The proposal is unsatisfactory in terms of Clause 8(5) for the following reasons: • the non-compliances with the site frontage, FSR, building footprint, setbacks and deep soil

landscaped area controls are indicative the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site • the proposal will have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of loss

of privacy and visual bulk (sense of enclosure)



7.2 Statutory compliance table

Site Area: 293m² Proposed Control Complies

Site Frontage 14.89m 15m No

Overall Height 11.8m 12m Yes

Floor Space Ratio 1.024

(298.21m²) 0.875:1

(256.37m²) No

7.3 Site frontage requirements Clause 10B(1) of Woollahra LEP 1995 states that “a site must not be developed for the purpose of a residential flat building containing three dwellings or fewer unless the width of the site at the front alignment is 15m or more.” In this regard, the site has a frontage of 14.89m to Old South Head Road and therefore does not comply with the minimum site frontage requirement. The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development Standards, with the grounds of the objection as follows: • the proposed building is compatible with the bulk, scale, and density controls. The proposed

building suits its zone, the character of the area, and will have no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties

• the proposed building complies with the objectives of the height and setback controls • the proposed building provides greater than the required minimum landscaped area to the

street frontage, has minimal excavation, and is compatible with the minimum deep soil landscaping controls. The proposed building preserves view corridors

• due to the orientation of the proposal the new building maximises daylight and sunlight penetration between the existing buildings

• the proposed building provides car parking and bike storage, well setback, and compatible with the street presentation control (40% maximum) having a frontage of only approximately 10%

• the proposed building compliments the environment, and improves the amenity of the subject site. A diversity in building types is permitted as outlined in the objectives of the Bellevue Hill South precinct

In applying the principles set out in the Hooker case, the proposed SEPP 1 objection has been considered by reference to the following tests: 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? 3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in



5. Is the objection well founded?



1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? The planning control in question is the site frontage standard set by Clause 10B of Woollahra LEP 1995. As such, any variation of this standard requires a SEPP 1 objection, as has been prepared in this case. 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? The objectives of the site frontage standard listed under Clause 10A of Woollahra LEP 1995 are: (a) to achieve compatibility between the scale, density, bulk and landscape character of buildings

and allotment size (b) to provide sufficient space between buildings to maximise daylight and sunlight access

between buildings, to ensure adequate space for deep soil landscaping and preserve view corridors

(c) to prevent permanent barriers to sub-surface water flows (d) to ensure that there is sufficient land for car parking on-site (e) to encourage consolidation of allotments in appropriate locations to enable the development

of the diversity of dwelling types 3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in


It is considered that allowing a variation to the site frontage standard, in this instance, would not enable the objectives of this standard to be upheld. Having regard to the objectives, it is considered that: • Objective (a) would not be upheld as the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.

The non-compliances with the site frontage, FSR, building footprint, setbacks and deep soil landscaped area controls result in a development with excessive bulk and scale, to the detriment of the streetscape and the amenity of adjoining properties

• Objective (b) would not be upheld as the proposal does not comply with the deep soil landscaped area control and as such, will not contribute to the landscaped character of the locality

• Objective (c) would not be upheld as the location of the OSD system would not permit a gravity fed system or provide a safe failure mode. Further, the excavation for the car parking area extends beyond the building footprint and abuts the western boundary. In this regard, the proposal has not been designed to prevent permanent barriers to sub-surface water flows

• Objective (d) would not be upheld as the proposal does not provide sufficient on-site car parking or manoeuvrability in accordance with AS 2890.1

• Objective (e) would not be upheld as the subject site has the opportunity to consolidate with the adjoining allotment, No 146 Old South Head Road


case? The proposal would not achieve consistency with the objectives of the standard and therefore the SEPP No 1 objection to the standard is not supported.



5. Is the objection well founded? The SEPP 1 objection in relation to the non-compliance with the standard is considered unfounded as it has not established that the application of the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. As such, it is considered that granting development consent would not be consistent with the aims and objectives set out in Clause 3 of SEPP No 1. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council not support the SEPP No 1 objection. 7.4 Height The proposal involves a maximum he ight of 11.8m above existing ground level which complies with Council's 12.0m height control as stipulated under Clause 12 of WLEP 1995. Notwithstanding this, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the following objective stipulated under Clause 12AA of WLEP 1995: (c) to safeguard visual privacy of interior and exterior living areas of neighbouring dwellings In this regard, the location of the windows coupled with the height of the proposal will have an adverse effect on the privacy of Nos 136, 142 and 146 Old South Head Road (see Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria below). 7.5 Floor space ratio Clause 11 of WLEP 1995 stipulates a maximum FSR of 0.875:1 (256.37m²) for the subject site. The proposal will have an FSR of 1.024:1 (298.21m²); a non-compliance of 41.84m². The applicant has not submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development Standards in relation to the non-compliance. Council has no statutory power to approve a development that breaches a development standard which is not accompanied by a SEPP No 1 objection. Notwithstanding the absence of a SEPP No 1 objection in relation to the FSR non-compliance, the proposal would not satisfy the FSR objectives of the standard. In particular, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the following objectives stipulated under Clause 11AA of WLEP 1995: (b) to control building density, bulk and scale in all residential and commercial localities in the

area in order to achieve the desired future character objectives of those localities (c) to minimise adverse environmental effect on the use or enjoyment, or both of adjoining

properties Having regard to the objectives, it is considered that the proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the amenity of the locality by virtue of its inconsistency with the desired future character objectives and non-compliances with the FSR, building footprint, boundary setbacks, deep soil landscaped area and off-street car parking spaces controls. Accordingly, the proposal cannot be supported in this instance.



7.6 Other special clauses/development standards Clause 18 Excavation Clause 18 of WLEP 1995 requires Council to consider the impact of excavation associated with a development proposal upon the local environment. In this regard, the basement level car park involves excavation to a maximum depth of 3.3m over an area of approximately 148m²; a volume of approximately 280m³; and sited within 1.5m from the boundaries. Council’s Development Engineer and Landscape Officer have expressed concern with both the extent and siting of excavation in terms of its impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining properties, natural landform and vegetation. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal does not satisfy the following objectives of Clause 18 which read as follows:

(a) the amenity of the neighbourhood by way of noise, vibration, dust or other similar circumstances related to the excavation process, and

(b) public safety, and (c) vehicle and pedestrian movements, and (e) natural landforms and vegetation, and (f) natural water runoff patterns.

Accordingly, the proposal cannot be supported in this instance. Clause 25 Water, wastewater and stormwater Clause 25(1) and (2) of WLEP 1995 requires Council to take into consideration the provision of adequate stormwater drainage and the provision of adequate water and sewage services. If approval were recommended, appropriate conditions ensuring compliance with the provisions of Clause 25 would need to be imposed. Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils The subject site is within the Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soil area identified in the Planning NSW Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map. However, the subject works are not likely to lower the water table below 1 m AHD on any land within 500 m with a 1, 2, 3 or 4 land classification and therefore, there is no issue of acid sulfate affectation in this instance. 8. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Act requires that in determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration any draft environmental planning instrument "EPI" that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority. Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 ("the proposed SEPP") was publicly exhibited from 10 May to 18 June 2004. In considering how much weight should be placed upon an exhibited draft environmental planning instrument under section 79C of the Act one must assess how likely it is that the draft EPI will commence, in what form it is likely to commence and consider what effect the instrument would have if applied.



The proposed SEPP received significant criticism from the development industry in submissions. Officers of DIPNR have advised that it will not be made in the form it was exhibited and that it will now be included as part of the new Integrated LEP Template. This template will be placed on public exhibition in late April/May 2005. Therefore, it is not known in what form the draft SEPP will be made. Clause 14 of the draft SEPP provides Saving and Transitional provisions. These provisions provide that any application submitted prior to the commencement of the proposed SEPP and within 28 days after the commencement of the proposed SEPP is to be determined in accordance with the former SEPP No.1 as if the former SEPP No.1 had not been repealed by the proposed SEPP. It is likely that the draft SEPP, if made, will contain transitional provisions. The draft SEPP would, if it commenced in its exhibited form, require a higher threshold test in order for an objection against a development standard to be sustained. However, the draft policy should not be given determining weight in the assessment of development applications for the following reasons: 1. The draft SEPP will not be made in the form it was exhibited 2. It is not known whether the threshold tests contained in the exhibited SEPP will be retained 3. It is likely that, if made, the draft SEPP will contain savings and transitional provisions. This means that objections submitted under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 must be assessed under the current policy. Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2004 This draft planning instrument is aimed at repealing several existing planning instruments including SREP No 23 Sydney and Middle Harbours. The draft SEPP requires the consideration of similar issues as SREP No 23 such as the visual impact of development upon Sydney Harbour and adjacent foreshore areas. The proposal will not be seen from Sydney Harbour. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of the draft planning instrument. 9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 9.1 Numeric Compliance table - Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003

Site Area (293m²) Proposed Control Complies

Maximum Number of Storeys – RFB 4 4 Yes

Building Boundary Setbacks Front (south) Rear (north) Side (east) Basement Level Ground – Second Floor Side (west) Basement Level Ground – Second Floor

3-5.2m 8.5-11.7

0.6-3.7m 1.5-3.7m

0m

1.5-3.4m

4.9m 7.8m

1.5m

1.5-5.6m

1.5m 1.5-5.9m

No Yes

No No

No No


(140.3m2 ) 40%

(117.2m2 ) No



Site Area (293m²) Proposed Control Complies

Floor to Ceiling Height – Habitable Rooms 2.9m 2.7m Yes

Setback from significant mature trees 0.5m 3m No

Maximum Unarticulated Length to Street <6m 6.0m Yes

Solar Access to Open Space of Adjacent Properties (Hrs on 21 June) >50% - 2 hours


Solar Access to Nth Facing Living Areas of Adjacent Properties (Hrs on 21 June) >3 hours 3.0 hours Yes

Excavation Piling and Subsurface Wall Setback <1.5m 1.5m No

Deep Soil Landscaping – RFB

22.5% (66.11m²)

40% (117.2m2 ) No

Deep Soil Landscaping – Front Setback 36.5m² 27.5m² Yes

Private Open Space at Ground Level – Total >35m² - 3m


Private Open Space at Ground Level – Principal Area >16m² - 4m


Private Open Space at Ground Level – Maximum Gradient <1:10 1:10 Yes

Private Open Space – Upper Floor Units in RFBs >8m² - 2m


Front Fence Height 1m 1.2m/1.5m where 50% transparent Yes

Side and Rear Fence Height 1.6m 1.8m Yes

Solar Access to North-Facing Living Areas of Development (Hrs on 21 June) >3 hours 3.0 hours Yes

Minimum Number of North Facing Habitable Rooms 6 1 Yes

Setback of Bedroom Windows from Streets/Parking Areas of Other Dwellings >3m 3.0m Yes

Car Parking Excavation Outside building

footprint Within Building

Footprint No

Location of Garages and Car Parking Structures Behind front

setback Behind Front

Setback Yes

Garage Frontage Width 22%

(3.4m2) 40%

(5.9m) Yes

Car Parking Spaces – RFB/Dual Occupancy Units: 3

Units: 5 spaces Visitor: 1 space No

Minimum Access Driveway Width 3.4m 3.5m – 6.0m No

Access Driveway Grades – Overall 12.5% 15% Yes

Area of Lockable Storage Spaces per Dwelling >8m³ 8m³ Yes

Site analysis performance criteria (Part 3) Part 3 of Council’s RDCP 2003, requires adequate site analysis documentation for development applications. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard.



C 3.2.1 requires development to fit into the surrounding environment and pattern of development by responding to surrounding neighbourhood character and streetscape. The proposal will have an adverse visual impact upon the streetscape due to its excessive bulk and scale. It is conceded that the locality is characterised by residential flat buildings varying from three (3) to nine (9) storeys. However, the proposal would present four (4) storeys (a front elevation approximately 13m in height) to Old South Head Road, which is considered to be excessive relative to the narrow width of the site frontage (14.89 m). Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site and cannot be supported in this instance. Desired future precinct character objectives and performance criteria (Part 4) The site is located within the Bellevue Hill South Precinct. The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the following desired future character objective: 0 4.6.2 To reinforce the precinct’s landscape setting by minimising alterations to the landform

and preserving the existing tree canopy The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the above-mentioned objective for the following reasons: • Council’s Landscape Officer has not supported the proposal on the grounds of its impact upon

the existing tree network • the failure of the proposal to comply with Council’s building footprint and deep soil landscaped

area controls, inhibits the ability of the site to contribute to the landscape character of the Bellevue Hill South precinct

Further, the proposal results in the following performance criteria non-compliance: Building footprint C 4.6.3 stipulates that the building footprint for a residential flat building is limited to 40% (117.2m²) of the site. The proposal will have a building footprint of 47.8% (140.03m²), resulting in a non-compliance of 22.83m². The underlying objectives of the building footprint control is to limit the site coverage and excavation, maximise on-site filtration of stormwater, maximise deep soil landscaping areas, maintain subterranean water flows, protect significant vegetation and minimise the likelihood of instability due to excavation. The proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with the above-mentioned underlying objectives for the following reasons: • the extent and siting of the excavation is considered to be excessive and as such, will not

adequately maintain subterranean water flows, maximize on-site filtration of stormwater or protect significant vegetation

• the proposal has not been designed to maximise deep soil landscaped areas, thereby inhibiting the ability of the site to contribute to the landscape character of the Bellevue Hill South precinct



Streetscape performance criteria (Section 5.1) The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the following objectives and performance criteria: O 5.1.3 To ensure development contributes to cohesive streetscapes and desirable pedestrian

environments O 5.1.5 To ensure that development recognises the predominate streetscape qualities The proposed residential flat building will have an adverse visual impact upon the streetscape due to its inappropriate bulk and scale relative to the narrow width of the site. Accordingly, the proposal cannot be supported in this instance. Building size and location performance criteria (Section 5.2) The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the following objectives: O 5.2.1 To preserve established tree and vegetation networks and promote new networks by

ensuring sufficient areas for deep soil landscaping and sufficient setbacks between the rear of buildings

O 5.2.3 To ensure the form and scale of development is not excessive and maintains the continuity of building forms and front setbacks in the street

O 5.2.4 To limit site excavation and minimise cut and fill to ensure that building form relates to the topography and to protect the amenity of adjoining properties both during and after construction

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the above-mentioned objectives for the following reasons: • the proposal has not been designed to maximise deep soil landscaped areas, thereby inhibiting

the ability of the site to contribute to the landscape character of the Bellevue Hill South precinct • the siting and design of the proposal will have an adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining

properties in terms of loss of privacy and overbearing visual bulk (sense of enclosure) • the non-compliances with the FSR, building footprint, boundary setbacks, deep soil landscaped

area and car parking controls are indicative the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site

Further, the proposal is inconsistent with the following performance criteria: Setback from significant mature trees C 5.2.1 stipulates that where significant mature trees are to be retained, buildings are to be located at least 3m from the base of the tree to minimise root damage. The proposed driveway adjacent the western boundary and the on-site stormwater detention tank will be located within 3m of significant trees to be retained. Council’s Trees and Landscape Officer – Louise Bennett has assessed the proposal and considers the development to be unsatisfactory in terms of the preservation of the existing tree network (see Part 5.7 – Landscaping / Tress Management above). Accordingly, the proposal cannot be supported on this basis.



Setbacks Front: C 5.2.2 stipulates that the front setback of the proposal is to be 4.9m. The proposal will be set back 3-5.2m from the southern (front) boundary on the ground, first and second floor levels; a maximum non-compliance of 1.9m. Side: C 5.2.5 stipulates at any point where the lot width is 12m or less, the side setback is increased on a pro rate basis by 0.5m for each metre or part thereof of the building height adjacent the boundary exceeds 6.5m. While at any point where the lot width exceeds 12m, the side setback is increased on a pro rata basis by 0.5m for each metre or part thereof of the building height adjacent the boundary exceeds 3m. Given the irregular shape of the allotment and the above-mentioned criteria, the proposal is subject to two different side setback controls. The proposal is required to be setback 1.5-5.9m from the eastern boundary and 1.5-5.6m from the western boundary. The proposal will be set back 0.6-3.7m from the eastern boundary and 0-3.4m from the western boundary. The proposal results in the following setback non-compliances: • a maximum setback non-compliance of 0.9m for a length of 2.3m from the eastern boundary

(basement level car park) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 1.5m for a length of 22.7m from the western boundary

(basement level car park and driveway) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 1.2m for a length of 2.7m from the eastern boundary

(ground floor level stair access) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 0.9m for a length of 5.7m from the western boundary

(ground floor level bedroom Nos 1 and 2) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 2.8m for a length of 14.6m from the eastern boundary

(first floor level stair access, pedestrian lift access, kitchen and living room) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 2.55m for a length of 6.1m from the western boundary

(first floor level bedroom Nos 1 and 2) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 4.4m for a length of 14.6m from the eastern boundary

(second floor level stair access, pedestrian lift access, kitchen and living room) • A maximum setback non-compliance of 4.1m for a length of 18.1m from the western boundary

(second floor level bedroom Nos 1 and 2, bathroom, dining room, living room) The above-mentioned non-compliances with the front and side boundary setback controls are indicative the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site relative to the narrow site width. The resulting bulk and scale would have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of privacy and overbearing visual bulk (sense of enclosure). Further, the non-compliances with the front and side boundary setbacks contribute to the non-compliances with the FSR, building footprint and deep soil landscaped area controls. Accordingly, the setback non-compliances cannot be supported in this instance. Overshadowing The owners of No 4/142 Old South Head Road have objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of sunlight.



Shadow diagrams submitted with the development application demonstrate that the proposal complies with C 5.2.13 (requiring 35m² with a minimum dimension of 2.5m of the main ground level of private open space to receive a minimum of 2 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June) and C 5.2.14 (requiring north facing habitable room windows of adjoining dwellings do not have sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June). Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of overshadowing. Excavation Refer to Clause 18 – Excavation above Open space and landscaping performance criteria (Section 5.3) The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the following performance criteria: Deep Soil Landscaping C 5.3.1 stipulates a deep soil landscaped area of 40% (117.2m²) of the site area. The proposal will provide 22.5% (66.1m²) of deep soil landscaped area; a non-compliance of 51.1m². Numerical non-compliance in this instance would inhibit the ability of the site to contribute to the landscape character of the Bellevue Hill South precinct and would inhibit the natural permeation of stormwater and exacerbate stormwater runoff from the site. In this regard, the proposal is inconsistent with objectives O5.3.2 and O5.3.5, in relation to the retention of important existing mature trees and the enhancement of stormwater management. Accordingly, the proposal cannot be supported in this instance. Fences and walls performance criteria (Section 5.4) The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulates under Part 5.4 of WRDCP 2003. Views performance criteria (Section 5.5) No views are affected by the proposed development. Energy efficiency performance criteria (Section 5.6) The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.6 of WRDCP 2003. Stormwater management performance criteria (Section 5.7) If approval were recommended, appropriate conditions ensuring compliance with the provisions of Part 5.7 of WRDCP 2003 would need to be imposed. Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria (Section 5.8) The owners of the adjoining properties to the west (No 4/142 Old South Head Road) and to the east (No 146 Old South Head Road) have objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of visual and acoustic privacy.



The relevant objective stipulated under Part 5.8 of WRDCP 2003 requires the maintenance of the visual and acoustic privacy of adjoining properties. In Meriton v Sydney City Council (2004) NSWLEC 313, Senior Commissioner Roseth found the following: [45] The Residential Flat Design Code recommends increasing separation between buildings as they get taller. For buildings up to three storeys, it suggests 12m between habitable rooms and balconies, 9m between habitable and non-habitable rooms and 6m between non-habitable rooms. For tall buildings (such as the proposal) it suggests 24m between habitable rooms, 18m between habitable and non-habitable rooms and 12m between non-habitable rooms. The proposal is defined as a four (4) storey building, and as such, the separation between the subject development and adjoining development of window openings and balconies, is required to be 24m between habitable rooms, 18m between habitable and non-habitable rooms and 12m between non-habitable rooms. Accordingly, the following assessment is made for visual and acoustic privacy of adjoining properties: Privacy Impact on No 142 Old South Head Road An inspection of the plans and subject site revealed that the north facing living room windows on the ground, first and second floor levels have the potential to overlook No 142 Old South Head Road. The habitable room windows for No 142 Old South Head Road are separated from the proposed habitable room windows and balconies of the proposed development by 21m, which is considered to be an inadequate distance of separation in terms of preserving an adequate privacy relationship for buildings more than three (3) storeys in height. Accordingly, the proposal cannot be supported in this instance. Privacy impact on No 136 Old South Head Road Although the owners of No 136 Old South Head Road have not objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of visual and acoustic privacy, the west facing balconies and habitable room windows on the ground, first and second floor levels of the proposed development have the potential to overlook habitable room windows and balconies of No 136 Old South Head Road. The proposed balconies and windows are separated by approximately 13m from the balconies and windows of No 136 Old South Head Road which is considered to be an inadequate distance of separation for buildings more than three (3) storeys in height. This is considered to be unacceptable in this instance. Furthermore, the west facing balconies of the proposed development are located of the primary living areas and are the only areas of outdoor private open space to the first and second floor levels. As such, the potential for overlooking and noise transmission is considered to be unacceptable in this instance. Privacy Impact on No 146 Old South Head Road An inspection of the plans and the subject site revealed that the east facing habitable room windows on the ground, first and second floor levels of the proposed developnment will have an adverse visual and acoustic privacy impact on No 146 Old South Head Road.



The proposed eastern and north-eastern facing windows to the kitchen and living rooms on the ground, first and second floor levels have the potential to look directly onto the primary area of private open space of No 146 Old South Head Road. This is considered to be unacceptable. For the reasons discussed above, the proposal does not satisfy the objective and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.8 of WRDCP 2003. Accordingly, the proposal cannot be supported in this instance. Car parking and driveways performance criteria (Section 5.9) The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the following performance criteria: Siting of Excavation Refer to Clause 18 – Excavation above. On-site Car Parking C 5.9.3 stipulates that the proposal provide five (5) resident car parking spaces for the three (3) x two (2) bedroom units and one (1) visitor car parking space. The proposal will provide three (3) residential spaces in the basement level car park. It is acknowledged that the floor plans refer to two (2) stacked car parking spaces on the basement level. Council’s Development Engineer Team Leader – Nick Tomkins concludes that the stacked car parking arrangement is unc lear and does not correspond with the elevations. However, even if these two (2) stacked car parking spaces were included in the calculation, the proposal would still result in a shortfall of one (1) car parking space. The shortfall in the number of on-site car parking spaces together with the failure of the development to comply with AS2890.1 in terms of manoeuvrability, is indicative the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. Site facilities performance criteria (Section 5.10) The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.10 of WRDCP 2003. Access and mobility performance criteria (Section 5.13) Refer to Access DCP below. 9.2 DCP for off-street car parking provision and servicing facilities The non-compliances with the proposed number of car parking spaces, the arrangement of car parking spaces, manoeuvrability, siting of excavation and driveway widths (refer to Car parking and driveways performance criteria above) are indicative the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site. The proposal is so far from complying that Council’s Development Engineer Team Leader – Nick Tomkins recommends the proposal be refused (refer to Section 5.6 – Technical Services above). Accordingly, the proposal cannot be supported in this instance.



9.3 Woollahra Access This proposal is for a Class 2 building containing three (3) separate dwellings. The Access DCP encourages, rather than requires, visitor access for older people or people with a disability. Full access to each level has been provided in the form of a pedestrian lift in this proposal, which is considered acceptable under the provisions of the DCP. 9.4 Other DCPs, codes and policies None relevant. 10. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Clause 92 of the EPA Regulation 2000 requires us to consider Australian Standard AS 2601-1991: The demolition of structures, as in force 1 July 1993. Any development consent would need to be conditional upon compliance with these provisions. 11. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL All likely impacts of the proposal are considered elsewhere in this report. 12. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE While the site is considered to be suitable for redevelopment as a residential flat building, the proposal currently before Council is unsatisfactory for the following reasons: • the subject site is considered to be too narrow to accommodate the scale of the proposed

development • the non-compliances with the FSR, building footprint, boundary setbacks, deep soil landscaped

area and number of car parking spaces are indicative the proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site

• the proposal is inconsistent with the desired future character objectives of the Bellevue Hill South precinct and will have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of privacy and overbearing visual bulk (sense of enclosure)

Accordingly, the proposal in its current form is considered to be unsuitable for the subject site. 13. SUBMISSIONS The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notifications DCP. Two (2) submissions were received from: • Leo Fasol – 4/142 Old South Head Road, Bellevue Hill NSW 2023 • Pamela M. Moller – 146 Old South Head Road, Bellevue Hill NSW 2023 The objectors raised the following issues:

• height • FSR • building footprint • visual and acoustic privacy



• overshadowing • siting of excavation • devaluation of unit price • dilapidation reports and safety during construction • protection of the boundary retaining wall

These concerns have been addressed elsewhere in the report, with the exception of the following:

• devaluation of unit price The devaluation of unit prices is not a relevant consideration under Section 79C of the EPA Act 1979.

• safety during construction If the proposal were recommended for approval, appropriate conditions would be imposed to ensure the safety and security of adjoining buildings during excavation and construction.

• protection of the boundary retaining wall If the proposal were recommended for approval, appropriate conditions would be imposed to ensure the protection of the existing boundary retaining wall. 14. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal is unacceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C of the EPA Act 1979. 15. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent to Development Application No. 263/2005 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a new residential flat building consisting of 3 x 2 bedroom units with basement level car parking on land at 144 Old South Head Road, Bellevue Hill, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal would breach the FSR requirement of 0.875:1 required by Clause 11 of WLEP

1995. No objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development Standards has been received in relation to this non-compliance. The Council has no statutory authority to approve a development proposal that is inconsistent with a development standard where an acceptable SEPP No 1 objection has not been received. Furthermore, the proposal is inconsistent with objectives (b) and (c) stipulated under Clause 11AA of WLEP 1995. In this regard, the bulk, scale and design of the proposal is inappropriate relative to the narrow width of the site and will have an adverse effect on the privacy of Nos 136, 142 and 146 Old South Head Road.

2. The proposal would not satisfy the minimum site frontage standard of Clause 10B and

objectives contained in Clause 10A of WLEP 1995. Non-compliance in this instance is indicative the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.

3. The proposal is inconsistent with objective (c) stipulated under Clause 12AA of WLEP 1995.

In this regard, the proposal will not protect the privacy of Nos 136, 142 and 146 Old South Head Road.



4. The proposal is inconsistent with objective O 4.6.2 and performance criteria C 4.6.3 (building footprint) of the desired future character objectives for the Bellevue Hill South precinct contained under 4.6 of WRDCP 2003. In this regard, these non-compliances are indicative the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.

5. The proposal is inconsistent with objectives O 5.1.2, O 5.1.3 and O 5.1.5 stipulated under Part

5.1 of WRDCP 2003. Further, the proposal is inconsistent with performance criteria C 5.2.1 (setback from significant mature trees), C 5.2.2 (front setbacks), C 5.2.5 (side setbacks) and C 5.2.16 (setbacks for excavation). These non-compliances are indicative the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.

6. The proposal is inconsistent with objectives O 5.3.2 and O 5.3.5 and performance criteria

C 5.3.1 (deep soil landscaping) stipulated under Part 5.3 of WRDCP 2003. In this regard, the proposal will not contribute to the landscape character of the locality, nor enhance the stormwater management of the site.

7. The proposal is inconsistent with the car parking and driveways objectives and performance

criteria stipulated under Part 5.9 of WRDCP 2003. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory with the following performance criteria C 5.9.1 (car parking excavation) and C 5.9.3 (on-site car parking spaces) which is indicative the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.

8. The inappropriate location of the balconies and windows of the ground, first and second floor

levels would have an adverse impact on the privacy of Nos 136, 142 and 146 Old South Head Road. In this regard, the proposal does not comply with O 5.8.1 of WRDCP 2003.

9. The extent and siting of excavation does not satisfy the objectives stipulated under Clause 18

of WLEP 1995. Mr D Waghorn Mr N Economou SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER ADVISINGS 1. Appeal






FILE No. DA 302/2005/1

ADDRESS:

67 Fitzwilliam Road, Vaucluse

PROPOSAL:

Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including a new first floor level, landscaping and siteworks

ZONING:

Residential 2(a)

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Integrated Development

APPLICANT:

Andre Porebski & Associates

OWNER:

Mr B P & Mrs K J Smith

DATE LODGED:

25/05/2005 (original submission) 12/09/2005 (amended stormwater plan)

AUTHOR: Mr D Waghorn LOCALITY PLAN


North

Locality Plan



1. SUMMARY Reason for report The subject application involves substantial alterations and additions to an existing dwelling-house on land with a water frontage and, therefore, is required to be determined by Council’s Development Control Committee in accordance with Council’s delegations adopted on 17 December 2001. Issues • foreshore building line non-compliance • setback non-compliances • floor to ceiling height non-compliance • deep soil landscaped area non-compliance • front fence height non-compliance Objections Nil Cost of works The stated cost of the proposed work of $720,000 has been checked using the standard criteria specified in the Cordell Building Guide and is considered to be accurate. Recommendation The application is recommended for conditional approval because it: 1. is permissible under the zoning 2. satisfies the relevant objectives contained under WLEP 1995 and WRDCP 2003 3. is an appropriate design for the site 4. will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties or the public domain such

that refusal is justified 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal involves the following alterations and additions to the existing dwelling-house: Lower ground floor level

• internal alterations to the stair hall and games room • a 21m² addition to the existing covered outdoor terrace • new water storage tanks

Ground floor level

• relocation of the entry and subsequent internal reconfiguration • a 21m² addition to the terrace including a new balustrade and awning • a new 0.7m² balcony with access off the existing dining room



New first floor level

• new first floor level (181.1m² in floor area) to accommodate three bedrooms, three ensuites and three balconies

Landscaping and siteworks

• new walkway linking the garage and ground floor level • modifications to the existing stone front fence to accommodate a new vehicular entry gate

and pedestrian entrance gate • new planting and paving to the entry porch

In response to concerns raised by Council’s Development Engineer, the stormwater plan was amended on 12 September 2005 in the following terms:

• removal of the existing PVC stormwater drain that discharges over the rock shelf of No 65 Fitzwilliam Road

• the installation of a gross pollutant trap (GPT) located in the gap between the boatshed and lawn

• the installation of a PVC stormwater pipe cut into the existing slab of the existing boatshed and a stormwater discharge outlet through the existing sea wall (to the west of the existing boat shed)

3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The site is located on the northern (low) side of Fitzwilliam Road, is irregular in shape and has an area of 1,467m². The site has a southern frontage to Fitzwilliam Road of 21.66 metres in length, an eastern (side) boundary of 83.37 metres in length, a western (side) boundary of 78.45 metres in length and a northern (rear) boundary that follows the Mean High Water Mark (MHWM), approximately 25 metres in length. The topography of the site is such that the land slopes downwards from the southern (Fitzwilliam Road) boundary to the harbour, a fall of approximately 13 metres. The site is currently occupied by a part one, part two-storey dwelling-house which is located towards the rear of the site, fronting the harbour, and a tennis court with a three-car underground car park beneath. The adjoining property to the west (No 69 Fitzwilliam Road) is occupied by a part two, part three-storey dwelling-house which is sited towards the rear of the site. On the adjoining property to the east (No 65 Fitzwilliam Road), the construction of a new dwelling-house and swimming pool is currently being undertaken (DA No 593/2002). The locality is characterised by a mix of one, two and three-storey dwelling houses of various architectural styles. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY A pre DA meeting incorporating alterations and additions to the existing dwelling-house and associated landscaping works, consistent with the subject development application, was held on 5 April 2005.



5. REFERRALS 5.1 Comments from external approval bodies NSW Maritime The application involves excavation within a distance of 40 metres from the Mean High Water Mark of Sydney Harbour and, accordingly, was referred to NSW Maritime as integrated development. NSW Maritime has advised Council that a permit under Part 3A of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 would not be required for the proposed development, subject to specific environmental controls being met. Condition No 6 addresses this matter. 5.2 Building Satisfactory, subject to Condition No 26. 5.3 Health No comment required. 5.4 Heritage Council’s Heritage Team Leader - Kate Higgins provided the following comment in Council’s Development Application Review Committee (DARC) meeting: The subject house does not have sufficient heritage value to warrant its retention. The extensive alterations and additions are therefore acceptable. The existing heritage listed Obelisk is away from the proposed work. Approval is recommended subject to a condition which requires the obelisk to be protected from damage during construction. Refer to Condition No 34. 5.5 Urban Design No comment required. 5.6 Technical Services Satisfactory, subject to Condition Nos 3-5. 5.7 Landscaping/Trees Management Council’s Trees and Landscape Officer – Peter Richards has examined the proposal at Council’s Development Application Review Committee (DARC) meeting and considers the proposal to be satisfactory. Accordingly, no conditions are recommended.



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: 6. RELEVANT STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION 6.1 SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") does not apply to the proposed development as it comprises alterations and additions only. State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land Under Clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. An assessment of the documentation provided by the applicant indicates that the land does not require further consideration under Clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. State Environmental Planning Policy No 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries The site has a Sydney Harbour frontage, and, accordingly, the matters for consideration listed under Clause 7 of this instrument apply. The relevant matters for consideration involve the assessment of any impact upon the harbour, foreshore area, marine ecology, heritage items or other land uses. In this regard, the following assessment is provided: • the proposed alterations and additions to the northern (harbour) elevation complement the

architectural style of the building and will have a positive visual impact when viewed from the harbour

• the height and density of the existing landscaping between the harbour frontage and the dwelling will be retained and enhanced, thereby complimenting the landscaped character of the foreshore area

• the proposed alterations and additions will have no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties

• subject to Condition No 6, the marine ecology and foreshore area of Parsley Bay will be retained and protected

• subject to Condition No 34, the proposed alterations and additions will not have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the Obelisk

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with the Guiding Principles prescribed by Clause 7 of this instrument.

6.2 REPs SREP 23: Sydney and Middle Harbours The provisions of Clause 18 and the objectives stated under Clause 2 of this instrument require Council to consider the visual impact that a development proposal may have upon Sydney Harbour.



For the reasons discussed previously under State Environmental Planning Policy No 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of SREP No 23. 6.3 Section 94 contribution Not applicable. 6.4 Other relevant legislation Not applicable. 7. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995 7.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone (Clause 8(5)) The proposal is permissible and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the relevant objectives of the Residential 2(a) zone. 7.2 Statutory compliance table

Site Area: 1,467m² Existing Proposed Control Complies

Overall Height 7.7m 9.5m 9.5m Yes

FSBL 15.1m 0-12m 12.0m No

7.3 Height The proposed alterations and additions will attain a maximum height of 9.5 metres, which complies with Council’s 9.5m height control as stipulated under Clause 12 of WLEP 1995. Further, the proposal is considered to uphold the objectives underlying the height standard as contained in clause 12AA of LEP 1995. 7.4 FSBL The site is affected by Council's 12m foreshore building line (FSBL) as measured from the Mean High Water Mark under Clause 22 of WLEP 1995. The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling-house comply with the above-mentioned requirement. The proposed storm-water pipe which extends from rear of the dwelling house to the sea wall (discharge point) and the gross polluntant trap encroach Council’s 12m FSBL. The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in relation to the non-compliance. The SEPP No. 1 objection forwarded by the applicant is paraphrased as follows: • there is no impact on the natural shorelines of Sydney Harbour (the proposed stormwater drain

discharges through a man-made sea wall)



• the site is not located at a point or head of a bay (and in any event the existing dwelling house, and all of the proposed alterations and additions to it, complies with the FSBL)

• all existing significant vegetation on the site will be retained and the proposed GPT and stormwater pipe has been sited to protect the large Eucalyptus tree which stands to the south of the boatshed

• the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity of adjoining lands in terms of access to views and sunlight and the proposed works within the FSBL will be undetectable

• there is no existing encroachment on the FSBL by the dwelling house • the proposed works within the FSBL will not affect any rock platform In applying the principles set out in the Hooker case, the proposed SEPP 1 objection has been considered by reference to the following tests: 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? 3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in



case? 5. Is the objection well founded? 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? The planning control in question is the foreshore building line standard set by Clause 22 of WLEP 1995. As such, any variation of this standard requires a SEPP 1 objection, as has been prepared in this case. 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard?

The objectives of the foreshore building line standard listed under Clause 22AA of Woollahra LEP 1995 are:

(a) to retain Sydney Harbour’s natural shorelines (b) to provide larger foreshore setbacks at the points and heads of bays in recognition of their

visual prominence (c) to protect significant areas of vegetation and, where appropriate, provide areas for future

planting which will not detrimentally impact on views of the harbour and its natural foreshore

(d) to protect the amenity of adjoining lands in relation to reasonable access to views and sunlight

(e) to preserve the rights of property owners to maintain an encroachment on the foreshore building line by an existing main building

(f) to protect rock platforms and the intertidal ecology



3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular, does the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act?

It is considered that allowing a variation to the foreshore building line standard, in this instance, would enable the objectives of this standard to be upheld. Having regard to the objectives, it is considered that: • the proposed stormwater pipe will be located below existing ground level, with the exception of

the discharge point through a man-made sea-wall. As such, the stormwater pipe will appear inconspicuous when viewed from the harbour

• the proposal does not encroach upon the natural foreshore area of Sydney Harbour • The subject site is not located at a point or a head of a bay • the proposal will not reduce the extent of landscaping between the rear building alignment and

the harbour frontage • the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of views loss

and solar access • the proposal does not conflict with the rights of property owners to maintain an encroachment of

the foreshore building line standard by existing structures. Further, the amended stormwater drainage plan prepared by R.L. Temple Pty Ltd details that the existing outlet and stormwater pipe that discharges over the rock shelf of No 65 Fitzwilliam Road is to be discontinued and removed

• subject to Condition No 6, the proposal will not have any adverse impact upon the natural foreshore area of Sydney Harbour, nor threaten and rock platforms or marine ecology

• the proposal accords with the provisions of SEPP No 56 and SREP No 23 4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the

case? The proposal would achieve consistency with the objectives of the foreshore building line standard and therefore the SEPP No 1 objection to this standard is supported. It is recommended that Council resolve to vary the standard in this instance as compliance is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary. 5. Is the objection well founded? The SEPP 1 objection in relation to non-compliance with the FSBL standard is considered to be well founded as it has established that the application of the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. As such, it is considered that granting development consent would be consistent with the aims and objectives set out in Clause 3 of SEPP No. 1. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council support the applicant’s foreshore building line SEPP 1 objection. 7.6 Other special clauses/development standards Clause 18 Excavation The provisions of Clause 18 of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires the consideration of the impact of excavation works upon the local environment.



The proposed excavation is limited to footings associated with the proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling-house and trench excavation to accommodate the proposed stormwater pipes and gross pollutant trap. All excavation will be sited in excess of Council’s requirement of 1.5m from all boundaries (C 5.2.16 of WRDCP 2003), with the only exception being the trench excavation that is set back 0m from the northern (rear) boundary and the 0.7m setback from the eastern (side) boundary. The extent and siting of excavation is considered to satisfy the provisions of Clause 18 for the following reasons: • Condition No 28 requires the excavation to be carried out in accordance with appropriate

professional standards • Condition No 30 will ensure the structural integrity of the proposed works and protect any

adjoining buildings from damage • no significant or mature trees will be affected by the proposed excavation • Condition No 6 will ensure the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on the marine

ecology or harbour foreshore area • the amenity of the adjoining properties will not be adversely affected by the proposal • Condition No 34 will ensure the heritage significance of the Obelisk will not be affected during

construction Subject to the above conditions, the extent and siting of excavation is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Clause 18 of WLEP 1995. Clause 19 HFSPA Clause 19 of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires Council to consider the visual impact of a development proposal upon Sydney Harbour in terms of land located within the Harbour Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. For the reasons discussed previously under State Environmental Planning Policy No 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Clause 19 of WLEP 1995. Clause 25 Water, wastewater and stormwater The provisions of Clause 25 require the consideration of whether adequate water and sewerage services are available to the land that is proposed to be developed. Further, Council must ensure that adequate provision has been made for the disposal of stormwater. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Clause 25, and is considered to be satisfactory, subject to Conditions Nos 3-5 and Advising No 2. Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils The subject site is within the Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soil area identified in the Planning NSW Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map. However, the subject works are not likely to lower the water table below 1 m AHD on any land within 500 m with a 1, 2, 3 or 4 land classification and therefore, there is no issue of acid sulfate affectation in this instance.



8. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Act requires that in determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration any draft environmental planning instrument "EPI" that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority. Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 ("the proposed SEPP") was publicly exhibited from 10 May to 18 June 2004. In considering how much weight should be placed upon an exhibited draft environmental planning instrument under section 79C of the Act one must assess how likely it is that the draft EPI will commence, in what form it is likely to commence and consider what effect the instrument would have if applied. The proposed SEPP received significant criticism from the development industry in submissions. Officers of DIPNR have advised that it will not be made in the form it was exhibited and that it will now be included as part of the new Integrated LEP Template. This template will be placed on public exhibition in late April/May 2005. Therefore, it is not known in what form the draft SEPP will be made. Clause 14 of the draft SEPP provides Saving and Transitional provisions. These provisions provide that any application submitted prior to the commencement of the proposed SEPP and within 28 days after the commencement of the proposed SEPP is to be determined in accordance with the former SEPP No.1 as if the former SEPP No.1 had not been repealed by the proposed SEPP. It is likely that the draft SEPP, if made, will contain transitional provisions. The draft SEPP would, if it commenced in its exhibited form, require a higher threshold test in order for an objection against a development standard to be sustained. However, the draft policy should not be given determining weight in the assessment of development applications for the following reasons: 1. The draft SEPP will not be made in the form it was exhibited 2. It is not known whether the threshold tests contained in the exhibited SEPP will be retained 3. It is likely that, if made, the draft SEPP will contain savings and transitional provisions. This means that objections submitted under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 must be assessed under the current policy. Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2004 This draft planning instrument is aimed at repealing several existing planning instruments including SREP 23 Sydney and Middle Harbours. The draft SREP requires the consideration of similar issues as SREP 23 such as the visual impact of development upon Sydney Harbour and adjacent foreshore areas. For the reasons discussed previously under State Environmental Planning Policy No 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of the Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2004.



9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 9.1 Numeric Compliance table - Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003


Maximum Number of Storeys – Dwelling 2 2-3 2-3 Yes

Building Boundary Setbacks Front (south) Rear (north) Side (east) Lower Ground Ground Floor First Floor Side (west) Lower Ground Ground Floor First Floor

34-41m 17.5-26

0.9-4m 0.9-4m

-

0.9-8.7m 0.9-8.7m

-

34-41m 12-26m

0.9-4m 0.9-4m 0.9m

0.9-8.7m 0.9-8.7m 3.6-4.7m

32.5m 20.2m

2.5m 2.5m

2.5-4.2m

2.5m 2.5m

2.5-3m

Yes

No

No* No*

No

No* No* Yes

Setback from Significant Mature Trees >3m >3m 3.0m Yes


(400.1m2 ) 28.3%

(415.5m2 ) 30%

(440.1m2 ) Yes


(529.1m2 ) 0.525:1

(769.5m2 ) 0.55:1

(806.8m2 ) Yes

Floor to Ceiling Height – Habitable Rooms 2.4-3m 2.4-3m 2.7m No*

Maximum Unarticulated Length to Street <6m <6m 6.0m Yes


>50% - 2 hours >50% - 2 hours


Solar Access to Nth Facing Living Areas of Adjacent Properties (Hrs on 21 June) >3 hours >3 hours 3.0 hours Yes

Excavation Piling and Subsurface Wall Setback 0.9m <1.5m 1.5m No

Deep Soil Landscaping – Dwelling 396m² 404m² 513.5m² No

Private Open Space at Ground Level – Total >35m² - 3m >35m² - 3m


Private Open Space at Ground Level – Principal Area >16m² - 4m >16m² - 4m


Private Open Space at Ground Level – Maximum Gradient <1:10 <1:10 1:10 Yes

Front Fence Height 1.8-2m 2m 1.2m/1.5m where 50% transparent No

Solar Access to North-Facing Living Areas of Development (Hrs on 21 June) >3 hours >3 hours 3.0 hours Yes

Minimum Number of North Facing Habitable Rooms 4 5 1 Yes

Setback of Bedroom Windows from Streets/Parking Areas of Other Dwellings >3m >3m 3.0m Yes

* Existing non-compliance Site analysis performance criteria (Part 3) Part 3 of Council’s WRDCP 2003 requires adequate site analysis documentation for development applications. The application is considered to be satisfactory in this regard.



C. 3.2.1 requires development to fit into the surrounding environment and pattern of deve lopment by responding to the surrounding neighbourhood character in streetscape. The proposal will convert the existing part one, part two storey dwelling-house into a contemporary three storey dwelling-house which is considered to be comparable and consistent with the architectural style, scale and form of surrounding development. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this instance. Desired future precinct character objectives and performance criteria (Part 4) The objectives of the Vaucluse West precinct relate to the mitigation of adverse impacts upon the local public domain, maintaining the existing landscape character of the locality and ensuring the development responds to the existing built forms in the streetscape. The proposal will be comparable and consistent with the architectural style, scale and form of surrounding development. Further, the proposal will maintain the landscaped character of the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant desired future character objectives stipulated under Part 4.13 of WRDCP 2003. The proposal involves the following non-compliances with the performance criteria stipulated under Part 4.13 of WRDCP 2003: Side setbacks C 4.13.3 stipulates that the proposal is required to be set back 2.5-4.25m from the eastern boundary and 2.5-3m from the western boundary. The existing building is set back 0.9-4m from the eastern boundary and 0.9-8.7m from the western boundary on the lower ground and ground floor levels which encroach on the permissible side boundary setback requirements. The proposed alterations and additions to the ground and first floor level will be contained within the existing building envelope and will not be altered by the proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling-house with the exception of the following works: • the proposed column for the terrace on the eastern elevation of the lower ground floor level • the proposed bedroom No 5 wall and balustrading for the terrace on the eastern elevation first

floor level • the modifications to the window openings for the home cinema and the proposed column for the

entry on the western elevation ground floor level No objection is raised to the existing non-compliances at the lower ground and ground floor levels. The setbacks of the proposed additions at the lower ground and ground floor levels are considered to be acceptable given the amenity of adjoining properties will not be adversely affected in terms of loss of privacy, views, solar access or sense of enclosure. The proposed first floor level will be set back 0.9m from the eastern boundary and 3.6-4.7m from the western boundary. The proposed first floor level results in the following setback non-compliance: • a maximum setback non-compliance of 3.35m for the entire length of the first floor level (15m)

from the eastern boundary (bedroom 3 and ensuite, bedroom 1 ensuite and dress 1)



The purpose of the setback control is to protect the visual and aural privacy of residents, provide side access to the rear of properties, avoid buildings or part of buildings encroaching onto adjoining properties, enable opportunities for screen planting, protect significant vegetation, avoid an unreasonable sense of enclosure, safeguard the privacy and minimise the noise impacts for dwellings. The non-compliance with the side setback requirement is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the above-mentioned purpose for the following reasons: • the proposal will not have any adverse impact on views from adjoining properties • subject to Condition No 2, the proposal will not have any adverse impact on visual and acoustic

privacy for adjoining properties (see Aural and Visual Privacy Performance Criteria below) • the proposal will retain side access to the rear of the dwelling-house • the proposal will not result in the loss or removal of any significant trees on the site and will

provide replacement planting to ensure the landscape character of the locality is maintained • the proposal will not result in any unreasonable sense of enclosure • the proposal will have no adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing and

furthermore, complies with Council’s solar access requirements • the bulk and scale of the proposal is compatible with that of surrounding development Front fence height C 4.13.5.5 stipulates that front fences are to be no greater in height than 1.2m. Front fences to a maximum height of 1.5m may be permitted where 50% of the fence is transparent. Existing sandstone walls are to be retained. The proposal involves the retention of the existing 1.8-2m high stone wall fronting Fitzwilliam Road, with the only exception being the modifications to accommodate a new vehicular entry gate and pedestrian entrance gate. The proposed modifications to the front fence are considered to be acceptable for the following reasons • the new vehicular entry gate and pedestrian entry gate will match the height, materials and

design of the existing stone wall • the immediate locality is characterised by high, stone front fences Streetscape performance criteria (Section 5.1) The objectives of Council’s streetscape performance criteria require development to achieve a scale and character in keeping with the desired future character for the locality and development contributes to cohesive streetscapes and desirable pedestrian movements, a safe environment and recognise predominant streetscape qualities. The proposed alterations and additions will create a three-storey dwelling house that is considered to be of a high-quality design and result in a development which will have a positive visual impact upon the streetscape and harbour. Further, the proposed alterations and additions will satisfactorily relate to the urban context and built form within the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.1 of WRDCP 2003.



Building size and location performance criteria (Section 5.2) The proposal involves the following non-compliances with the performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.2 of WRDCP 2003: Rear Setback C 5.2.3 stipulates that buildings have a minimum rear setback of 25% (20.2m) of the average site length. The existing building is set back 17.5-26m from the northern (rear) boundary on the lower ground and ground floor levels which encroach on the permissible rear boundary setback requirement. NO objection is raised to the existing rear setback non-compliances. The proposal will be setback 12-26m from the northern (rear) boundary, resulting in the following non-compliances: • a maximum setback non-compliance of 8.2m for a width of 6.6m from the northern (rear)

boundary on the lower ground floor level (covered outdoor terrace) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 8.2m for a total width of 7.6m from the northern (rear)

boundary on the ground floor level (outdoor terrace and balcony off dining room) • a maximum setback non-compliance of 1.2m for a total width of 4m from the northern (rear)

boundary on the first floor level (bedroom No 1 and balcony off bedroom No 1) The purpose of the setback control is to protect the visual and aural privacy of residents, provide side access to the rear of properties, avoid buildings or part of buildings encroaching onto adjoining properties, enable opportunities for screen planting, protect significant vegetation, avoid an unreasonable sense of enclosure, safeguard the privacy and minimise the noise impacts for dwellings. The non-compliances with the rear setback control are considered to be satisfactory with regard to the above-mentioned purpose for the following reasons: • the siting of development on the harbour frontage coupled with the topography of the site results

in a staggered rear building alignment. The proposed rear setback will not result in any disharmony to the continuity of the rear setback patterns within the locality

• in the case of Woollahra Municipal Council v Noel Elmowry, Hon. Moore held that variation of the rear building setback was acceptable given that no substantive impacts upon the amenity of adjoining properties would arise. Having regard to the findings of the case, it is considered that as the siting of the proposed alterations and additions would not adversely impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties and primarily replicates the existing situation in terms of rear setback, there is no substantive basis for refusal on the grounds of non-compliance with the rear setback requirement

• subject to Condition No 2, the proposal will not have any adverse affects of the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of view loss, privacy and solar access

• the proposal will retain side access to the rear of the dwelling-house • the proposal will not result in the loss or removal of any significant trees on the site and will

provide replacement planting to ensure the landscape character of the locality is maintained • the bulk and scale of the proposal is compatible with that of surrounding development



Floor to Ceiling Heights C 5.2.10 stipulates that dwelling houses have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres. The proposed dwelling house will have a floor-to-ceiling height of 2.4-3 metres, resulting in a maximum non-compliance of 0.3 metres. Notwithstanding the non-compliance, the BCA stipulates a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.4 metres. The proposal satisfies the provisions of the BCA and accordingly, no objection is raised to the non-compliance in this instance. Open space and landscaping performance criteria (Section 5.3) The proposal involves the following non-compliances with the performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.3 of WRDCP 2003: Deep soil landscaped area C 5.3.2 stipulates that at least 50% of the unbuilt upon area (513.5m²) for a dwelling house is located at ground level and comprises of a deep soil landscaped area. The existing site provides 38.5% (396m²) of deep soil landscaped area for the site, while the proposal will provide 39.4% (404m²) of deep soil landscaping for the site. The proposal results in an increase on the existing deep soil landscaped area by 8m² and a non-compliance with the above-mentioned requirement by 109.5m². The underlying objectives for the deep soil landscaped area are to contribute to the landscape character of the locality and assist in the natural retention of stormwater, thereby reducing peak loads on stormwater drainage infrastructure. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with the above-mentioned objectives for the following reasons: • the proposal will increase the existing amount of deep soil landscaping by 8m² and will not

substantially alter the landscape character of the locality • the proposal incorporates an on-site stormwater detention system, thereby assisting in the

natural permeation and runoff of stormwater from the site • the landscape plan prepared by Taylor Brammer Landscape Architect, dated 12 May 2005

demonstrates the proposal will enhance the visual appearance of the site when viewed from the Harbour and Fitzwilliam Road

• the existing and proposed landscaping will provide additional screen planting between adjoining properties

Fences and walls performance criteria (Section 5.4) The proposal will not alter the size and location of the existing side and rear boundary fences. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.4 of WRDCP 2003.



Views performance criteria (Section 5.5) The owners of the adjoining properties have not objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of views. Notwithstanding this, the proposal would not adversely affect any existing views from adjoining properties and be consistent with Council’s policy on view sharing and the equitable distribution of views between properties. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.5 of WRDCP 2003. Energy efficiency performance criteria (Section 5.6) The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.6 of WRDCP 2003. Stormwater management performance criteria (Section 5.7) Subject to Condition Nos 3-5, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.7 of WRDCP 2003. Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria (Section 5.8) No objections from adjoining properties owners have been received in relation to visual and acoustic privacy. Notwithstanding this, the owners of Nos 65 and 67 Fitzwilliam Road have come to the following agreement: • the two (2) first floor level windows to Bedroom 2 (WF 03 and WF 03) will have translucent

glazing up to a height of 1.5m to minimize overlooking to the adjoining dwelling at No 65 Fitzwilliam Road

Council’s Senior Assessment Officer concurs with this agreement with the only exception being the height of the translucent glazing. To protect the privacy of No 65 Fitzwilliam Road, the translucent glazing for Bedroom No 2 of the first floor level is to be a minimum height of 1.7m above floor level (refer to Condition No 2). Privacy Impact on No 65 Fitzwilliam Road Although the owners of No 65 Fitzwilliam Road have not objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of visual and acoustic privacy, the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the visual and acoustic privacy of No 65 Fitzwilliam Road for the following reasons: • Condition No 2 requires the first floor level bedroom 2 windows to contain obscure glazing.

This condition has been imposed as the first floor level Bedroom No 2 windows are the only proposed windows within 9m of the habitable room windows of No 65 Fitzwilliam Road. All the other proposed windows are located in excess of 9m from habitable room windows of No 65 Fitzwilliam Road

• the only new windows with the potential to overlook No 65 Fitzwilliam Road are from bedrooms which are neither used frequently or for extended periods during the day

• the three proposed balconies on the first floor level will be either located off bedrooms or the hallway on the bedroom level. These balconies have been orientated to overlook the existing tennis court to the south or the harbour to the north. Further, these balconies will be separated from No 65 Fitzwilliam Road by in excess of 9m



• given the staggered pattern of development the extension of the lower ground and ground floor level terraces will be located forward of the primary area of private open space for No 65 Fitzwilliam Road, thereby minimising the potential for overlooking

Privacy Impact on No 69 Fitzwilliam Road Although the owners of No 69 Fitzwilliam Road have not objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of visual and acoustic privacy, the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the visual and acoustic privacy of No 69 Fitzwilliam Road for the following reasons: • the proposed new windows on the first floor level are either from non-habitable rooms or from

bedroom No 3 which will overlook the garage and driveway areas of No 69 Fitzwilliam Road. These areas are not considered to be the primary area of private open space

• the staggered pattern of development will ensure no new windows will look directly into habitable room windows of No 69 Fitzwilliam Road

• the three balconies on the first floor level will be either located off bedrooms or the hallway on the bedroom level. These balconies have been orientated to overlook the existing tennis court to the south or the harbour to the north. Any oblique overlooking to No 69 Fitzwilliam Road is minimised given that the front yard contains driveways and garaging and is not considered to be the primary area of private open space

Car parking and driveways performance criteria (Section 5.9) The proposal will not alter the existing car parking and driveway situation. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.9 of WRDCP 2003. Site facilities performance criteria (Section 5.10) The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.10 of WRDCP 2003. Harbour foreshore development performance criteria (Section 5.11) For the reasons discussed previously under State Environmental Planning Policy No 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.11 of WRDCP 2003. 9.2 DCP for off-street car parking provision and servicing facilities The proposal satisfies the provisions of this DCP. 9.3 Woollahra Access This proposal is for a Class 1 building. The Access DCP encourages, rather than requires, visitor access for older people or people with a disability. Access has not been provided in this proposal, however, this is considered acceptable under the provisions of the DCP. 9.4 Other DCPs, codes and policies None applicable.



10. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Clause 92 of the EPA Regulation 2000 requires us to consider Australian Standard AS 2601-1991: The demolition of structures. The demolition of structures, as in force at 1 July 1993. This requirement is addressed via Condition No 19. 11. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL All likely impacts of the proposed development have been assessed elsewhere in this report. 12. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE The site is suitable for the proposed development. 13. SUBMISSIONS The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notifications DCP. No submissions were received.

The replacement application (as defined by Clause 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000) submitted on 12 September 2005 was not renotified under clause 5.1 of the DCP because, having considered clause 9 of the DCP, the replacement application is substantially the same development as the original proposal and considered to have no greater environmental impact upon neighbours. 14. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal is acceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C of EP&Act 1979. 15. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT the Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to Clause 22 – Foreshore Building Line under WLEP 1995 is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case. AND

THAT the Council, as the consent authority, being satisfied that the objection under SEPP No. 1 is well founded and also being of the opinion that the granting of consent to Development Application No. 302/2005 is consistent with the aims of the Policy, grant development consent to DA No. 302/2005 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including a new first floor level, landscaping and siteworks on land at 67 Fitzwilliam Road, Vaucluse, subject to the following conditions:



1. Approved Plans

This consent relates to the work, shown in colour, on plans numbered 488.A01 – 488.A09, Issue B, dated January 2005, drawn by Andre Porebski & Associates, including landscape plan numbered LC02, Revision A, dated 12 May 2005, drawn by Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved DA Plans” and the signature of a Council officer, except where amended by the following conditions.

2. Visual Privacy

The first floor level western elevation windows to Bedroom No 2 (WF 02 and WF 03) are to contain fixed translucent glazing to a height of 1.7m above floor level. This condition has been imposed to maintain the visual privacy of No 65 Fitzwilliam Road. Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted with the construction certificate application.


The stormwater drainage system must be constructed in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan as prepared by R.L. Temple Pty Ltd, numbered SW1, SW2 and SW3, dated 9 September 2005.





• The drainage system has been installed in accordance with the drainage Conditions of Development Consent and relevant Australian Standards.

• That all drainage components are structurally adequate and have been installed in accordance with the relevant Codes and Standards and/or specifications.

b. Work-As-Executed (WAE) plans showing:

• Pipe and drainage system layout, including all pits, pipe diameters, grades, materials, invert levels and surface levels.

• Details (exact point and method) of connection to Council system. 5. Discharge to Harbour

The developer must obtain written approval from the NSW Maritime Authority to discharge stormwater from the subject property directly into Sydney Harbour. The stormwater system must be designed in accordance with Council’s Private Stormwater Code.



6. NSW Maritime Conditions

NSW Maritime have imposed the following conditions: (a) The works are to be carried out so that:

• no materials are eroded, all likely to be eroded, are deposited, or likely to be deposited, on the bed or shore or into the waters of Parsley Bay; and

• no materials are likely to be carried by natural forces to the bed, shore or waters of Parsley Bay

(b) Any material that does enter Parsley Bay must be removed immediately (c) Best practice methods shall be adopted for the on-site control of runoff, sediment and

other pollutants during, and post, construction

Methods shall be in accordance with the relevant specifications and standards contained in the manual Managing Urban Stormwater-Soils and Construction issued by the NSW Department of Housing in 1998 and any other relevant council requirements.

(d) The erosion, sediment and pollution controls shall be installed and stabilised before commencement of site works. This does not include the works associated with the construction of the appropriate controls.

(e) The erosion, sediment and pollution control system is to be effectively maintained at or

above design capacity for the duration of the works and until such time as all ground disturbed by the works has been stabilised and rehabilitated so that it no longer acts as a source of sediment.

(f) Any material that is to be stockpiled on-site is to be stabilised to prevent erosion or

dispersal of the material (g) Any native trees present on the site, or on land adjoining the site, are to be retained and

protected for the duration of the works (h) Landscaping should be comprised of locally indigenous species, which represent the

original plant communities that would have been found along the shoreline in the vicinity of the subject land

(i) The foreshore and inter tidal area are to be fully protected for the duration of the works.

This includes preventing the use of barges to transport any machinery, materials, equipment, supplies, or waste receptacles to and from the site

(j) No works are to be undertaken on land owned by NSW Maritime (i.e below the

MHWM) without the relevant approvals being granted by NSW Maritime. 7. Requirement for a Construction Certificate




(a) detailed plans and specifications of the building have been endorsed with a Construction Certificate by:














Demolition, excavation and construction work must not take place outside the hours of 7.00am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 7.00am to 1.00pm Saturday. No work and no deliveries are to take place on Sundays and public holidays. Noise from cons truction activities associated with the development must comply with the guidelines contained in the NSW EPA Environmental Noise Control Manual Chapter 171.










15. Wet areas




17. Stockpiles









20. Fire safety

In order to ensure adequate fire safety, hard wired smoke alarms are to be installed in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia – Housing Provisions. Such is to be indicated on the plans submitted with the construction certificate application.

21. Site fencing














If Council’s infrastructure is damaged during the course of works, Council’s Development Engineer must be notified and necessary repairs must be undertaken within the time stipulated by Council, to Council’s specifications, and at no cost to Council. Works generally must be in accordance with the relevant clauses of the current edition of AUS-SPEC. If work is not undertaken to the satisfaction of the Development Engineer with regard to time or quality, Council may carry out remedial works and deduct the cost from the Damage Security Deposit.






























(i) must preserve and protect the building from damage; and (ii) if necessary, must underpin and support the building in an approved manner; and



(iii) must, at least 7 days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining allotment of land and furnish particulars of the excavation to the owner of the building being erected or demolished.



























Building Act 1989. 34. Obelisk

The existing heritage listed Obelisk is to be protected from damage during construction. Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted with the construction certificate application.

Mr D Waghorn Mr N Economou SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER ADVISINGS 1. Appeal



Sydney Water may require the construction of additional works and/or the payment of additional fees. Other Sydney Water approvals may also be necessary prior to the commencement of construction work. You should therefore confer with Sydney Water concerning all plumbing works, including connections to mains, installation or alteration of systems, and construction over or near existing water and sewerage services.

Contact Sydney Water, Rockdale (Urban Development Section) regarding the water and sewerage services to this development.


The required Application for a Construction Certificate may be lodged with Council. Alternatively, you may apply to an accredited private certifier for a Construction Certificate.



WARNING: Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate prior to the commencement of any building work is a serious breach of Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. It is also a criminal offence which attracts substantial penalties and may also result in action in the Land and Environment Court and orders for demolition.











9. Long Service Levy The current rate of the levy required by this consent is 0.2% of the cost all building and construction work costing $25,000 or more.

ANNEXURES 1. Plans and elevations 2. Photomontage 3. Stormwater drainage plans




FILE No. DA 194/2005/1

ADDRESS:

10 Annandale Street DARLING POINT

PROPOSAL:

Demolish existing 4 Storey RFB containing 7 units and construct new 4 storey (including basement carpark) RFB containing 2 units.

ZONING:

Residential 2(b)

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Local Development

APPLICANT:

Property Partnerships Pacific

OWNER:

Ms K V Kretschmar

DATE LODGED:

12/04/2005 Original scheme 09/06/2005 Amended scheme (changes to the roof profile that have been made following discussions with owner of Unit 3, 7 Annandale Street)

AUTHOR: Mr G Fotis LOCALITY PLAN


North

Locality Plan



1. SUMMARY Reason for report The proposal, which is for the demolition of the existing residential flat building and the construction of a four level residential flat building consisting of two (2) x four (4) bedroom units and basement car park, resulted in seven (7) objections. A notice was served upon Council on 27 June 2005 of an appeal made to the Land & Environment Court of New South Wales by Property Partnership Pacific Pty Ltd (Applicant). This appeal relates to the deemed refusal of the current application, including amended scheme dated 09/06/2005. A hearing date has been set down for 15 November 2005. The matter has also been adjourned until the 19 October 2005 for a call over to ascertain the result of the Council meeting and to file and serve any amended final issues by that date. Notwithstanding the appeal, Council’s delegations require all development applications for new residential flat buildings to be determined by the Development Control Committee. Issues - Stormwater drainage provision - Tree preservation Objections Seven (7) submissions received. Cost of works The stated cost of the proposed work of $3 million has been checked using the standard criteria specified in the Cordell Building Guide and is considered to be accurate. Recommendation The recommendation is that Council refuse the application. The recommendation is made because the application: 1. has made inadequate provision for the disposal of stormwater pursuant to clause 25(2) of

WLEP 1995; 2. is seeking the removal of the two mature and significant Canary Island Date Palms (Trees 4 &

5) adjacent to the northern boundary on the site. These trees as well as Trees 1, 2, 6 & 7 (tree numbering relates to the scheme used in the supplied Arterra Landscape tree report) are a major landscape element in an area that is highly developed and has little else in the way of plant material and therefore non-compliant with the Desired Future Character Objectives O 4.1.4 under Part 4 & with performance criteria C5.3.12 under Part 5.3 of Woollahra Part 5.3 of the Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003; and

3. is not to the public interest. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The demolition of the existing four level residential flat building containing 7 units and construct a new 4 level residential flat building containing two (2) x four (4) bedroom units, each with a swimming pool.



The basement car park will be located partly below the natural ground level. It will accommodate six (6) car spaces, two general storage areas, a water detention tank, a pool plant room, a mechanical plant room and a bin store for six (6) bins. Vehicular access will be provided directly off Annandale Street, with the existing crossing being retained. The driveway will run adjacent the northern boundary. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is located on the western side (lower side) of Annandale Street. The subject site, rectangular in shape, has a total area of 827.8m² with a frontage to Annandale Street of 25.175m and a side boundary length of 32.64m. The site has a distinct fall from south to north (between 3.0m and 4.3m) and from east to west. Currently on the site stands a four (4) level inter-war residential flat building containing seven (7) units with two (2) hard stand car spaces along the street alignment. The front façade of the building is characterised by curved balcony features over the main building entry and timber framed windows and doors. The rear of the building faces the harbour. It is characterised by rectangular shallow balconies and timber framed openings. The building consists of a stepped roof level. A partially enclosed roof top terrace exists over the lower roof level. The street falls in a northerly direction. Properties along the street have a distinct fall westward. Buildings cascade toward New Beach Road. Two to four storey residential flat buildings, semi detached developments and dwelling houses typify the streetscape. However, a multi- level residential flat building (11 Yarranabbe Road) located on the northern bend of Annandale Street forms a dominant visual element given its height and massing. Most of the buildings within the streetscape are visible from the harbour and foreshore. The buildings vary in architectural style and basic elements such as roof forms, window proportions, fencing, verandas, and balconies. The street is not identified within a heritage conservation area however the site is in the vicinity of a Heritage Item – ‘Balgowan’ –House and grounds (No 8 Annandale Street, Darling Point), which is listed as a Heritage Items under LEP 1995 (Amendment No 52) . 4. PROPERTY HISTORY The existing residential flat building No 10 Annandale Street is an example of a residential flat building incorporating the stylistic features of Inter-War Functionalist style architecture. It was designed by Guy Crick and erected at the end of the Inter-War period in 1942. In 1993 Council approved the construction of a car parking slab accessed from Annandale Street. 5. REFERRALS 5.1 Building • Rise in storeys: 4 – including basement parking • Construction: Type A • Class: 2 & 7 No objections are raised to the proposal.



5.2 Health Council’s Environmental Health Officer, Tonya Lego, has assessed the proposal and provided the following comments: Details of the installation of an air conditioning/cooling tower where provided and details of such works must be provided in a separate development application. Further details of CO2 monitors required in the basement carpark are to be provided in accordance with mechanical ventilation requirements prior to the release of the occupation certificate – see condition below listed.

Further details required in relation to the car wash run off and how this water will be processed prior to release an on site separator may be required, the applicant must comply with the requirements of Sydney Water in relation to the installation and operating requirements which may be applicable. 5.3 Heritage Council’s Heritage Officer, Louise Thom, has assessed the proposal and provided the following comments: I refer to the following documents received for this report: Statement of Environmental Effects by Willana Associates April 2005 (Includes drawings) Demolition Report by NBRS&P Heritage 4 April 2005 Heritage Impact statement by NBRS&P Heritage April 2005 Additional Information on Guy Crick by Robert Staas The following documentation and research was undertaken in the preparation of this assessment: Site Inspection: Date 23 May 2005 Review of documents: Extract from “Decoration and Glass” May-June 1949 page 34 Extract from “Decoration and Glass” May 1936 page 59 - 60 “The Roberts House” supplied by Roy Lumby Prominent Citizens of Sydney 1940 Australian Theatre Historical Society Journal 1994 Discussion with Roy Lumby of DOCOMOMO Australia. Review of DOCOMOMO Australia Register. Review of Councils property system to establish dates of earlier building and development applications. Review of Council Files. Heritage Status: Heritage item: no Conservation area: no Vicinity of heritage item: yes 8 Annandale St (Amend 52) Potential heritage item: no Significance of property Number 10 Annandale Street is an example of a residential flat building incorporating the stylistic features of Inter-War Functionalist style architecture. It was designed by Guy Crick and erected at the end of the Inter-War period in 1942 to accommodate the increasing demand for accommodation in the area in close proximity to the city and accessible by tram.



The building is associated with Guy Crick, an architect of high esteem important to the local area. Crick is well regarded for his Cinema buildings and some of his houses. A house known as the “Roberts House” designed by Guy Crick and Bruce Furze is listed in the Woollahra LEP. His residential flat buildings have not been published. Guy Crick has an established reputation as a designer of Art Deco Cinemas however he was never recognised for his design of residential flat buildings. The building at 10 Annandale Street is a representative example of its type and style although according to the heritage report it is not an outstanding example. It is substantially intact and in good condition. The building is red brick with bull-nosed verandahs to the front elevation. The roof and floor slabs of the verandahs are picked out in white paint. Internal the concrete stair and steel rail are intact and the units appear to be in their original configuration although no inspection of the interior of each flat was undertaken. The residential flat building has insufficient significance in its own right to warrant its protection as a heritage item. The property was originally the location of a house constructed in circa 1863 and named “Como”. It is possible that some remains of this occupation of the site are still to be found and therefore the site has some archaeological potential. “Balgowan” at number 8 Annandale Street is a freestanding two-storey Federation Queen Anne house built c. 1906. The house is a fine representative example of a house built in this style that was popular at the turn of the 19th Century. The house and subdivision demonstrate a major historical phase in the development of Darling Point as a residential suburb in the late 19th Century. The house was built on land subdivided from the estate of “Como”. Assessment of heritage impact Impact upon 10 Annandale Street. The subject building has insufficient significance to warrant its retention as a heritage item in the Woollahra LEP. There is therefore no reason the building cannot be demolished once a careful and thorough archival record is made. Impact on “Balgowan” 8 Annandale Street. The proposed development is to be located on the southern side of “Balgowan”. It involves a full demolition of the existing residential flat building and construction of a new residential flat building at a lower height than the existing. The new building will also be set back further from the boundary with “Balgowan”. The existing views to and from “Balgowan” will be maintained. The overall impact of the development on “Balgowan” will be negligible. Recommendation The application should be approved. Comment: As the application is recommended for refusal conditions are not considered necessary. 5.4 Technical Services Council’s, Nick Tomkins - Team Leader, Development Engineer, has provided the following comments: I refer to the following documents received for this report: 6. Email of stormwater disposal concept plans prepared by Lipscombe & Associates dated

5/5/05 Comments have been prepared on the following.



Site Drainage comments

A site inspection was held on Fri 12 May 2005 between Council's Drainage Engineer and Development Engineer. From the site inspections the following comments are made:

• There is a vertical drop of approx 10m to the properties below fronting New Beach Rd • To construct a drainage line below would be difficult due to the nature of the site • The water from the site if pumped to Annandale St will drain into what appears to be a

fairly poor existing drainage system in the sag to the north of the site. • This system drains under or around the massive block of units in off Yarranabbe Rd.

While it is difficult to achieve a gravity system the developer should explore the following methods of drainage:

• Pursue drainage along the existing system shown discharging to the NW corner of the block as detailed on Plan H01 Rev B by Lipscome & Assoc

• Property No 44 New Beach Rd has been excavated some time ago and the site now stands empty. There is a plastic pipe draining the above lot over the site from No8 Annandale - The applicant should pursue this avenue for a common drainage system and easement

Summary Before considering their proposed drainage option (ie to pump to Annandale Rd) the developer needs to explore the two options discussed above. This has been discussed with Mr Hugo van Kretschmar and Council's drainage engineer who explained Council's position on this matter. RECOMMENDATION Council’s Development Engineer has determined that the proposal is not satisfactory in its current state until the alternative drainage arrangements as detailed above have been explored by the developer. Council’s, Nick Tomkins - Team Leader, Development Engineer, has provided the further following comments in relation to the proposal: I refer to the following documents received for this report: 7. Architectural plans by Allen Jack & Cottier architects Dwg No. DA 0001 to DA3903 issue 01

dated 11.04.05 8. Survey plan dated 17-12-2004 by Dunlop Thorpe & Co P/L surveyors 9. Statement of Environmental Effects by Willana Assoc P/L dated April 2005 10. Stormwater disposal concept plan prepared by Lipscombe & Assoc P/L Dwg No Sheet No

H11, H01, H02, H07 Rev C dated 04/07/05 11. Geotechnical Report prepared by Jeffery & Katauskas P/L Ref:19242Zrpt dated 29 March

2005 Comments have been prepared on the following. Where Approval is recommended, Conditions of Consent follow at the end of the comments.



Site Drainage comments To address clause 25(2) of Councils LEP 1995,"Council must not grant consent …….. unless (Council) is satisfied that adequate provision has been made for the disposal of stormwater from the land… ", a downstream drainage easement is required to drain water off the site. In this case this requirement has not been satisfied. Apart from the easement requirements there are no other objections to Stormwater disposal concept plan prepared by Lipscombe & Assoc P/L Dwg No Sheet No H11, H01, H02, H07 Rev C dated 04/07/05. This concept plan is subject to the submission and approval of Stormwater Management Plan for the site prior to release of the Construction Certificate. Details are to be in accordance with Council’s Draft Stormwater Development Control Plan and Local Approvals Policy. This is to ensure that site stormwater is disposed in a controlled and sustainable manner. Flooding & Overland Flow comments Not applicable Impacts on Council Infrastructure comments Council's assets in satisfactory condition Traffic comments The expected traffic generation from the proposed development is typical for the zoning of the site. Vehicle Access & Accommodation comments The carparking spaces required for 2 X 4 bedroom apartments is a total of 5 spaces 4 for residents and 1 visitor space. The application is for 6 spaces which complies with DCP Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and/or Structural comments A Geotechnical Report by Jeffery & Katauskas P/L Ref:19242Zrpt dated 29 March 2005 has been submitted in support of the application. The report identified that the property was comprised of a layer of fill and sandy soil overlying sandstone bedrock at variable depth ranging from 3.49m to 4.68m deep with excavation of about 3.4m. Groundwater was not encountered. The report made comments and recommendations on the following: • Care in excavation adjacent of adjacent walls • Vibration • Underpinning • Dilapidation reports • Construction monitoring • Impacts on water table

Conditions covering these matters as well as others identified by Council have been added to the Referral. RECOMMENDATION Council’s Development Engineer has determined that the proposal is not satisfactory in its current state. This is due to inadequate documentation provided in support of the DA.



Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has determined that the proposal generally satisfies Technical Services concerns with respect to excavation and car parking. However, as the application is recommended for refusal on stormwater grounds conditions are not considered necessary. 5.5 Landscaping/Trees Management Council’s Trees and Landscaping Officer, David Grey, has provided the following comments: I refer to the following documents received for this report: Willana Associates statement of environmental effects and associated drawings dated April 2005. Arterra Landscapes tree report undated. A site inspection was carried out on the following day: 16 June 2005. This proposal is not acceptable to Tree Management section in its present form. The proposed removal of two mature Canary Island Date Palms (Trees 4 & 5) adjacent to the northern boundary of the site is unacceptable. These trees are a major landscape element in an area that is highly developed and has little else in the way of plant material. Any future proposal must include the retention of Trees 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7. Tree numbering relates to the scheme used in the supplied Arterra report. 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: 6. RELEVANT STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION 6.1 SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 Under clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. An assessment of the documentation provided by the applicant indicates the land does not require further consideration under clause 7 (1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 6.2 REPs SREP 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours Under the provisions of Clause 18 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 23, a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of deve lopment unless it is satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of SREP 23 and it has considered those matters that are relevant as listed within Clause 18, these matters are considered to be: (a) the appearance of the development from the waterway and the foreshores;



With respect to the objectives of SREP 23, Clause 2(2)(f) indicates the following: (i) to protect and enhance the landscape and special scenic qualities of the harbours; and (ii) to ensure that adequate consideration is given to the visual impact of the development; and (iii) to preserve the natural foreshores of the Harbours and to ensure development does not

detract from their natural character. In respect of the above provisions, it is noted that the proposal’s scale, size and character of the completed development will appropriately relate to the sites setting. The development will have a smaller scale than the existing building and a more harmonious appearance to the harbour and foreshore with its architectural style being contemporary reflecting the more recently constructed buildings without unduly detracting from the traditional character visible to the harbour and foreshore. As a result, no concern is raised to the visual impact of the development as viewed from the Harbour. (vi) Sydney Harbour and Parramatta River DCP The Sydney Harbour and Parramatta River DCP supplements the relevant SREPs by establishing guidelines for development and activities with the aim of:

• minimising impacts on ecological communities; • ensuring that the scenic quality of the area is protected or enhanced; • providing siting and design principles for new buildings and waterside structures; and • identifying locations with potential for foreshore access.

Having regard to the Development Control Plan it is considered that the proposed development is satisfactory as it does not alter the existing setback along the harbour interface. 6.3 Section 94 contribution According to Clause 3.3(a) of the Section 94 Contribution Plan 2002, any development proposal that will result in a net increase in dwellings or dwelling houses will be subject to a condition that requires payment of a monetary contribution or dedication of land or provision of a material public benefit or a combination of these. In accordance with the Summary Schedules of the Plan, no contribution rates are relevant and applicable to the proposed development due to the proposed reduction in the number of units on the site. 6.4 Other relevant legislation Not applicable. 7. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995 7.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone (Clause 8(5)) The proposal is permissible and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the relevant objectives of the Residential 2(b) zone



7.2 Statutory compliance table

Site Area: 827.8m² Existing Proposed Control Complies

Site Area and Lot Frontage 25.175m 25.175m 15m YES

Overall Height 16.9m 12.8m 9.5m NO*


(900.6m²) 0.97:1

(802.9m²) 0.75:1

(620.85m2) NO*

* SEPP No 1 objection submitted 7.3 Site area requirements The proposed development will achieve compliance with the site frontage standard of Clause 10. 7.4 Height The applicant has lodged a SEPP 1 objection to the height standard. The objection is made on the basis that the development standard in Clause 12 (Height) of the Woollahra LEP 1995 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The SEPP No. 1 objection forwarded by the applicant is paraphrased as follows:

“The height of the proposed building will be significantly less than that of the existing building (by 4.19m). Any view corridors of the Harbour, city skyline and surrounding district enjoyed from properties on the eastern side Annandale Street and beyond would be enhanced due to the height change. Some new view corridors would be created.

The ridgeline of the proposed development will create a harmonious appearance in the streetscape and improve the presentation to the harbour and foreshore. ……

The ridgeline will result in creation of stepped built forms along Annandale Street that will reinforce the sloping topography and fall of the street. The impact of the reduced building height will be consistent with a desired future objective of the locality contained in Council’s RDCP ‘to ensure that new development reinforces the stepped and sloping topography’…… The reduction in overall height with the redevelopment of the site will not result in any adverse amenity impacts on adjoining residential properties. It will not incur a major loss of privacy or undue overshadowing despite the proposal still exceeding the height standard. The overshadowing impact to the property 8 Annandale Street will be reduced as a result of the new development. No significant views will be unreasonably obstructed by the height of the building……… The bulk and scale created by the height will not result in overpowering visual impact, especially when viewed from the streetscape, foreshore or harbour. It will reduce the visual impact created by the existing building. In this regard strict compliance with the building height is unnecessary and unreasonable in this case.”

Based on these circumstances, the applicant is of the opinion that strict adherence to the Height standard is unreasonable and unnecessary.



In applying the principles set out in the Hooker case the proposed SEPP 1 objection has been considered by reference to the following tests: 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? 3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in



5. Is the objection well founded? The SEPP 1 Objection is assessed as follows:- 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? The maximum building height is a development standard under WLEP 1995. 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? The objectives of the maximum building height development standard in Woollahra LEP 1995 are as follows:

a) To minimise the impact of new development on existing views of the Sydney Harbour,

ridgelines, public and private open spaces and views of the Sydney City skyline; b) To provide compatibility with the adjoining residential neighbourhood; c) To safeguard visual privacy of interior and exterior living areas of neighbouring

dwellings; d) To minimise detrimental impacts on existing sunlight access to interior living rooms

and exterior open space areas and minimise overshadowing; e) To maintain the amenity of the public domain by preserving public views of the harbour

and surrounding areas and the special qualities of the streetscapes.

3. Is non-compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular, would strict compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act?

It is considered that allowing a variation to the Height standard, in this instance, would still enable the objectives of this standard to be upheld. Having regard to the objectives, it is considered that: • In relation to Objective (a): The proposed development, while visible from adjoining properties, would not obstruct existing views from neighbouring properties or the public domain to the Harbour or City skyline. In fact the proposed development, resulting in a significant reduction in the overall height of the existing development will result in properties to the east of the subject site (high side of Annandale Street) enhancing/improve their private iconic views.



• In terms of Objective (b): The reduction in he ight increases the building compatibility with the scale of the two adjoining developments. The proposed building will have a more consistent and compatible form with adjoining development. • In terms of Objective (c): The development has been designed to conform to the existing streetscape by providing a well-modulated building. The use of recessed decks further serves to modulate the building and create visual interest in the built form. The building has been designed with a strong emphasis upon usable private landscaped open space (including lawn areas) at ground level and decks at the upper level. The two units have been designed such that the active living zones are focused upon these areas with screening provided in the form of good architectural design and proposed landscaping to further protect the privacy of adjoining properties. • In terms of Objective (d): There is no question that the proposal, as amended, will result in increased public and private views. The proposed development, resulting in a significant reduction in the overall height of the existing development and the removal of a number of trees along the southern and northern boundaries will mean that from Annandale Street significant view corridors will be improved. Note: The benefit in private and public view corridors does not outweigh the benefit the existing trees currently has on the street and the subject site, particularly as these trees are a major landscape element in an area that is highly developed and has little else in the way of plant material. The objects specified in s 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act state: 5. The objects of this Act are: (a) to encourage: (i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment; (ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land. It is considered that enforcing the numeric development standard will hinder the attainment of objectives under 5(a) of the Act. Compliance is unreasonable in this instance based on: • The proposal will satisfactorily relate to the existing character of the surrounding built and

natural environment as viewed from the streetscape and other panoramic viewing points. • The proposal will not create any adverse environmental effect on the use and/or enjoyment of

adjoining properties; • The proposal will provide an appropriate density, bulk and scale to achieve the desired future

character objectives of the area; • The proposal will safeguard visual privacy of interior and exterior living areas of neighbouring

dwellings; and



The proposal is therefore seen to be in accordance with the objectives under 5(a) of the Act. 4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the

case? In view of the above, the strict application of the maximum building height development standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

5. Is the objection well founded? The objection advanced by the applicant that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary is well founded and it is considered that granting of development consent would be consistent with the aims and objectives of SEPP 1. 7.5 Floor space ratio Clause 11 requires that buildings do not exceed the floor space ratio on the density map. The site is subject to a 0.75:1 FSR standard. The proposal would have a maximum FSR of 0.97:1 (Gross Floor Area = 802.9m²) which exceeds the standard. The area of non-compliance is approximately 182.1m². The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in relation to the non-compliance. The SEPP No. 1 objection forwarded by the applicant is as follows:

(a) To set the maximum density for new development,

The density of development is achieved or controlled by limiting the number of units &/or bedrooms within each unit. Compliance of the proposed development with the maximum permissible floor space ratio could be achieved without reducing the number of units or bedrooms. Accordingly strict imposition of the standard would be of no consequence to the density and therefore is unreasonable and unnecessary in this case. The scheme achieves a reasonable density and one that is compatible with surrounding developments within the immediate locality. The current building exceeds the density controls set by Council with a floor space ratio of 1.09:1. The existing building also contains a high number of bedrooms, being a building consisting of 7 x 2 bedroom units. The proposed scheme will be more in keeping with the desired maximum density. The development will maintain consistency with an objective of the zoning of the land (Residential 2(b)) relating to the provision of medium or high-density residential developments appropriate to the location, whilst maintaining consistency with another objective of the zoning being ‘to encourage a diversity of dwelling types and tenures’. It should also be noted that generally, the reduction in density will assist in minimising privacy impacts given the reduction in on-site population density. The development provides generous basement and private open space areas and these contribute significantly to the gross floor area. These spaces are required to meet requirements of the Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan and to provide an adequate level of on-site amenity to meet the living needs of residents.



The areas in the basement include the storerooms and lift. The general storerooms are required to ensure consistency with the ‘site facility’ objectives and storeroom performance criteria of the DCP, being a lockable storage space of at least 8m³ per dwelling. The lift is necessary to provide convenient and appropriate access from the basement to all levels of the building, achieve the ‘pedestrian environment’ requirements and facilitate any adaptability for disabled access as per the requirements Council’s DCP for access and mobility. The balconies form the primary private open spaces of the dwellings. The size of the balconies will ensure recreational; comfort, service and special needs of residents are met, without adversely impacting on the amenity of any adjoining properties. They will provide an extension to the main living areas and allow for harbour views to be enjoyed without seeking to increase the density that the floor space ratio seeks to control. In this regard the size of the balconies will ensure the RDCP provisions for ‘open space’ are appropriately met. The additional balcony areas will not result in a substantial loss of privacy to adjoining properties. The privacy impact is discussed in Section 5.3.1 of the SEE. It is noted that the proposed building will reduce the gross floor area of the existing building. The existing building has a gross floor area of 901.4m². This exceeds the maximum FSR requirement by 280.55m². The total area of the balconies (129.2m² ) distorts the gross floor area calculations. Despite the density of the proposed building being reduced from the previous 7 units (and therefore a decrease in overall bedrooms) 89.2m² of the balconies are calculated in the gross floor area. The existing building contains 92.6m² of balconies but as each of the balconies serves a unit and is less than 20m², the balcony area is excluded from the gross floor area calculation. However, the population density of the existing building is significantly higher than the proposed development and the intention of the floor space ratio is to control density. Seeking strict compliance with the floor space ratio would result in minimal change to the overall bulk and scale of the building as viewed externally. In particular, the presence of the building from the public domain including the streetscape, foreshore and Harbour would not alter. Compliance is not warranted to address any adverse impacts to adjoining presidential properties, streetscape and Sydney Harbour

(b) To control building density, bulk and scale in all residential and commercial localities in the area in order to achieve the desired future character objectives of those localities, The proposed development will achieve the desired future character objectives of the Darling Point Precinct. Accordingly, strict compliance with the floor space ratio standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in this case. The proposed building will significantly improve the visual interrelationship of the existing building to reinforce the topography and its legibility, especially when viewed from the harbour, the foreshore, and other vantage points of the precinct. The proposed development will improve the distinct stepping of built forms down from the higher levels of the precinct, particularly from Darling Point Road, and from the eastern side to the western side (being the lower side) of Annandale Street. The building will be appropriately integrated with buildings on adjoining properties to reflect the fall of the street in a northerly direction.



The proposed development will not present an overly dominant built form. The existing building of the site currently presents a distinct form visible from the harbour and foreshore, and other public vantage points. The proposed development will compliment and integrate with the built forms of surrounding properties to provide continuity with the surrounding built forms and fall of the land. The mature trees that will be retained and the reduction to the size of the existing building, will maintain a landscaped presence, especially visible to the harbour, the foreshore, and other vantage points. The trees will also maintain a connective network with surrounding trees in the precinct to ensure a dominant landscaped backdrop is visible from the harbour and foreshore. The development will provide a total deep soil landscaped area in excess of the minimum requirement of the RDCP. The area will provide opportunities for the establishment of significant vegetation that could supplement the leafy character of the precinct and contribute to the green backdrop views visible to Sydney Harbour and surrounding land. The proposed development has been designed to address the street. The frontage of the building and its entries will be readily apparent from the street. A main portico entry easily identifiable from the street will be provided for each unit. The entry will be incorporated into the design of the site’s new front fencing. The main entry and front door of each unit will be located on the front façade of the building. The front façade will incorporate window openings with an outlook to the street. The proposed development will not unreasonably obstruct any existing views from public spaces to the harbour and the surrounding district. It will provide additional views from public spaces. The proposed development will add to the pool of the rich variety of architectural styles within the precinct and be representative of well-designed contemporary architecture. In this respect strict compliance with the floor space ratio standard is unnecessary. The additional floor space has allowed the design of the building to take on adequate articulation to create visual interest and avoid excessive visual bulk and scale, without significantly compromising on-site amenity. Appropriately sized internal living areas and primary private open spaces will be provided to ensure the recreational, comfort, service and special needs of residents are met. Mere compliance with the numerical standard would encourage a rectangular shaped building or significantly compromise the quality of living areas. In this respect a compliant development could be considered to be unreasonable, as it would restrict the ability to provide a quality design solution. (c) To minimise adverse environmental effect on the use or enjoyment, or both, of adjoining properties, The development will not result in any adverse amenity impacts on surrounding residential properties. It will not incur a major loss of privacy or unreasonably obstruct any significant views enjoyed from adjoining properties. The proposed development will not result in any undue overshadowing. The development generally meets the criteria set down by Council for the maintenance of a reasonable level of amenity to adjoining properties.



Given the above, the reduction of floor space to comply with the standard will not achieve a different outcome for the adjoining properties and therefore imposing the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable. (d) To relate new development to the existing character of surrounding built and natural environment as viewed from the streetscape, the harbour or any other panoramic viewing point The proposed development will appropriately relate to the existing character of the surrounding environment as viewed from the streetscape, harbour, or any other panoramic viewing point. The proposed building will improve the existing buildings visual interrelationship with buildings on the adjoining properties and the resultant presentation to the streetscape and harbour. It will respect the height, bulk and scale of buildings on adjoining properties. The character of the proposed building will contribute to the variety of architectural styles in the street and visible to the harbour without unduly detracting from them. The development will positively contribute to the streetscape and presentation to the harbour and foreshore. The proposed development will result in a much less dominant visual impact especially given the change in height, incorporation of a variety of external features and provision of an adequate level of articulation. The variety of external features and articulation will ensure the building does not present as one solid mass. The visual mass of the building presented to the harbour will be much less than the existing. The use of glazing to the rear will avoid the creation of solid wall barriers, incorporate a sense of openness and accentuate the stepping of the building.

Based on these circumstances, the applicant is of the opinion that strict adherence to the FSR standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. In applying the principles set out in the Hooker case the proposed SEPP 1 objection has been considered by reference to the following tests: 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? 3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in



5. Is the objection well founded? The SEPP 1 Objection is assessed as follows:- 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? The planning control in question is the floor space ratio development standard, set by Clause 11 of the Woollahra LEP. As such, any variation of this standard requires a SEPP 1 objection, as has been prepared in this case. 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? The objectives of the FSR standard listed under Clause 11AA of Woollahra LEP 1995 are:



(a) to set the maximum density for new development, (b) to control building density, bulk and scale in all residential and commercial locality is in the

area in order to achieve the desired future character objectives of those localities, (c) to minimise adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment, or both of adjoining

properties, and (d) to relate new development to the existing character of surrounding built and natural

environment as viewed from the streetscape, the harbour or any other panoramic viewing point.

3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and

in particular, does the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act?

It is considered that allowing a variation to the FSR standard, in this instance, would still enable the objectives of this standard to be upheld. Having regard to the objectives, it is considered that: • In relation to Objective (a) in terms of population density, a reduction in FSR to achieve

technical compliance would not necessarily result in a reduction in the number of persons able to occupy the development. The consequence is likely to be smaller apartments with consequent ly a reduced internal amenity for future occupants but no reduction in population density. The proposed development is considered unlikely to adversely impact on the capacity of existing services and is also unlikely to adversely impact on the level of service, capacity or function of the surrounding road network.

• In terms of Objective (b), the proposal is considered to be compatible with the character of

development in proximity to the site, which predominantly consists of multi-storey residential flat buildings and some large dwelling houses. The proposal is of a similar height, scale and bulk to that of surround ing buildings and will be viewed as three storeys from Annandale Street. Further, the development is consistent with the desired future character objectives of the Darling Point Precinct.

• Objective (c) would be upheld because the excessive floor space ratio would not result in

unreasonable amenity impacts to the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties in terms of unreasonable overshadowing, unreasonable overlooking, view loss or otherwise contribute to the overdevelopment of the site. (Refer also to Building Size and Location Performance Criteria in 9.1, below.)

• Objective (d) would be upheld because the proposal would relate to the existing scale and

character of adjoining and neighbouring built forms within the Annandale Street streetscape. A high degree of articulation in the proposed street facade together with high-quality finishes will ensure that the qualities of the streetscape are preserved.

The objects specified in s 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act state: 5. The objects of this Act are: (a) to encourage:



(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment; (ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land. It is considered that enforcing the numeric development standard will hinder the attainment of objectives under 5(a) of the Act. Compliance is unreasonable in this instance based on: • The proposal will provide an appropriate density, bulk and scale to achieve the desired future

character objectives of the area; • The proposal will not create any adverse environmental effect on the use and/or enjoyment of

adjoining properties; • The proposal will safeguard visual privacy of interior and exterior living areas of neighbouring

dwellings; and • The proposal will satisfactorily relate to the existing character of the surrounding built and

natural environment as viewed from the streetscape and other panoramic viewing points. The proposal is therefore seen to be in accordance with the objectives under 5(a) of the Act. 4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the

case? The proposal would achieve consistency with the objectives of Council's FSR standard and therefore the SEPP No 1 objection to the standard is supported. It is recommended that Council resolve to vary the FSR development standard in this instance as compliance is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary. 5. Is the objection well founded? The SEPP 1 objection in relation to the non-compliance with the FSR standard is well founded as it has established that compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. As such, it is considered that granting development consent would be consistent with the aims and objectives set out in Clause 3 of SEPP No. 1. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council support the SEPP 1 objection. 7.6 Other special clauses/development standards Clause 18 Excavation: The proposed excavation has been considered by Council’s Development Engineer (see Section 5.4 - Technical Services) and is acceptable in terms of Clause 18. Clause 19 HFSPA: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 19(2). Clause 25 Water, wastewater and stormwater: Clause 25 of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires Council to take into consideration the provision of adequate stormwater drainage and the provision of adequate water and sewerage services. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Clause 25 of Woollahra LEP 1995 and is considered to be unsatisfactory. (Refer to Section 5.4 – Technical Services).



Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils: The proposed works do not require the need for an assessment of acid sulfate soils under clause 25D of Woollahra LEP 1995. Clauses 26-33 Heritage and conservation area provisions : Clauses 26, 27 and 28 require Council to take into consideration the likely effect of a proposed development on the significance of Heritage items, Heritage item groups and Heritage conservation areas. The proposal is in the vicinity of ‘Balgowan’ –House and grounds (No 8 Annandale Street, Darling Point), which are listed as a Heritage Items under LEP 1995 (Amendment No 52). Council's Heritage Officer, Louise Thom, has not identified any heritage concerns in relation to the demolition of the existing buildings on the site or the proximity of the proposal to the heritage item. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Clauses 26-33. 8. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 applies Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Act requires that in determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration any draft environmental planning instrument "EPI" that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority. Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 ("the proposed SEPP") was publicly exhibited from 10 May to 18 June 2004. In considering how much weight should be placed upon an exhibited draft environmental planning instrument under section 79C of the Act one must assess how likely it is that the draft EPI will commence, in what form it is likely to commence and consider what effect the instrument would have if applied. The proposed SEPP received significant criticism from the development industry in submissions. Officers of DIPNR have advised that it will not be made in the form it was exhibited and that it will now be included as part of the new Integrated LEP Template. This template will be placed on public exhibition in late April/May 2005. Therefore, it is not known in what form the draft SEPP will be made. Clause 14 of the draft SEPP provides Saving and Transitional provisions. These provisions provide that any application submitted prior to the commencement of the proposed SEPP and within 28 days after the commencement of the proposed SEPP is to be determined in accordance with the former SEPP No.1 as if the former SEPP No.1 had not been repealed by the proposed SEPP. It is likely that the draft SEPP, if made, will contain transitional provisions. The draft SEPP would, if it commenced in its exhibited form, require a higher threshold test in order for an objection against a development standard to be sustained. However, the draft policy should not be given determining weight in the assessment of development applications for the following reasons: 1. The draft SEPP will not be made in the form it was exhibited 2. It is not known whether the threshold tests contained in the exhibited SEPP will be retained 3. It is likely that, if made, the draft SEPP will contain savings and transitional provisions. This means that objections submitted under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 must be assessed under the current policy.



Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2004 This draft planning instrument is aimed at repealing several existing planning instruments including SREP No 23 Sydney and Middle Harbours. The draft SEPP requires the consideration of similar issues as SREP No 23 such as the visual impact of development upon Sydney Harbour and adjacent foreshore areas. The proposal will be distantly visible from Sydney Harbour and will not appear incongruous with surrounding development when viewed from the harbour and adjoining foreshore areas. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of the draft planning instrument. 9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 9.1 Numeric Compliance table - Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003

Site Area (827.8m²) Existing Proposed Control Complies

Maximum Number of Storeys – RFB

4 4 (three (3) storey

from the street) 3 NO

Building Boundary Setbacks Front (east) Rear (west) Side (north) Ground Floor First Floor Second Floor Side (south) Ground Floor First Floor Second Floor

approx 8.0

4.0m

approx 8.5 approx 8.5 approx 8.5

approx 2.5 approx 2.5 approx 2.5

6.2 -7.6 6.8 -7.1

4.5 4.5 6.4

3.0 5.0 6.1

Predo. Setback

25% of site length (8.2m)

1.5m/2.5m/3.0m 4.5m 6.0m

1.5m/2.5m/3.0m

3.5m 6.0m

YES NO

YES YES

YES

YES YES YES

Setback from Significant Mature Trees <3.0 <3.0 3.0m NO

Building Footprint approx. 24%

(200m²) 36.9%

(305.5m2 ) 35%

(289.7m2 ) NO

Floor to Ceiling Height – Habitable Rooms - 2.9m 2.7m YES

Maximum Unarticulated Length to Street - 6.0m 6.0m YES

Solar Access to Open Space of Adjacent Properties (Hrs on 21 June) >50% >50%


Solar Access to Nth Facing Living Areas of Adjacent Properties (Hrs on 21 June)

>3.0 >3.0 3.0 hours YES

Excavation Piling and Subsurface Wall Setback

- 3.0 – 4.5 1.5m YES


approx. 68% (566m²)

31% (258m²)

40% (331m2 )

NO

Deep Soil Landscaping – Front Setback

- 50%

(93m²) 40%

(73.36m2 ) YES


- >35m²

Min dimension >3m

35m² Min dimension 3m

YES


- >16m²

Min dimension >4m

16m² Min dimension 4m

YES



Site Area (827.8m²) Existing Proposed Control Complies

Private Open Space – Upper Floor Units in RFBs -

8m² Min dimension

2m


Location of Swimming Pool (Unit 1) - Rear Setback (ground level) Rear Setback YES

Location of Swimming Pool (Unit 2) - Side setback (elevated and

screened) Rear Setback NO

Swimming Pool Excavation, Piling and Subsurface Wall Setback

- 3.5 1.5m YES

Swimming Pool Height Above Ground Level Adjacent to Adjoining Property

- 2.0 (unit No 1

pool) 0.3m NO

Front Fence Height - 1.0m - 1.5m transparent

1.2m/1.5m where 50% transparent

YES

Side and Rear Fence Height - Existing boundary fencing retained

1.8m YES

Solar Access to North-Facing Living Areas of Development (Hrs on 21 June)

- 3.0 3.0 hours YES

Minimum Number of North Facing Habitable Rooms >1 >1 1 YES

Setback of Bedroom Windows from Streets/Parking Areas of Other Dwellings

- >3.0m 3.0m YES

Car Parking Excavation - Within Building

Footprint Within Building

Footprint YES

Car Parking Spaces – RFB 2 car spaces 6 spaces

1.0 (1 bed) 1.5 (2 bed)

2.0 (3+ bed) 0.25 (visitor)

YES

Minimum Access Driveway Width - 3.6

3.5m – 6.0m

YES

Access Driveway Grades – Overall

- >15% 15% NO*

Access Driveway Grades – Transitional

- >12% 12% NO*

Area of Lockable Storage Spaces per Dwelling

- >8m³ 8m³ YES

*Satisfactory - Refer to Section 5.4 of this report Site analysis performance criteria (Part 3) Part 3 of Council’s RDCP 2003 requires adequate site analysis documentation for development applications. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard. Performance Criteria No. 1 requires development to fit into the surrounding environment and pattern of development by responding to surrounding neighbourhood character and streetscape. The proposed three-storey (not including the basement garage level), residential flat building is generally consistent with the form and materials of other recent medium density development constructed in the Darling Point Precinct. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to maintaining streetscape amenity given its articulation and modulation of the front facade in compliance with RDCP 2003.



Desired future precinct character objectives and performance criteria (Part 4) The objectives of the Darling Point Precinct relate to the mitigation of adverse impacts upon the local public domain, maintaining the existing landscape character of the locality and ensuring that development responds to the existing built forms in the streetscape. The design of the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to maintaining the amenity of Annandale Street and the local public domain. However, the proposal will not maintain the landscape character of the locality, which requires the preservation of significant existing trees and adequate replacement planting of trees. Refer to Council’s Tree Officers comments under Section 5.5 of this report. The issue of consistency with existing built forms in the streetscape has been discussed previously under the section “Site Analysis Performance Criteria”. Streetscape performance criteria (Section 5.1) Subject to the retention of the nominated significant trees located on the subject site, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to all other performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.1 of Council’s RDCP 2003. Building size and location performance criteria (Section 5.2) Building Height Performance Criteria C4.1.18.3 stipulates a maximum height of 3 storeys for the precinct. The proposed residential flat building consists of 4 storeys. The non-compliance with the above is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons: l The fourth storey is created by the topography of the site towards the rear. The projection of

the basement level will only be apparent from the rear of the site due to the slope. l The building will present as three storeys to the street. l The basement level will not be apparent form the harbour or the foreshore. l The basement projection will incorporate visual articulation and interest by incorporating a

permeable material and a recessive colour. l The existing building consists of four storeys. l The height of the proposed building will be significantly lower that that of the existing

building resulting in a less dominate development and thereby creating a better relationship with the height of adjoining buildings.

l No increase in overshadowing. l Improved iconic views. Building Footprint The site located within the Darling Point Precinct is limited to a building footprint of 35% (289.7m²) of the site area. The proposal results in a building footprint of 36.9% (305.5m²) which exceeds the building footprint by 15.8m².



The proposed non – compliance is considered negligible. Reducing the building footprint by 15.8m² will have no apparent benefit on the developments scale and bulk. The proposed development achieves compliance with the side boundary setback requirements ensuring no unreasonable sense of enclosure. Accordingly, no objection is raised in relation to this area of non-compliance. Building Setbacks Rear Setback Performance Criteria C5.2.3 requires that buildings have a minimum rear setback of 25% of the average site length. A minimum rear setback of 8.2m applies to the subject site. The proposed rear setback of 6.8 to 7.1 is however considered acceptable for the following reasons. • The proposed setback will align with the predominate setback of buildings on adjoining

properties. • The encroaching area is a strip which ranges from 1.1m to 1.4m in width which includes a

portion of open deck areas on levels 1 and 3. • Strict compliance will not benefit the scenic qualities of the harbour. • The proposed setback will be more than the minimum setback of the existing building, being

4.2m. • The non-compliances does not adversely impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties

in terms of additional overshadowing or loss of privacy, nor upon the amenity of the proposed development in terms of limiting useable outdoor living area.

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard. Excavation RDCP 2003 requires all excavation to be located a minimum of 1.5 metres from all boundaries of the site. The proposed car park at basement level complies with this requirement and with all other requirements relating to site excavation contained in Section 5.2 of RDCP 2003. Other Issues All habitable rooms will achieve a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.9 metres. The proposal will ensure that sunlight is provided to at least 50% of the main level private open space of adjacent properties for a minimum of two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Solar Access Performance Criteria C5.2.13 requires that sunlight is provided to at least 50% of the main ground level private open space of adjacent properties for a minimum of two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Due to the orientation of the subject site (east /west) the proposed development is likely to have some overshadowing on the property to the south. However, given that the proposed development will be significantly lower that the existing building and set back further from the property to the south, 8 Annandale Street will benefit with regards to solar access. It should be noted that the large high rise residential flat building (11 Yarrannabbe Road) to the north of the subject site, currently overshadows the subject site and surrounding sites significantly.



The proposal will ensure that the existing overshadowing will not be significantly reduced and that the subject site and adjoining properties will continue to receive two (2) hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid winter. In this regard, the proposed development is appropriate from a solar access perspective. Open space and landscaping performance criteria (Section 5.3) RDCP 2003 requires the provision of a deep soil landscaping area for residential flat buildings of at least 40% of the site area. This equates to 331m². The proposal provides a deep soil landscaped area of 258m² equating to 31% of the site, resulting in a non-compliance of 73m². Although pathways (driveway and pedestrian access ramps) are excluded under the definition of deep soil landscaping, the proposed pathways from the street to the two units and around the site, required to achieve consistency with the access and mobility requirements of the DCP, should be porous allowing for on-site infiltration of stormwater achieving compliance with O5.3.5 RDCP 2003. The inclusion of these areas, which assist in integrating the landscaped and built elements of the site, would render the proposal close to fully compliant with Council’s 40% deep soil landscape area requirements. If the DA were approved, a standard condition would be imposed requiring all pathways be porous. Otherwise, the proposal is considered to comply with all performance criteria and objectives stipulated under Part 5.3 of Council’s RDCP 2003. Swimming pool - unit No 2 C 5.3.1 requires adequate provision of accessible and useable private and communal open space. The proposed location of the pool to unit No 2 forms an extension of the useable private open space. Further, the proposed location of the pool will provide the occupants of unit No2 with adequate private and useable open space and will result in a higher level of amenity for the occupants rather than a position on the site which will be overshadowed by the proposed development. The siting of the pool in accordance with C 5.3.4 is integral to the design and function of the dwelling house which will enhance the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency. C 5.3.6 requires that the location and use of swimming pools does not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of private and public lands and on important character features of localities. The proposed siting of the swimming pool is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the north, as the pool will be used for residential purposes and will be well screened. Fences and walls performance criteria (Section 5.4) Performance Criteria C5.4.5 requires front fences forward of the building line to be no higher than 1.2 m if solid. This height may be increased up to 1.5 m if the fence has openings, which make it not more than 50% solid. The height of the front fence is due to the sloping nature of the site from south to north. The proposed transparent fence with a maximum height of 1.5m is compliant; however the proposed entries incorporated along the street alignment do not comply. Notwithstanding the numerical non-compliance, the proposed entries will reinforce and provide easy identification from the street of the entries to each unit in accordance with C5.4.3 and C5.4.4 of the DCP 2003. The proposed entries will be in keeping with the existing streetscape given that other similar entries are found along Annandale Street (lower side properties).



Therefore, although the proposed front fence is not fully compliant with this control, the proposed front fence (including the entries) will maintain the visual amenity of the streetscape by virtue of the design of the front fence and the high quality of materials to be used. Views performance criteria (Section 5.5) Part 5.5 of Council’s RDCP 2003 requires the maintenance of public views and the sharing of private views. There is no question that the proposal, as amended, will result in increased public and private views. The proposed development, resulting in a significant reduction in the over all height of the existing development and the removal of a number of trees along the southern and northern boundaries will mean that from Annandale Street significant view corridors will be improved. Likewise, properties to the east of the subject site (high side of Annandale Street) will improve their private iconic views. However, the benefit in private and public view corridors does not outweigh the benefit the existing trees currently has on the street and the subject site, particularly as these trees are a major landscape element in an area that is highly developed and has little else in the way of plant material. The LEC in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd V Warringah Council has adopted a four-step assessment of view affectation. The steps are as follows: 1. The assessment of the views affected 2. Consideration from what part of the property the views are obtained 3. The extent of the impact; and 4. The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. The above mentioned four-step assessment is not relevant in this instance given that there will be a benefit (increase) in public and private view corridors. Energy efficiency performance criteria (Section 5.6) The proposal seeks to maximise the potential of the northern orientation of the site in providing natural lighting and also utilise passive ventilation throughout the dwelling. The openings to the north-west are protected from summer solar gain by large balconies, but will permit solar penetration in the winter months. The proposed development will therefore comply with the energy efficiency requirements stipulated under Part 5.6 of Council’s RDCP 2003. Stormwater management performance criteria (Section 5.7) This issue has been discussed under Sections 5.4 & 7.6. The applicant has failed to satisfy Council that adequate provision has been made for the disposal of stormwater pursuant to clause 25(2) of WLEP 1995, for this reason, the proposal is recommended for refusal.



Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria (Section 5.8) The provisions of Part 5.8 of Council’s RDCP 2003 require the maintenance of the visual and acoustic privacy of adjoining properties. The design of the building, subject to the provision of a privacy screening being provided to the proposed deck adjacent to the southern boundary (screening No 8 Annandale Street), will satisfactorily preserve the existing and likely future amenity of the neighbourhood, whereby the aural and visual privacy of the adjoining properties will not be compromised. To assist in this assessment, the Land & Environment Court has recently established a set of planning principles to serve as a planning tool in assessing views, streetscape, aural and visual privacy etc. so as to promote best practise outcomes. The following principles for visual privacy have been established in the Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] decision in the Land and Environment Court: l Privacy can be achieved by separation. The required distance depends upon density and

whether windows are the same level and directly facing each other. Privacy is hardest to achieve in developments that face each other at the same level. Even in high-density development it is unacceptable to have windows at the same level close to each other. Conversely, in a low-density area, the objective should be to achieve separation between windows that exceed the numerical standards above.

l The use of a space determines the importance of its privacy. Within a dwelling, the privacy of living areas, including kitchens, is more important than that of bedrooms. Conversely, overlooking from a living area is more objectionable than overlooking from a bedroom where people tend to spend less waking time.

l Overlooking for neighbours that arises from poor design is not acceptable. A poor design is demonstrated where an alternative design, that provides the same amenity to the applicant at no additional cost, has a reduced impact on privacy.

l Where the whole or most of a private open space cannot be protected from overlooking, the part adjoining the living area of a dwelling should be given the highest level of protection.

l Apart from adequate separation, the most effective way to protect privacy is by the skewed arrangement of windows and the use of devises such as fixed louvres, high and/or deep sills and planter boxes. The use of obscure glass and privacy screens, while sometimes being the only situation, is less desirable.

l Landscaping should not be relied upon as the sole protection against overlooking. While existing dense vegetation within a development is valuable, planting proposed in a landscaping plan should be given little weight.

In relation to the second floor balcony (unit no 2), the proposed separation to the neighbouring dwellings, in particular No 46 New Beach Road who expressed concerns with respect to privacy loss, will be in excess of the 9 metres required by AMCORD for habitable rooms (18.9 metres) along with a level difference of approximately 14.6 metres (No 46 New Beach Road being at a lower level). The windows also provide a skewed line of sight to the neighbouring properties while the proposal also provides windows in appropriate locations so as not to be aligned with the window openings of adjoining properties. Consequently, the proposed development satisfies the planning principles established in the Meriton case and would result in a negligible impact on the neighbouring residential properties.



Car parking and driveways performance criteria (Section 5.9) C5.9.1 Section 5.9 requires the area of site excavated for the purposes of underground car parking to be limited to the permissible parameters of the building footprint of the development, being 35%, and Figure 5.9.1 requires basement excavation to be limited to the building footprint. The excavated area will not be outside the building footprint and therefore the extent of excavation maintains the 1.5m side setback requirements for excavation and is considered to be acceptable in this instance. Performance Criteria 5.9.3 requires 5 on-site parking spaces for the proposal. The proposal is compliant in this respect. Overall the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant objectives and performance criteria of Part 5.9 of Council’s RDCP 2003. Site facilities performance criteria (Section 5.10) The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Section 5.10 of Council’s RDCP 2003, in terms of the provisions of site facilities. Harbour foreshore development performance criteria (Section 5.11) The provisions of Part 5.11 of Council’s RDCP 2003 require the protection of the scenic quality of the locality as viewed from Sydney Harbour. The proposed development will have a smaller scale than the existing building and a more harmonious appearance to the harbour and foreshore with its architectural style being contemporary reflecting the more recently constructed buildings without unduly detracting from the traditional character visible to the harbour and foreshore. As a result, no concern is raised to the visual impact of the development as viewed from the Harbour. Accordingly the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard. Access and mobility performance criteria (Section 5.13) The proposal provides uninterrupted paths to the entry ways to each dwelling. Residents and visitors are able to access each unit by lift by direct ground access. In addition, parking spaces are designed to provide easy, convenient and safe access to the development for residents and visitors alike. 9.2 DCP for off-street car parking provision and servicing facilities The proposal complies with all of the relevant controls and objectives of this policy. 9.3 Woollahra Access



Access DCP The Access DCP seeks to encourage and promote sustainable development by extending the use of existing and new residential buildings through the provision of fully accessible and adaptable housing requirements and by increasing the number of fully accessible and adaptable houses within Woollahra. The proposal is considered to be acceptable with respect to this Plan The proposal in relation to this DCP has been addressed previously under Access and mobility performance criteria in respect to Section 5.13 of the WRDCP 2003. 9.4 Other DCPs, codes and policies Assessment under the development control plan for SREP 23 is as per the SREP 23, being that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the Harbour. 10. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Clause 92 of the EPA Regulation 2000 requires that Council take into consideration Australian Standard AS 2601 - 1991: The demolition of structures, as in force at 1 July 1993. Any approval would require compliance by way of condition. 11. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL All likely impacts of the proposal have been assessed elsewhere in this report. 12. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Acid Sulphate Soil Area The site is within a Class 5 Acid Sulphate Soil area identified in the Planning NSW Acid Sulphate Soil Risk Map. Classification 5 prescribes that preliminary testing is required if the soil is within 500m of an adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 soil or if the development will result in a change to the groundwater table on those adjacent soils. Although the subject proposed is within 500m of an adjacent soil Class (area along Yarranabbe Park/New Beach Road – Class 2), it is unlikely that the proposed excavation would lower the water table on that land by more than 1m, thus further testing is not necessary. 13. SUBMISSIONS The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notifications DCP. Seven (7) submissions were received from: 1. Neil Gross from No 3/7 Annandale Street, Darling Point Comment: Mr Gross raised no concerns. In fact Mr Gross will benefit from increased iconic views as a result of the proposed development. The removal of the significant trees located on the subject site along the northern boundary and the reduction in height of the proposed development compared to the existing development will result in significant views of the Harbour Bridge and Opera House being gained. Currently views enjoyed from the sunroom of Mr Gross unit is part of the Harbour Bridge and part of the Opera House (only from one vantage point within the sunroom).



2. Jane Bristow Hughes from No 6/46 New Beach Road, Darling Point 3. Moray Junner from No 5/46 New Beach Road, Darling Point 4. Jane Kinsella from No 4/46 New Beach Road, Darling Point 5. Directors of Lynton Investments from 11 Annandale Street, Darling Point 6. Anthony J Whittaker from No 3/46 New Beach Road, Darling Point 7. Dr Maria Liliana Di Napoli from No 8 Annandale Street, Darling Point The objectors raised the following issues:

• Loss of visual and aural Privacy (Refer to Section 9.1 - Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria)

• Drainage - acquisition of easement (Refer to Section 5.4 - Technical Services) Also a letter from Clayton Utz acting on behalf of Unit 2 and 3 / 45 New Beach Road Darling Point (SP 58482) dated 27 September 2005 advising Council that to date consent has not been granted for an drainage easement through No 45 New Beach Road benefiting the subject site No 10 Annandale Street.

• Overshadowing (Refer to Section 9.1 - Building size and location performance criteria) Comment: Although the majority of the proposed development is considered satisfactory the application in its current form is recommended for refusal for the following reasons;

1. Due to the absence of a downstream drainage easement to facilitate a gravity drainage system, the proposal does not provide for adequate site drainage and is therefore unsatisfactory with regard to the provisions of Clause 25 (1) of Woollahra LEP 1995.

2. Due to the removal of the two mature and significant Canary Island Date Palms (Trees 4 &

5) adjacent to the northern boundary on the site as well as Trees 1, 2, 6 & 7 (tree numbering relates to the scheme used in the supplied Arterra Landscape tree report), the proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to Desired Future Character Objectives O 4.1.4 under Part 4 & performance criteria C5.3.12 under Part 5.3 of Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003.

3. Not to the public interest.

The replacement application (as defined by Clause 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000) was renotified under clause 5.1 of the DCP because, having considered clause 9 of the DCP, the replacement application is substantially the same development as the original proposal and considered to have no greater environmental impact upon neighbours. 14. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal is unacceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C and would not be in the public interest. As discussed in Section 7.6 above, since the applicant has failed to satisfy Council that adequate provision has been made for the disposal of stormwater pursuant to clause 25(2) of WLEP 1995, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development. For this reason, the proposal is recommended for refusal.



15. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent to Development Application No. 194/2005 to demolish the existing 4 Storey residential flat building containing 7 units and construct new 4 storey (including basement carpark) residential flat building containing 2 units on land at 10 Annandale Street Darling Point, for the following reasons: 1. Due to the absence of a downstream drainage easement to facilitate a gravity drainage system,

the proposal does not provide for adequate site drainage and is therefore unsatisfactory with regard to the provisions of Clause 25 (1) of Woollahra LEP 1995.

2. Due to the removal of the two mature and significant Canary Island Date Palms (Trees 4 & 5)

adjacent to the northern boundary on the site as well as Trees 1, 2, 6 & 7 (tree numbering relates to the scheme used in the supplied Arterra Landscape tree report), the proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to Desired Future Character Objectives O 4.1.4 under Part 4 & performance criteria C5.3.12 under Part 5.3 of Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003.

3. Not to the public interest. Mr G Fotis Mr R Keys SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER ADVISINGS 1. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact G Fotis . However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34 Conference, instead of a full Court hearing. This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to agree, in writing, to the Court appointed assessor having the full authority to completely determine the matter at the conference.




SECTION 96 APPLICATION ASSESSMENT REPORT ITEM No. D11

FILE No. DA 685/2001/4

ADDRESS: 52A Wunulla Road POINT PIPER 2027

EXISTING CONSENT:

Alterations and additions including demolition and replacement of existing rear terraces, replacement of existing pool, internal alterations and new gate to Wunulla Road

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Integrated

DATE OF CONSENT: 17th December 2001

ZONING: Residential 2(a)

PROPOSED MODIFICATION:

Modifications to openings in ensuite 1 located on upper ground floor, southern elevation, so as to accommodate French doors to allow access to the adjoining roof area.

DATE S96 LODGED:

23/05/2005

CONSENT AUTHORITY:

Council

APPLICANT:

Mrs M L Rose

OWNER:

Mrs M L Rose

AUTHOR: Ms C McMahon

1. INTRODUCTION This Development Application was previously before the Development Control Committee Meeting held on 15th August 2005 (refer to Annexure 1). After considering late correspondence from the applicant the Committee resolved as follows:-

THAT Council, as the consent authority, defer consideration of Development Application No. 685/2001 to the first Development Control Committee meeting following 25 September 2005, as the applicant has indicated by late correspondence that they are overseas until that date.

The application is now before the Committee for consideration and determination. The recommendation to the Development Control Committee held on 15th August 2005 is reprinted in this report to assist the Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 A. THAT Council, as the consent authority, modify development consent to Development

Application No. 685/2001/4 for alterations and additions including demolition and replacement of existing rear terraces, replacement of existing pool, internal alterations and new gate to Wunulla Road on land at 52A Wunulla Road POINT PIPER 2027, in the following manner:



Amend Condition No. 1 to read: 1. Alterations and additions

This consent relates to the work, shown in colour, on plans numbered DA01/B, DA02/B and A03/B dated April 2001, drawn by Phillipa Judge Design, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved DA Plans” and the signature of a Council officer, as amended by works shown in colour on Drawing Nos. DA005D and DA006D dated 15th February 2005, drawn by Rosecorp Architectural Design, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved S96 Plans” and the signature of a Council officer, except where amended by the following conditions.

Add the following additional conditions:

52. Access to the roof top area from Ensuite 1on upper floor plan

The roof top area is to be used for maintenance purposes only and not for any recreational and other non-recreational uses including the hanging of laundry.

53. Loose pebbles to be placed on roof top area

The roof top area adjacent to Ensuite 1 on the upper floor plan is to be covered in loose pebbles to match the pebbles covering the main roof of the dwelling.

54. Glazing to the access doors to the roof top area from Ensuite 1 on upper floor plan The glazing for the doors is to consist of translucent glazing.

55. Plant Pots to be placed on the roof top area from Ensuite 1on upper floor plan

Four (4) pot plants (45 litres in size) are to be located on the roof top area adjacent to Ensuite 1. The plants are to be maintained in a healthy condition at all times.

56. Light fittings to the roof top area from Ensuite 1on upper floor plan The light fittings in the floor of the roof top area are to be removed. This is to prevent light overspill to adjoining properties.

B. THAT Council will not require the removal/demolition of the unauthorised works subject to

the following:

(a) Lodgement of a Building Certificate application with Council. (b) Compliance with Condition Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Development Consent to

DA685/2001. Works to be completed prior to the issue of the Building Certificate. (c) The submission of certification from a professional engineer (structural) as defined by

the Building Code of Australia that the structural stability of the Building has not been adversely affected by the unauthorised building works or details of any remedial works required by the professional engineer prior to such engineer being able to issue certification.



The Building Certificate Application must be submitted within 28 days of the date of this determination and all remedial works required must be completed to Council’s satisfaction within 56 days. Failure to comply with such requirements may result in Council commencing action under Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 including appropriate orders and prosecution.

C. THAT this matter be referred to the Manager – Compliance to take appropriate action under

Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with Council’s Policy on Unauthorised Uses, Buildings and Works for failure to obtain Council’s prior development consent.

Ms C McMahon Mr Brett Daintry TEAM LEADER MANAGER DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ADVISINGS 1. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact Ms Catherine McMahon. However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34 Conference, instead of a full Court hearing. This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to agree, in writing, to the Court appointed assessor having the full authority to completely determine the matter at the conference.

ANNEXURES 1. Report to the Development Control Committee held on 15th August 2005




FILE No. DA 29/2005/1

ADDRESS:

37 Wunulla Road POINT PIPER 2027

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey residence and the refurbishment of the pool deck level

ZONING:

2(a)

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Integrated

APPLICANT:

Mr J T Dalley

OWNER:

Mr J T & Mrs L A Dalley

DATE LODGED:

27/01/2005 22/08/205 (Replacement Application)

AUTHOR: Mr J Lukas LOCALITY PLAN


North

Locality Plan



1. SUMMARY Reason for report The property has water front access to its eastern side. In accordance with Council's delegations, the application is presented to the Development Control Committee for determination. Issues q Building footprint q Floor space q Setbacks q Views q Demolition Objections There were 7 submissions received. The submissions are from 3 adjoining properties who have submitted various supporting letters from architects, town planners and solicitors to support their concerns. Cost of works The stated cost of the proposed work of $3,000,000 has been checked using the standard criteria specified in the Cordell Building Guide and is considered to be accurate. Recommendation Approval 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The development application proposes the demolition of an existing residential dwelling and construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey contemporary designed resident ial dwelling. On the site is an existing boat shed and swimming pool to its north eastern corner which would be retained and refurbished as part of the development application. A replacement application (as defined by Clause 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000) was received on 22 August 2005 that increased the deep soil landscaped area on the site. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The site is located on the eastern side of Wunulla Road, diagonally opposite the northern end of the Longworth Avenue junction in Point Piper. The site has an arced 22m frontage to Wunulla Road and a boundary depth averaging 70.88m. The site falls drastically from its western to its eastern end and is bounded on its eastern side by Rose Bay. The site also has a cross fall from its southern to northern side.



On the site is an existing stepped residential dwelling house that follows the contours of the site. Along with the existing two-storey dwelling house is a swimming pool, boat shed and timber jetty with a dispersion of retaining walls, landscaping and sandstone outcrops that present to Rose Bay. To the western end of the site are significant and contributory trees that define the landscape setting of the precinct. Immediately adjoining the subject site is a 3 level residence to the south, and a previous subdivided site to the north that contains a 3 level residence to the western end of the northern boundary and a 2 storey dwelling to the eastern of the northern boundary. The sites immediately opposite on Wunulla Road are orientated towards the west, with views towards Sydney Harbour Opposite the site. The sites diagonally opposite the site, on the southern side of Longworth Avenue, are orientated towards the east with views over the subject site towards Rose Bay. The locality is characterised by 2 and 3 storey dwelling houses on large sites, bounded by high fences, with vistas of the harbour provided from the street. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY DA 1292/1999 proposed substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including excavation of the under-croft area to provide a basement level for a cellar and study. The application was approved on 16 December 1999. There is no other relevant history pertaining to this application. 5. REFERRALS 5.1 Comments from external approval bodies Waterways Authority The Waterways Authority has provided the following comment:

"Based on the information provided, and if Council is of a mind to grant development consent to the subject development application, Council is advised that a Part 3A Permit would be issued for the proposed development in accordance with the following general terms:"

The general terms are included in the recommendation (see Condition Nos.2 - 13). 5.2 Building The proposal would comply with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia Housing Provisions. 5.3 Health N/A



5.4 Heritage Council's Heritage Officer, Kate Higgins, comments are:

"Godden Mackay Logan and the RAIA have not raised objections to the demolition of the existing building. I have not heard from the National Trust, but the subject building is not listed with the National Trust. Chris Bluett, Manager Strategic Planning, has responded to my memo regarding Clive Lucas’s opinion that the subject building should be studied further as part of the current 20th century heritage study. Chris is of the view that the subject building should not be added to the buildings included in the contemporary items study. An opinion has also been received from John Oultram (dated 4th April 2005) where he concludes that the existing building is worthy of listing as a heritage item. Based on a review of the available information, I consider that the subject building does not have sufficient heritage significance to justify listing as a heritage item and therefore does not warrant retention. Recommendation No objection to demolition, subject to conditions."

The comments are supported and appropriate conditions included in the recommendation (see Condition No.22). 5.5 Urban Design N/A 5.6 Development Engineer Council's development Engineer, Nick Tomkins, comments are:

"Flooding & Overland Flow comments Not affected. Impacts on Council Infrastructure comments Existing Council assets in Wunulla Road are in satisfactory condition and no specific conditions apply. Traffic comments The expected traffic generation from the proposed development is typical for the zoning of the site. Vehicle Access & Accommodation comments There is sufficient room for manoeuvring and parking of required vehicles.



Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and/or Structural comments A Geotechnical Report by Douglas Partners Project 37871 dated 17 March 2005 based on a site inspection and experience in nearby site by Douglas Partners has been submitted in support of the application. The report identified medium to high strength sandstone covered approx 1m layer of fill of colluvial soil. Groundwater appeared not to be an issue only minor seepage. The report made comments and recommendations on the following:

• Vibration • Dilapidation reports • Construction monitoring • Further site inspections

Conditions covering these matters as well as others identified by Council have been added to the Referral. Other comments Due to the likelihood of additional power usage as a result of the new development, Energy Australia has requested that the applicant contact them with regards to the possible provision of a new Electricity Substation on site. RECOMMENDATION Council’s Development Engineer has determined that the proposal satisfies Technical Services concerns, subject to conditions."

The comments are supported and appropriate conditions included in the recommendation (see Condition Nos.23 - 49). 5.7 Landscaping/Trees Management Council's Trees Officer, Louise Bennett, comments are:

"It is noted that a Magnolia ‘Little Gem’ (Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’) located along the front boundary to the south-west does not appear on the plans supplied with the Development Application. This tree has been included in these comments and reference on the associated plans as Tree 1A. Whilst no intent for this tree is stated within the application, it is presumed that removal was proposed. Due to the suppressed form of the tree, no objection is raised to this option.

Removal of only two (2) trees is proposed however, concern is raised at the proximity of the proposed terraced garden to Tree 3 Lemon Scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora). When scaled from the plans, excavation would appear to be proposed within 1.5 metres. This is too close, consent for excavation any closer than 4 meters from the base of the tree should not be granted. This distance would not include any additional excavation width required footings etc. Such a distance would permit the tree to maintain a viable soil volume around the root zone supporting both the health and stability of the tree. Excavation any closer may also affect structural (supporting) roots and may compromise the stability of the tree. Given its



newly exposed location and its proximity to dwellings such an action is not considered appropriate.

All other trees located on the site should not be directly impacted upon by the proposed development. Conditions have been set to alleviate any negative impact on these trees.

RECOMMENDATION

Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer has determined that the development proposal is satisfactory in terms of tree preservation and landscaping, subject to conditions."

Council's Trees Officer has raised an issue regarding excavation associated with the construction of the terraced garden near the existing Lemon Scented Gum to the north-west end of the site. The terraced garden could be modified to maintain the health and stability of the tree by condition. The comments from Council's Trees Officer are supported and appropriate conditions included in the recommendation (see Condition Nos.14 - 21). 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: 6. RELEVANT STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION 6.1 SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") applies to the proposed development. The development application was accompanied by BASIX Certificate No.14423 committing to environmental sustainability measures. These commitments to environmental sustainability measures have been noted on the architectural plans and have been imposed by standard condition prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 Under clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. An assessment of the Initial site evaluation provided by the applicant indicates the land does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. State Environmental Planning Policy 56 The proposal is satisfactory when assessed against the guiding principles in Clause 7 of SEPP 56. 6.2 REPs Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 23



The proposed development would be set further back from the waters edge and have a smaller building footprint than the existing building as seen from the waters of Sydney Harbour. The form and scale of the development would be consistent in scale with development in the immediate vicinity. The extent of glazing to the proposal would be consistent with surrounding development and would not have a detrimental impact on the visual setting of Sydney Harbour. The existing tree canopy and landform, as seen from the Harbour, would be maintained as the proposed development would be set further back from the waters edge than the existing dwelling, thus maintaining the existing deep soil landscaped areas and rock outcrops on the site to its eastern end. In this regard, the relevant heads of consideration under the SREP would be satisfied. 6.3 Section 94 contribution Not applicable. 6.4 Other relevant legislation None relevant. 7. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995 7.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone (Clause 8(5)) The proposal is permissible and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the relevant objectives of the 2(a) zone. 7.2 Statutory compliance table

Existing Proposed Control Complies

Overall Height 6.53m 9.33m 9.5m YES

FSBL 9.9m 9.9 12m NO*

* Existing non-compliance 7.4 Site area requirements Not applicable. 7.5 Height The proposal would comply with the statutory height control and satisfy the relevant objectives prescribed by the LEP.



7.6 Floor space ratio Not applicable. 7.7 FSBL The FSBL for dwelling houses is 12m as prescribed by the LEP. 1.02m² of the existing dwelling house currently encroaches within the 12m FSBL as well as the existing swimming pool and associated utility rooms. The existing swimming pool and associated utility rooms are retained in the development. The proposed new dwelling house would maintain the existing encroachment of 1.02m² at the basement level. The remaining portion of the new dwelling would substantially increase the setback from the FSBL than the existing building. The part encroachment of the new dwelling would nevertheless fail to comply with the statutory control prescribed by the LEP. The applicant has subsequently submitted a SEPP 1 Objection to seek variation to the development standard. The SEPP 1 Objection is reviewed as follows:- 1. Is the planning control in question a development standard? The FSBL is a development standard under WLEP 1995. 2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard? The objectives of the Foreshore Building Lines development standard in Woollahra LEP 1995 are as follows: a) to retain Sydney Harbour's natural shorelines, b) to provide larger foreshore setbacks at the points and heads of bays in recognition of their

visual prominence, c) to protect significant areas of vegetation and, where appropriate, provide areas for future

planting which will not detrimentally impact on views of the harbour and its foreshores, d) to protect the amenity of adjoining land in relation to a reasonable access to views and

sunlight, e) to preserve the rights of property owners to maintain an encroachment on the foreshore

building line by an existing main building, f) to protect rock platforms and the intertidal ecology. 3. Is non-compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and

in particular, would strict compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act?

The applicant's grounds for objection are:

"The relevant objectives are satisfied because:



§ No adverse impacts to the natural shorelines § No adverse impacts upon the visual prominence of the existing built form § No impact upon any existing vegetation or landscaping opportunities § No adverse impacts upon adjoining dwellings views, privacy or solar access § Maintains an existing encroachment of the FSBL § No impact upon rock platforms or intertidal ecology

In addition to the development satisfying the objectives of the standard, the proposal has additional positive outcomes that include: § Significant improvement to the architectural appearance of the dwelling viewed from

harbour § Provision of greater articulation to the facade and therefore light and shadow on the

northern elevation § No floor area is to be added toward the FSBL, with there being an overall increase in

the building setback from the FSBL well in excess of the minimum 12m requirement § The proposed dwelling significantly improves the visual relationship of the building to

the harbour and the visual quality of the development ." The argument submitted by the applicant is supported and the proposal would satisfy the relevant objectives of the Foreshore Building Lines development standard. Accordingly, non-compliance with the deve lopment standard is consistent with the aims of the Policy and will not hinder the attainment of the objectives specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act. 4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the

case? In view of the above, the strict application of the FSBL development standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. 5. Is the objection well founded? The objection advanced by the applicant that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary is well founded and it is considered that granting of development consent would be consistent with the aims and objectives of SEPP 1. 7.8 Other special clauses/development standards Clause 18 Excavation: The proposed excavation is acceptable in terms of Clause 18, subject to conditions (see Conditions Nos.43 - 48 and Nos.64 - 66 inclusive). Clause 19 HFSPA: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 19(2). Clause 24 Land adjoining public open space: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 24(2). Clause 25 Water, wastewater and stormwater: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 25(1) and (2).



Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils: The proposed works do not require the need for an assessment of acid sulfate soils under clause 25D of Woollahra LEP 1995. 8. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 applies Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Act requires that in determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration any draft environmental planning instrument "EPI" that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority. Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 ("the proposed SEPP") was publicly exhibited from 10 May to 18 June 2004. In considering how much weight should be placed upon an exhibited draft environmental planning instrument under section 79C of the Act one must assess how likely it is that the draft EPI will commence, in what form it is likely to commence and consider what effect the instrument would have if applied. The proposed SEPP received significant criticism from the development industry in submissions. Officers of DIPNR have advised that it will not be made in the form it was exhibited and that it will now be included as part of the new Integrated LEP Template. This template will be placed on public exhibition in late April/May 2005. Therefore, it is not known in what form the draft SEPP will be made. Clause 14 of the draft SEPP provides Saving and Transitional provisions. These provisions provide that any application submitted prior to the commencement of the proposed SEPP and within 28 days after the commencement of the proposed SEPP is to be determined in accordance with the former SEPP No.1 as if the former SEPP No.1 had not been repealed by the proposed SEPP. It is likely that the draft SEPP, if made, will contain transitional provisions. The draft SEPP would, if it commenced in its exhibited form, require a higher threshold test in order for an objection against a development standard to be sustained. However, the draft policy should not be given determining weight in the assessment of development applications for the following reasons: 1. The draft SEPP will not be made in the form it was exhibited 2. It is not known whether the threshold tests contained in the exhibited SEPP will be retained 3. It is likely that, if made, the draft SEPP will contain savings and transitional provisions. This means that objections submitted under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 must be assessed under the current policy. Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2004 (now gazetted and in-force) The subject site is within the area to which the Draft SREP applied at the date of lodgment. The transitional provision of this new SREP means it does not apply to the assessment. The objectives of the Plan are established at Clause 2 and include the following: (a) To ensure that the catchment, foreshores, waterways and islands of Sydney Harbour are

recognised, protected and maintained; (b) As an outstanding natural asset, and



(c) As a public asset of national and heritage significance, for existing and future generations. (d) To ensure a healthy, sustainable environment on land and water (e) To achieve a high quality urban environment, (f) To ensure a prosperous working waterfront and an effective transport corridor, (g) To ensure accessibility to and along Sydney Harbour and its foreshores, (h) To provide a consolidated, simplified and updated legislative framework for future

planning. The proposal will not have an adverse visual impact on the Harbour foreshore and the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Draft SREP. It is therefore considered that the proposal meets the relevant requirements of the Draft SREP and is acceptable in this regard. 9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 9.1 Numeric Compliance table - Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003


Maximum Number of Storeys – Dwelling

2 3 3

(Steep sloping sites) YES

Building Boundary Setbacks Front (west) Rear (east) Side (north) Ground Floor First Floor Side (south) Ground Floor First Floor

22m

9.91m

0.811m 0.811m

0.942m 0.942m

4.7m

9.91m

0.6m 0.6m

0.942m 0.942m

4m

17.72m

3m 3.5m

3m 3m

YES NO*

NO NO

NO* NO*

Setback from Significant Mature Trees N/A >3m 3.0m YES


(469m2 ) 33%

(477m2 ) 30%

(438m2 ) NO


(790m²) 0.77:1

(1130m2) 0.55:1

(803m2 ) NO

Floor to Ceiling Height – Habitable Rooms N/A >2.7 2.7m YES

Maximum Unarticulated Length to Street <6m <6m 6m YES


>50% (or 35m2) for 2 hours

>50% (or 35m2) For 2 hours


Solar Access to Nth Facing Living Areas of Adjacent Properties (Hrs on 21 June)

>3hours >3hours 3 hours YES

Excavation Piling and Subsurface Wall Setback 0.942 0.942 1.5m NO*

Deep Soil Landscaping – Dwelling N/A

50% (220m²)

50% (219m2 ) YES

Deep Soil Landscaping – Front Setback N/A

68% (96m²)

40% (56m2) YES

Deep Soil Landscaping – Front Setback (Consolidated Area) >12m²/20m² >12m²/20m² 12m²/20m² YES


>35m² Min dimension

>35m² Min dimension 3m









Private Open Space at Ground Level – Maximum Gradient <1:10 <1:10 1:10 YES

Front Fence Height 2.4 2.4 1.2m/1.5m where 50% transparent NO*

BASIX – Water N/A 42% 40% YES

BASIX – Energy N/A 25% 25% YES

Solar Access to North-Facing Living Areas of Development (Hrs on 21 June)

>3hours >3hours 3hours YES

Minimum Number of North Facing Habitable Rooms >1 >1 1 YES

Height of Chimneys/Flues N/A 0.6m 1m YES

Setback of Bedroom Windows from Streets/Parking Areas of Other Dwellings

>3m >3m 3m YES

Location of Garages and Car Parking Structures

Behind Front Building Line



YES

Garage Frontage Width N/A 30%

(6.8m) 30%

(6.84m) YES

Car Parking Spaces – Dwellings

>2 >2 2 YES

Minimum Access Driveway Width 4 4 3.5m – 6.0m YES

Access Driveway Grades – Overall

<15% <15% 15% YES

Access Driveway Grades – Transitional

<12% <12% 12% YES

* Existing non-compliance Site analysis performance criteria (Part 3) The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. Desired future precinct character objectives and performance criteria (Part 4) § Side boundary setbacks The RDCP indicates that side setbacks are to be a minimum of 3m in order to "maintain a reasonable separation between buildings and to avoid an unreasonable sense of enclosure." The new dwelling seeks to maintain the side setbacks of the existing building that would be demolished. To the northern side of the site, over 88% of the boundary length would benefit from a building setback of more than 8m. The application proposes a small section of building, 8.5m in length, which is relative to the boundary length of 69.75m, to be set back 0.6m from the northern boundary. Being to the south of the immediately adjoining site, No.39A Wunulla Road, there would be no impact on its views, privacy or sunlight access. The proposal would be located to the rear of the adjoining dwelling, which is located below the subject site and orientated to the north and east to



maximize views and sunlight access. The proposed boundary setback would satisfy the intent of the above stated objective. To the southern boundary, the application seeks to maintain the existing building setback of 0.942m. The subject site is located below the ground level of the site immediately adjoining to the south, being No.35 Wunulla Road. The southern external wall of the proposed building would project 2.4m above the existing boundary fence. The southern elevation of the proposed development would contain large expanses of timber louvers/shutters to its western end that would reduce the perceived scale and bulk of the dwelling as viewed from No.35 Wunulla Road. The proposed indent of the roof form provides a shading effect that would create a visual relief to the southern elevation, further reducing its perceived scale and bulk. The adjoining property to the south has a site width similar to the subject site. The dwelling is orientated to its east and west, benefiting from uninterrupted views of Rose Bay to the east and immediately opposite Longworth Avenue to the west, providing an open view to Sydney Harbour. The proposed boundary setback would not result in any detrimental impact on privacy, views or sunlight access to No.35 Wunulla Road. Having regard to the variation between the site levels, the open access to the eastern and western ends of No.35 Wunulla Road, and the proposed design options to the dwellings southern elevation to reduce its perceived scale and bulk, the proposal would satisfy the intent of the above stated objective in that it would maintain a reasonable separation between buildings and avoid an unreasonable sense of enclosure. § Front Fences The RDCP prescribes front fences to be limited to 1.5m. The existing fence, measuring 2.4m in height from footpath level, would be retained. The application proposes to create two new openings in the existing fence, one providing access to the garage and the other a pedestrian gate. The height of these gates would match the existing fence height. The punctuations in the fence, and the metallic finish of the pedestrian and vehicular gate, would provide visual relief to the existing masonry fence. Though the existing fence exceeds the maximum fence height, the streetscape is characterized by high fences on grand estates with occasional vistas to the harbour. The proposed alteration to the existing fence would reinforce this sense of historic grand estates, an important element of the streetscape, without restricting any vistas to the harbour. The proposal would therefore satisfy the relevant objectives prescribed by the RDCP. § Precinct character, Views and Vistas, Location of Garages The proposed dwelling would follow the slope of the land and would have minimal impact on the existing land form.



The built form of the development would reinforce the hierarchy of the curving street and would be consistent with the predominant setback of development within the locality. The garage would be integrated within the dwelling and would not dominate the streetscape. The development would maintain the views and vista corridors shown on the precinct map. The proposal would therefore satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. Streetscape performance criteria (Section 5.1) The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. Building size and location performance criteria (Section 5.2) § Development Setbacks The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the DCP in relation to the front setback. The development proposes to retain the existing rear building setback, which fronts Rose Bay on its eastern side. The RDCP states that "the form and scale of development is not excessive and maintains the continuity of building forms and front setbacks in the street." The eastern end of the site fronts Rose Bay and is the primary frontage of the site. Though it is not a street front, it is the primary front of the site that defines the Point Piper character as viewed from Rose Bay. The proposed scale and form of the building, and its alignment, would maintain the continuity of building forms along the eastern end of the site. To enforce a 17.72m setback would create a void that would be detrimental to the continuity of building forms along this section of Point Piper. The proposal would also retain the established tree and vegetation network as well as maintain views, sunlight access and privacy for neighbouring residents. The proposal would satisfy the relevant objectives prescribed by the RDCP and satisfy the intent of the rear setback control. § Building footprint The proposed building footprint would exceed the maximum control prescribed by the RDCP. The proposed garage forms an integral part of the design of the overall building and is included in the building footprint calculation. However, if the applicant proposed to separate the garage element from the main dwelling, the building footprint of the principal dwelling, in accordance with the RDCP definition, would comply with the maximum numerical control prescribed by the RDCP. The design option put forward by the applicant is considered to be advantageous to the streetscape and the land form and would satisfy the intent of the numerical control and satisfy the relevant objectives prescribed by the RDCP.



§ Building form and scale The proposed floor space for the development would exceed the maximum prescribed by the RDCP by 327m². The basement level of the proposed dwelling and the plant room above the garage, which would be a half storey in height and included as FSR by definition, are the main contributing elements of the non-complying floor space. The proposed dwelling would satisfy the WLEP and RDCP criteria for volume control, being the height and setback of the dwelling from both Wunulla Road and from Rose Bay. The scale and volume of the building, visible from the public domain and adjoining property, would be compatible with the building forms and setbacks of development immediately surrounding the site. The majority of the excess floor space would be internalized within the development, with little resultant impact on the amenity of adjoining property with regard to privacy, sunlight access and views. A comprehensive view analysis will be discussed below. The above ground floor space of the proposed development, as seen from the public domain and from adjoining property, would comply with the numeric criteria prescribed by the RDCP. Council's Development Engineer has reviewed the implications of the additional excavation proposed to the basement level and has indicated that the excavation proposed, ranging in depth from 0.9-1.5m in depth, would have no detrimental impact on adjoining structures or the natural environment. The proposed building form relates to the steep sloping topography of the site, with minimal cut and fill and with no resultant detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining property both during and after construction. Having regard to these circumstances, the proposal would satisfy the relevant objectives for floor space prescribed by the RDCP and is acceptable in this instance. With regard to solar access, the shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that sunlight is provided to the north facing windows and the rear private open space of No.35 Wunulla Road, adjoining to the south, complying with the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. The balance of the proposed works would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. § Site excavation The RDCP prescribes that excavation should not be less than 1.5metres from a side boundary. The existing building has a basement floor level that is set back 0.942m from the southern boundary. The application proposes to extend this existing basement level by further excavating the south east corner of the site, in order to better utilize the existing topography of the site for habitable area. The additional excavation proposed would maintain this existing 0.942m setback and would range in depth from 0.9-1.6m.



The extent of excavation proposed would cover only 16% of the site area. The Geotechnical report submitted with the application identifies a sub-stratum of medium to high density sandstone with no groundwater issues. Councils Development Engineer has indicated that the extent of excavation proposed, subject to conditions, would have no detrimental impact on adjoining structures or the natural environment. The extent of excavation proposed would be minimal, with little resultant impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. The proposed building form would relate to the topography of the site. The proposal would therefore satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. Open space and landscaping performance criteria (Section 5.3) The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. Views performance criteria (Section 5.5) C5.5.6 of Council’s RDCP 2003 in relation to private views, requires building forms to enable a sharing of views with surrounding residences and to ensure that development does not fully obstruct existing views from the habitable rooms of neighbouring residences. Three objections have been received regarding view loss. A submission has been received from the dwelling diagonally adjacent the site at No.44 Wunulla Road, the dwelling immediately adjoining to the south, No.35 Wunulla Road, and the dwelling immediately adjoining to the north, No.39 Wunulla Road, Point Piper. The Land & Environment Court, in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd V Warringah Council (2004), adopted a four-step assessment of view sharing. These steps are applied as follows: 5. What is the value of the view? The Court said: "The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured." Private views are afforded from the lower and upper habitable living areas of the dwellings at No.35, 39 and 44 Wunulla Road of the waters of Rose Bay and district views of Vaucluse in the background. There are existing views from the public domain from Wunulla Road diagonally over the existing dwelling of the waters of Rose Bay and district views of Vaucluse in the background. 6. From what part of the property the views are obtained? The Court said: "The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example, the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic."



No.35 Wunulla Road is afforded with uninterrupted views to its east as the site benefits from direct harbour frontage. The dwelling on this site is orientated towards its east to maximise the view and to the west towards its rear private open space. Partial views to the north of the harbour are afforded over its side boundary over the subject development site. These views are from the north facing windows, which are secondary windows, to the north east bedroom to the first floor. No.39 Wunulla Road has its primary focus towards the east and the only views impacted are from the east facing windows to the dining room and living room to the first floor and the balconies that are accessible from these rooms. No.44 Wunulla Road is diagonally opposite the site and is afforded with views from all its east facing ground and first floor levels with its primary view over the subject development site. No.44 Wunulla Road is currently a dwelling house and consent has recently been granted to convert the dwelling to a residential flat building with one residential unit per level. Views from the public domain are offered from Wunulla Road over the subject site. Any first floor addition or any two storey development on the subject site would interrupt this existing view due to the orientation of the site and the location of the dwelling on the site. The RDCP identifies the important views and vista corridors shown on the precinct map. The proposal would maintain these identified views and vistas, and thus, would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP in relation to views from the public domain. 7. What is the extent of the impact? The Court said: "The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating." The view loss from the upper floor north east bedroom of No.35 Wunulla Road would be negligible as the bedroom is orientated toward the east. The site is afforded with direct water frontage to its eastern boundary that provides uninterrupted water views to the east. This bedroom is also afforded with diagonal views to the side boundary over the subject development site from its north facing windows, which are secondary to the primary east facing windows. The view loss from the first floor living and dining room of No.39 Wunulla Road would be negligible as the dwelling is afforded with uninterrupted views directly to the east and north east from the windows and balconies to the living and dining room. The view loss from all of the ground floor of the existing dwelling at No.44 Wunulla Road would be devastating. The ground floor contains the entry, private open space and two bedrooms. The view loss from the first floor, which contains the living room, kitchen, study and associated terraces, would be minor as views would still be afforded over the proposed development due to its elevation. A site inspection was conducted with Council's Manager of Development Control, Mr Brett Daintry, on 7 October 2005 from No.44 Wunulla Road, who concurred with the qualitative assessment of the view loss.



8. What is the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact? The Court said: "The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable. The only substantial view loss from adjoining property would be from the ground floor of No.44 Wunulla Road diagonally opposite the site. Any first floor addition to the existing building or any new two storey addition on the site would restrict these existing views due to the orientation of both sites. The proposed development complies with the height control prescribed by the LEP. The scale and bulk of the building would be compatible with surrounding development. Though the proposal would have a numerical non-compliance with the side and rear setback control, a development complying with the numerical side and rear setback control would not alter the extent of view loss from No.44 Wunulla Road. Notwithstanding this, the development would satisfy the intent of the numerical control and the relevant objectives prescribed by the RDCP. It is by virtue of the orientation of the sites that affects the views from No.44 Wunulla Road. Fortunately, No.44 Wunulla Road is elevated above the subject site so that views from the first floor, being the primary living areas of the existing dwelling, would be maintained. The existing two storey dwelling house at No.44 Wunulla Road has development consent to convert the existing dwelling into a residential flat building containing two units, with each unit occupying one floor. The proposed development at No.37 Wunulla Road would have a devastating affect on the views from the ground floor unit, and a minor impact on views from the unit occupying the upper levels. It would be unreasonable to refuse the proposed development on the basis that the approved development at No.44 Wunulla Road to convert the existing dwelling to a residential unit did not consider any potential development, and the subsequent impacts of such development, at No.37 Wunulla Road. No.44 Wunulla Road has the opportunity to address the layout of the approved layout of the residential unit development to ensure each unit is afforded with views from the first floor. On this basis, the proposal would satisfy the criteria set out by the Court and would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the LEP and RDCP. Energy efficiency performance criteria (Section 5.6) The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP.



Stormwater management performance criteria (Section 5.7) The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria (Section 5.8) The fenestration to the dwelling has been off set from both side boundaries and suitably treated to ensure there is no loss of acoustic or visual privacy to the private open space or to the habitable living areas of the adjoining dwellings. The proposal would therefore satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. Car parking and driveways performance criteria (Section 5.9) The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. Site facilities performance criteria (Section 5.10) The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. Harbour foreshore development performance criteria (Section 5.11) The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. 9.2 DCP for off-street car parking provision and servicing facilities The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. 9.3 Woollahra Access The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the RDCP. 9.4 Other DCPs, codes and policies None relevant. 10. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The proposal would comply by condition with Australian Standard AS 2601-1991: The demolition of structures. The proposal would also comply with the active and passive construction requirements prescribed by the Building Code of Australia Housing Provisions. 11. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL All likely impacts of the proposal have been considered elsewhere in the report. 12. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE The site is suitable for the proposed development.



13. SUBMISSIONS The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notifications DCP. Submissions were received from: 1. John Oultram on behalf of Mr & Mrs Tockar - 44 Wunulla Road, Point Piper, Mr & Mrs Bart

- 35 Wunulla Road, Point Piper and the Owners Corporation of 39 Wunulla Road, Point Piper.

2. Antony Betros - Director ABC Planning on behalf of Mr and Mrs Bart - 35 Wunulla Road, Point Piper

3. Adams & Co. Lawyers on behalf of the Owners Corporaton - 39 Wunulla Road, Point Piper 4. Phillip Dement - on behalf of Mr and Mrs Tockbar - 44 Wunulla Road, Point Piper 9. Gray Perkins Lawyers on behalf of Luigi Rosselli, previous architect on the site. 10. Phillip Bart - 35 Wunulla Road, Point Piper 11. Dorothy Milner - 2/39 Wunulla Road, Point Piper The objectors raised the following issues: § The cultural significance of the existing dwelling is undervalued and its demolition would be

a great loss to Woollahra and to Sydney Addressed above, see Section 5.4 - Heritage § The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and would fail to comply with Council's

controls in relation to FSR, Footprint, Setbacks and Site Excavation Addressed above, see Section 7 - WLEP 1995 and Section 9 - WRDCP 2003 § The proposal would result in the loss of views Addressed above, see Section 9 - Views performance criteria § The proposal would result in the overshadowing of adjoining property Addressed above, see Section 9 - Building form and scale § The proposal would not comply with the height control Addressed above, see Section 7.5 - Height § The proposal would result in a loss of privacy Addressed above, see Section 9 - Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria. § The removal of two trees will be aesthetically displeasing and reduce privacy Addressed above, see Section 5.7 - Landscaping/Tree Management and Section 9 - Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria. § The location of the chimney would be detrimental to my outlook Addressed above, see Section 9 - Views performance criteria



A replacement application was received that increased the deep soil landscaped area on the site. The replacement application (as defined by Clause 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000) was not renotified under clause 5.1 of the DCP because, having considered clause 9 of the DCP, the replacement application is substantially the same development as the original proposal and considered to have no greater environmental impact upon neighbours. 14. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal is acceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C and would be in the public interest. 15. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to Foreshore Building Lines under Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995 is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as the development will still uphold the objectives underlying the development standard;

AND

THAT the Council, as the consent authority, being satisfied that the objection under SEPP No. 1 is well founded and also being of the opinion that the granting of consent to Development Application No. 29/2005 is consistent with the aims of the Policy, grant development consent to DA No. 29/2005 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new part 2/part 3 storey residence and the refurbishment of the pool deck level on land at 37 Wunulla Road Point Piper, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved Plans

This consent relates to the work as shown on plans numbered DA01A to 03A and 05A to 13A inclusive, dated 23.12.04 and DA04B dated 12.08.05, all drawn by SJB Architects, including landscape plans numbered L01, 02 and 03, dated November 2004, drawn by City Plan Landscapes, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved DA Plans” and the signature of a Council officer, except where amended by the following conditions.

2. General Terms of Approval The works to which these general terms of approval apply are not to commence until such time as NSW Maritime has issued a Part 3A Permit under the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948.

3. General Terms of Approval

The works are to be carried out so that: (a) No materials are eroded, or likely to be eroded, are deposit, or likely to be deposited, on

the bed or shore or into the waters of Sydney Harbour, and; (b) No materials are likely to be carried by natural forces to the bed, shore or waters of

Sydney Harbour.




Any material that does enter the waters of Sydney Harbour must be removed immediately.

5. General Terms of Approval In relation to Condition 4 above, a plan to manage erosion, sediment and other pollutants at the site, particularly for works on the foreshore level is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person(s). A suitable plan is to be submitted to NSW Maritime prior to a Part 3A Permit being issued. Best practice methods shall be adopted for the on-site control of run-off, sediment and other pollutants during, and post, construction. Methods shall be in accordance with the relevant specifications and standards contained in the Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction issued by the NSW Department of Housing in 1998 and any other relevant Council requirements.

6. General Terms of Approval The erosion, sediment and pollution controls shall be installed and stabilised before commencement of site works. This does not include the works associated with the construction of the appropriate controls.

7. General Terms of Approval The proposed system for erosion, sediment and pollution control is to be effectively maintained at or above design capacity for the duration of the works and until such time as all ground disturbed by the works has been stabilised and rehabilitated so that it no longer acts as a source of sediment.

8. General Terms of Approval Any material that is to be stockpiled on site is to be stabilised and covered to prevent erosion or dispersal of the material.

9. General Terms of Approval Foreshore landscaping is to be comprised of locally indigenous species, which represent the original plant communities that would have been found along the shoreline in the vicinity of the subject land.

10. General Terms of Approval Any trees that art removed during the works are to be relocated or replaced elsewhere on the site with a suitable replacement. The replacement trees are to be of locally indigenous species.




In relation to Conditions 9 and 10 above, a suitable landscape plan is to be provided to the NSW Maritime prior to a Part 3A Permit being issued. The plan is to identify the location and species of trees on the site; measures to protect them from damage during the works and details of additional landscaping to be carried out.

12. General Terms of Approval In the event that a barge would be used in the construction process, satisfactory information to demonstrate protection of the sea wall and inter tidal area is to be provided to the NSW Maritime prior to a Part 3A Permit being issued.

13. General Terms of Approval No works are to be undertaken on land owned by NSW Maritime without the relevant approvals being granted by NSW Maritime.

14. Terraced garden setback The terraced garden to the north-west end of the site at street level is to be set back a minimum of 4metres from the base of the Lemon Scented Gum (Corymbia citridora). This condition is imposed to maintain the health and stability of the tree. Details are to be submitted with the construction certificate.





1 Magnolia ‘Little Gem’ (Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’)

Adjacent to western (front) boundary of property.

H6 x W3


North-western corner of property (front yard).

H18 x W10

3 Lemon Scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora)

Adjacent to north-eastern boundary of property (front yard).

H12 x W6

6 Moreton Bay Fig (Ficus macrophylla)

South –eastern corner of property (rear yard).

H7 x W5

The Construction Certificate plans must include reference to the retention of the above mentioned trees and identify the trees by Councils reference number (Ref No.) and colour or shade them in the colour green for trees to be retained and yellow for trees to be transplanted.





Species/Type Planting Location Container Size

or Size of Tree Minimum Dimensions at Maturity (Metres)

Appropriate compliant species

Within the property. 45 litre H10 x W4





1A Magnolia ‘Little Gem’ (Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’)

South-western corner of property adjacent to front boundary.

H5 x W1


Adjacent north-eastern boundary of property (front yard).

H14 x W8



H8 x W8


18. No excavation within tree protection zones

To allow for the preservation of a viable root zone, excavation work must not be undertaken within the specified radius of the trunks of the following trees. Beyond this radius, excavation is permissible only after root pruning, by hand and in accordance with accepted Arboricultural practice (AS 4373, 1996), along the perimeter line of such works has been carried out.


Species Location Radius from Trunk



1m


North-western corner of property (front yard).

5m


Adjacent to north-eastern boundary of property (front yard).

4m

6 Moreton Bay Fig (Ficus macrophylla)

South –eastern corner of property (rear yard).

3m

All works associated with the installation of landscaping elements, including turf laying, are to be carried out by hand within these zones. Mechanical equipment is not to be used for such works.



19. Root pruning

Pruning of any root, with a diameter equal to or in excess of the dimensions listed in the table below, is to be certified by a qualified Arborist (minimum qualification of Australian Qualification Framework Level 4 or equivalent) PRIOR to the roots being cut. All root pruning must be carried out by the Arborist and in accordance with accepted Arboricultural practice (AS 4373, 1996).


Species Location Diameter of Root



10mm



50mm

20. Level changes in the vicinity of trees

No level changes, either temporary or permanent, are to occur within the tree protection zones any tree listed within this consent to be retained on the site.

21. Protective fencing mulching and irrigation around trees

To limit the potential for damage to trees to be retained, the area beneath their canopies must be fenced. The fencing must encompass the radius from the trunk as cited in the condition above and remain in place until the completion of all works on site. The fencing is to be a minimum of a 1.8 metre high chainlink or welded mesh fencing.

To ensure the continued preservation of the aforementioned existing trees an irrigation program, or temporary irrigation system, is to be designed, by a qualified Arborist (Australian Qualification Framework Level 4 or equivalent), installed, operated and maintained during the full course of works on site. To ensure adequate moisture levels for the growing medium, protected within the fenced areas, all areas within the perimeter of the tree protection fencing are to be covered with woodchip mulch to a depth of 75mm.

22. Archival recording for partial demolition of buildings that are heritage items.

An archival record of the parts of the building and landscape elements to be partly demolished or altered is to be submitted, to the satisfaction of Council’s heritage officer, prior to the commencement of the demolition work and prior to the issue of a Construction certificate. The archival record is to be completed by a heritage consultant listed by the NSW Heritage Office or by another suitably qualified consultant who must demonstrate a working knowledge of archival principles. The archival record is to be bound in an A4 format enclosed in archival quality sleeve or casing, with drawings folded to suit and is to include the following:

• A site plan at a scale of 1:200 (or 1:500 if appropriate) of all structures and major

landscape elements including their relationship to the street and adjoining properties. • Annotated floor plans at scale of 1:100 indicating the parts to be demolished.



• Postcard sized, coloured, photographs of the areas to be demolished, depicting:

(i) each elevation as relevant and part elevation to be demolished; (ii) each structure and landscape feature and significant parts of the property to be

demolished as defined in the submitted statement of significance; (iii) external and internal details to be demolished as nominated in the assessment

report by the Council’s heritage officer

Each photograph must be mounted, labelled and cross-referenced in accordance with recognised archival recording practice. The original coloured photographic set and one coloured photocopy are to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s heritage officer prior to the commencement of demolition work and prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The original will be retained by Council and the coloured photocopy is to be provided to the Woollahra Local History Library.

23. Driveways/car parking areas in the vicinity of trees

The driveway/car parking area must be constructed utilising materials/techniques designed to ensure tha t the existing water infiltration and gaseous exchange to the trees root system is maintained.

24. Certification of Tree Protection during construction.

Compliance with the Conditions of Consent relating to trees to be retained and protected on the site must be certified by an Arborist (minimum qualification of Australian Qualification Framework Level 4 or equivalent) and copies of the certification supplied to the Principal Certifying Authority. Inspections are to be scheduled in with accordance with the following stages of works;

a. prior to the commencement of any works, including demolition work on the site

(installation of Tree Protection measures), b. during excavation for and prior to the placement of, any footings, c. prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element, d. after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being

issued in relation to the building. 25. Discharge to Harbour

The developer must obtain written approval from the NSW Maritime Authority to discharge stormwater from the subject property directly into Sydney Harbour. The stormwater system must be designed in accordance with Council’s Private Stormwater Code.

26. Stormwater Management Plan

A Stormwater Management Plan for the site must be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate. This Condition is imposed to ensure site stormwater is disposed in a controlled and sustainable manner. The preferred method of discharge to Council drainage system is by gravity. Pump out systems must only be considered after all reasonable attempts have been made to obtain an easement for a gravity drainage system.



The Stormwater Management Plan must be in accordance with Council’s Draft Stormwater Drainage Management Development Control Plan and generally in accordance with the drainage plans and documentation prepared by Hyder Consulting P/L Dwg No H-01 to 05 Issue P2 dated 11.01.05 Stormwater run-off from the proposed development must drain to Sydney Harbour. New drainage systems must be designed having regard to the need to prevent stormwater from entering buildings in accordance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). A detailed Stormwater Management Plan must be produced by a suitably qualified civil or hydraulic engineer. The plan must be at a scale of 1:100 and based on drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institute of Engineers Australia publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition or most current version thereof. It must include (as appropriate for the site and determined by the Hydraulic Consultant):

• All pipe layouts, dimensions, grades, lengths and material specifications • All invert levels reduced to Australian Height Datum (AHD) • Location and dimensions and of all drainage pits • Point of connection to Councils drainage infrastructure • Overland flow paths over impervious areas. • Copies of certificates of title, showing the creation or existence of private easements to

drain water by gravity, if required. • Subsoil drainage details (layout, grades, material), clean out points and discharge point.

Accordingly, the following requirements apply to all stormwater drainage systems:

a) Inspection and Certification of Existing System

Where it is proposed to connect to the existing site drainage system, the applicant must supply an inspection report for the affected site drainage system from a suitably qualified engineer. This inspection report must confirm:

• The point and method of discharge (by way of sketch or plan) for the existing

stormwater drainage system, • The satisfactory condition of the existing system, • The satisfactory capacity for continued usage, and • No deleterious effect on existing, adjacent or downstream properties as a result of

the continued use of this existing system. b) Existing stormwater drainage systems that discharge to the sewer are not in compliance

with Sydney Water or Council’s requirements. The applicant must submit details of a stormwater drainage system that complies with Sydney Water’s requirements and Council’s Draft Stormwater Drainage Management Development Control Plan.

c) Any new drainage works must incorporate a piped connection to an existing drainage

system (satisfying the requirements of this Condition) or to an Approved Council discharge point. New drainage systems must be designed having regard to the need to prevent stormwater from entering buildings in accordance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).




The stormwater drainage system must be constructed in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan as prepared by Hyder Consulting P/L Dwg No H-01 to 05 Issue P2 dated 11.01.05





• The drainage system has been installed in accordance with the drainage

Conditions of Development Consent and relevant Australian Standards. • That all drainage components are structurally adequate and have been installed in

accordance with the relevant Codes and Standards and/or specifications. b. Work-As-Executed (WAE) plans showing:

• Pipe and drainage system layout, including all pits, pipe diameters, grades,

materials, invert levels and surface levels. • Details (exact point and method) of connection to Council system


An erosion and sediment control plan, designed in accordance with the SSROC Soil and Water Management Brochures titled “Do it Right on Site” and the current version of the NSW Landcom publication “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” (The Blue Book), must be prepared to show erosion and sediment control measures which are to be installed. The Plan must be submitted to Council or the accredited certifier for approval before commencement of excavation or construction work.





31. Stockpiles

Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, soil or other material must not be located on any drainage line or easement, natural watercourse, footpath or roadway, or within the dripline of any Street Tree. Stockpiles within the construc tion site must be protected with adequate sediment controls, in accordance with Council’s Code for Sediment Control.








a. describe the anticipated impact of the construction works on: • local traffic routes • pedestrian circulation adjacent to the building site • and on-street parking in the local area, and; d. describe the means proposed to: • manage construction works to minimise such impacts, • provide for the standing of vehicles during construction, • provide for the movement of trucks to and from the site, and deliveries to the site, and; e. show the location of: • any site sheds and any anticipated use of cranes and concrete pumps, • any areas of Council property on which it is proposed to install a Works Zone


















A safe pedestrian circulation route a minimum of 1.5m wide and with a pavement free of trip hazards must be maintained at all times on or adjacent to the public footpaths fronting the construction site. Where the footpath is damaged, repair works must be carried when directed by Council officers and in accordance with the relevant clauses of Council's document "Standard Specifications for Roadworks, Drainage and Miscellaneous Works dated Jan 2003".



Where circulation is diverted on to the roadway clear directional signage and protective barricades must be installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS1742-3 2002 “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”. Should the applicant propose to direct pedestrians onto the road pavement of a State road then an application is to be made to the RTA for a Road Occupancy Licence. Licence approval is to be submitted to Council. If pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily maintained, and action is not taken promptly to rectify the defects, Council may carry out remedial works and deduct the cost from the Damage Security Deposit.


If Council’s infrastructure is damaged during the course of works, Council’s Development Engineer must be notified and necessary repairs must be undertaken within the time stipulated by Council, to Council’s specifications, and at no cost to Counc il. Works generally must be in accordance with the relevant clauses of the current edition of AUS-SPEC. If work is not undertaken to the satisfaction of the Development Engineer with regard to time or quality, Council may carry out remedial works and deduct the cost from the Damage Security Deposit.


Driveways and access ramps must be designed not to scrape the underside of cars. In all other respects, proposed garage/car park/basement car park, driveways and access ramps must be designed to comply with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 – “Off-Street car parking.”

43. Dilapidation survey

A dilapidation survey of the following property and infrastructure must be conducted prior to any site work. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. A practicing structural engineer must prepare a full dilapidation report on the structural condition of all existing structures at the following locations:

• 35 Wunulla Road • 39 Wunulla Road • 39A Wunulla Road

The Report must be completed and submitted to Council prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or construction works. A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed prior to the commencement of works, must be carried out at the completion of the works and be submitted to Council.



44. Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical and hydrogeological reports

The development works are to be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical and Hydrogeological report/s prepared by Douglas Partners Project 37871 dated 17 March 2005

45. Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program

Excavation works associated with the proposed development must be overseen and monitored by a qualified and practising geotechnical engineer. A Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program must be produced to ensure that all geotechnical matters are regularly assessed during the construction to prevent adverse effects resulting from the excavation. The Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program for the construction works must be in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Report prepared by Douglas Partners Project 37871 dated 17 March 2005

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant must submit to the Accredited Certifier details of the proposed Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program. A suitably qualified and practising geotechnical engineer must prepare the Program which must consist of the following;

Recommendations as contained within the Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Report prepared by Douglas Partners Project 37871 dated 17 March 2005

• Recommended hold points to allow for inspection by a geotechnical engineer during the

following construction procedures;




Excavation and construction works must be undertaken in accordance with the “Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Monitoring Program” submitted as required by condition of consent. A qualified and registered geotechnical engineer shall provide certification to the Accredited Certifier that all earth works have been carried out; • In accordance with the Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program. • In accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Codes of Practise. • In a manner that does not compromise the structural integrity of all adjacent structures,

property and infrastructure.



The certification and a complete record of inspections, testing and monitoring (with certifications) must be submitted in report form to the Accredited Certifier for approval, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

47. Vibration Monitoring Program

Vibration resulting from construction activities can adversely affect surrounding property and infrastructure. To ensure that vib ration created by the method of construction does not adversely impact on the existing building, surrounding property and infrastructure, a Vibration Monitoring Program must be implemented. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must submit to the Accredited Certifier details of the proposed Vibration Monitoring Program. A qualified and practising geotechnical and/or hydrogeological engineer must prepare the Vibration Monitoring Program and undertake all associated investigations. Details to be included in Vibration Monitoring Program to include:

a. pre-set acceptable limits for the variation of:

− settlement − deflection or movement of retaining mechanisms such as shoring and bracing and − vibration in accordance with AS 2187.2 1993 Appendix J, including acceptable

velocity of vibration.

b. the location and type of monitoring systems to be used c. the period of monitoring in terms of construction stages d. recommended hold points to allow for inspection and certification by a geotechnical

engineer and e. a contingency plan should the pre-set acceptable limits be exceeded.

48. Compliance with the Vibration Monitoring Program

The Vibration Monitoring Program submitted as required by condition of consent must be implemented during excavation works on the site. All controls within the Program must be maintained at all times. A copy of the Program must be kept on site at all times and made available to the accredited certifier and Council officers on request. A record of inspections, monitoring and activities associated with the Program must be submitted to the accredited certifier in report format prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate. A qualified and practising geotechnical and/or hydrogeological engineer must prepare certification that all controls and activities within the Program have been maintained.

49. Provision of an Electricity Sub-Station

An electricity sub station may be required on the site. If required, the owner shall dedicate to the appropriate energy authority, fr ee of cost, an area of land adjoining the street alignment to enable an electricity substation to be established. The size and location of the electricity substation is to be in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate energy authority and Council. The opening of any access doors are not to intrude onto the public road reserve.



Documentary evidence of compliance, including correspondence from the energy authority is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. The Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that the requirements of energy authority have been met prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.


In accordance with the provis ions of Section 81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the erection of the building must not be commenced until:


Certificate by:

























The development must be implemented and all BASIX commitments thereafter maintained in accordance with BASIX Certificate No.14423 other than superseded by any further amended consent and BASIX certificate.



Note: Clause 145(1)(a1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 provides: "A certifying authority must not issue a construction certificate for building work unless it is satisfied of the following matters: (a1) that the plans and specifications for the building include such matters as each relevant BASIX certificate requires," Note: Clause 154B(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 provides: "A certifying authority must not issue a final occupation certificate for a BASIX affected building to which this clause applies unless it is satisfied that each of the commitments whose fulfilment it is required to monitor has been fulfilled." Note: For further information please see http://www.basix.nsw.gov.au
















• all overflow and splash must be contained within the boundaries of the site, to ensure

reasonable levels of amenity for neighbouring properties and the locality; • warning notices must be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming

Pools Act 1992 Section 17 and Regulation 8, to ensure reasonable levels of safety. 62. Compliance with Building Code of Australia



















(c) The work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place.

(d) Any such hoarding, fence or awning must be removed when the work has been

completed.





























Building Act 1989.

Mr J Lukas Mrs J Askin ACTING TEAM LEADER SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER ADVISINGS 1. Other approvals

This development consent does not remove the need to obtain any other statutory consent or approval necessary under any other Act, including: • an Application for Approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for an

activity under that Act, including the erection of a hoarding. All such applications must comply with the Building Code of Australia.

• an application for an Occupation Certificate under Section 109(C)(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

• An application for an Occupation Certificate may be lodged with Council if the applicant has nominated Council as the Principal Certifying Authority.





Contact Sydney Water, Rockdale (Urban Development Section) regarding the water and sewerage services to this development.

• Australia Post has requirements for the positioning and dimensions of mail boxes in




• Telstra has requirements concerning access to services that it provides. 3. Application for a Construction Certificate




5. Trade waste agreement

A Trade Waste Agreement must be obtained from Sydney Water prior to the discharge of trade wastewater to the sewer system. Trade wastewater is defined as ‘discharge water containing any substance produced through industrial or commercial activities or operation on the premises’.

6. Waste collection Liquid and solid wastes generated on the site must be collected, transported and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Records must be kept of all waste disposal from the site.Relocation of stormwater drainage Council is not responsible for the cost of relocating Council’s stormwater drainage pipes through the subject property.

7. Hazardous Material Management

"Builders are advised to obtain a copy of the EPA publication Solutions to Pollution for Builders which provides environmental information including hazardous material management. The EPA can be contacted by phone on 131 555 or at www.epa.nsw.gov.au "



8. Model

The model submitted with the application must be collected from the Council offices within fourteen (14) days of the date of this determination. Models not collected will be disposed of by Council.











14. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact Mr Jim Lukas. However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34 Conference, instead of a full Court hearing. This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to agree, in writing, to the Court appointed assessor having the full authority to completely determine the matter at the conference.




FILE No. DA 929/2003/2

ADDRESS: 9 Dunara Gardens POINT PIPER 2027

EXISTING CONSENT:

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new 3 storey dwelling

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Local

DATE OF CONSENT: 14 June 2005

ZONING: 2(a)


Deletion of Condition No.2 of the development consent and extension of approved fence and new gates

DATE S96 LODGED:

28/06/2005

CONSENT AUTHORITY:

Council

APPLICANT:

Mr J Wang

OWNER:

Mrs Y P Gu

AUTHOR: Mr J Lukas LOCALITY PLAN


North

Locality Plan



1. SUMMARY Reason for report The proposed Section 96 Application relates to a modification of a condition additionally imposed by the Development Control Committee. In accordance with Council's delegations, the application is referred to the Development Control Committee for determination. Issues § Excavation § FSR § Design § Access Objections There were 7 submissions received. Recommendation Approval. 2. DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED PROPOSAL The approved proposal is for the demolition of the existing two storey dwelling house and construction of a new three storey dwelling house. 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION The modification proposes to delete Condition No.2 of the development consent, which states:

"2. Deletion of all of ground floor level The lower ground floor level (containing pool, sauna, pool plant area, AC area, and bathroom) is to be deleted. Details are to be provided with the application for construction certificate".

The applicant has re-submitted the lower ground floor plan for consideration. The modification also proposes the extension of the northern boundary fence towards the west to wrap around the western boundary to enclose the site. The fence would be 1.8metres in height with a steel gate of a similar height, facing Dunara Gardens (see plans attached as Annexure 1). 4. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site, which is irregular in shape with an area of 646.6m², is located on the eastern side of Dunara Gardens, a private (no through) road off Wentworth Street. On the site is a two storey single dwelling with a detached car port structure partly encroaching upon Council’s land forward of the principal dwelling. The subject site currently enjoys view toward Rose Bay to the east.



A strip of land of 1.5m wide to the north of the site forms part of an easement which provides vehicular access to Nos.1 and 2 Dunara Gardens located to the east of the site. Surrounding developments in Dunara Gardens are dwelling houses varying between two and three storeys in height on irregular shaped allotments. No. 10 Dunara Gardens, immediately adjoining to the north, is a heritage item listed in Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995. 5. PROPERTY HISTORY The application, after various amendments, was approved by the Development Control Committee on 14 June 2005 subject to 64 Conditions. A copy of the original report to the DCC held on 6 June 2005 is attached as Annexure 2. This Annexure provides a detailed history of the DA and is attached for the Committees information. The Committee should note that the comments in the "Referrals" Section below are based on the Section 96 only. 6. REFERRALS 6.1 Comments from external approval bodies Not applicable 6.2 Building The proposal would comply with the relevant active and passive construction requirements prescribed by the Building Code of Australia Housing Provisions. 6.3 Health N/A 6.4 Heritage N/A 6.5 Urban Design N/A 6.6 Development Engineer Council's Development Engineer, Nick Tomkins, recommended approval of the original application that included the lower ground floor, the subject of this application, subject to conditions. The comments were:

"The Geotechnical Report by Michael Adler & Assoc dated 17 December 2003 Ref No. 03/12999 identified the site conditions were filling or topsoil over insitu fine to medium grained sand and silty sand. Several recommendations were made regarding construction technique and in particular for any works proposed in the battle axe handle down towards Wunulla Rd.



The natural surface level for No.9 Dunara Gardens at the boundary is 31.3m AHD. The lower ground adjacent to No.10 Dunara Gardens is the undercroft area and wine cellar at RL 28.05. Allowing for a slab depth and levelling course of 0.2m gives an excavated RL of 27.85m. This results in an excavation of up to 3.45m. The excavation is separated by common driveway access by a distance of approx 2.7m between Nos.9 and 10 Dunara Gardens. The pool is on the other side (south) of the building at 26.8m AHD and is remote from No.10 Dunara Gardens and is not considered to be a significant impact. The material ranges from loose to dense sand for excavation, no ground water was observed. Recommendations It is recommended that additional conditions be applied to reinforce the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report by Michael Adler & Assoc dated 17 December 2003 Ref No. 03/12999 regarding the excavation proposed on No.9 Dunara Gardens and the possible impacts on the adjoining properties."

The conditions originally recommended by the Development Engineer are supported and are included in the recommendation (See Conditions Nos.65-68). 6.7 Landscaping/Trees Management Council's Trees Officer, Louise Bennett, comments are:

"The addition of a front fence and gate would not have any impact upon vegetation within the area. The request for a front fence seems quite reasonable however, the proximity of a very significant Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) within the adjoining property (No. 10 Dunara Gardens) is of concern. Excavation should not be undertaken within a radius of 6meters from this tree (Matheny & Clarke’s adaptation of the British Standard). The proposed fence is within 3meters of this tree. Site constraints make it impossible to achieve this setback whilst still constructing the front fence. For this reason, conditions have been included that require hand excavation within the 6 meter radius, the use of pier and beam construction for the fence and the placement of all footings/piers to be located so as to preserve tree roots with a diameter equal to or greater than 50mm. By this it is believed that the fence can be constructed whilst protecting the existing tree and the character of the area. RECOMMENDATION Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer has determined that the development proposal is satisfactory in terms of tree preservation and landscaping, subject to conditions."

The comments are supported and conditions are included in the recommendation (See Conditions Nos.69-70). ASSESSMENT UNDER S96 7.1 S96 (1) Correction of minor error, misdescription or miscalculation N/A



7.2 S96 (1A) Modification involving minimal environmental impact N/A 7.3 S96 (2) Other modifications The proposed modification would have some form of impact on the amenity of adjoining property owners and the environment. The degree and the merits of the impact will be discussed under the relevant heads of consideration below. Accordingly, the proposal falls under the ambit of Section 96(2). 7.4 S96AA Modification of a consent granted by the Court N/A 7.5 Substantially the same development The proposed modification relates to aspects of the approval for a new dwelling house. The proposed modification is relative to the scope of the approved works. Accordingly, the proposal would be substantially the same development to that which was originally approved, thus satisfying the relevant criteria prescribed by the Act. 7.6 S96 (2) (b) Consultation with Minister, public authority or approval body N/A 7.7 Threatened species N/A 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: 8. RELEVANT STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION 8.1 SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") does not apply to the proposed modification. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land Under clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. An assessment of the Initial site evaluation provided by the applicant indicates the land does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55.



8.2 REPs N/A 8.3 Section 94 contribution N/A 8.4 Other relevant legislation N/A 9. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995 9.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone (Clause 8(5)) The proposal is permissible and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the relevant objectives of the 2(a) zone. 9.2 Statutory compliance table The proposed modification would not alter any of the statutory controls for the site. 9.3 Site area requirements N/A 9.4 Height N/A 9.5 Floor space ratio N/A 9.6 FSBL N/A 9.7 Other special clauses/development standards Clause 18 Excavation: Having regard to Council's Development Engineers advice and the expert reports submitted, the proposed excavation is acceptable in terms of Clause 18. Clause 19 HFSPA: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 19(2). Clause 25 Water, wastewater and stormwater: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 25(1) and (2). Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils: The proposed works do not require the need for an assessment of acid sulfate soils under clause 25D of Woollahra LEP 1995.



Clauses 26-33 Heritage and conservation area provisions : The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 27. 9. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS Not applicable. 10. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 10.1 Numeric Compliance table - Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003

Site Area (571.6m²) Approved Proposed Control Complies

Floor Space Ratio (m²) 0.847:1 (485)

1.05:1 (601)

0.55:1 (314) NO

Excavation Piling & Subsurface Wall Setback (metres)

N/A <1.5m 1.5 NO

Front Fence Height (metres) N/A 1.8 1.5 (<50% solid) NO

Desired future precinct character objectives and performance criteria (Part 4) § Front Fences The RDCP prescribes that front fences are to be limited to 1.5m if 50% of the fence is transparent. The Section 96 Application proposes to extend the approved fence along the northern boundary that adjoins an existing driveway by 4m, extending the fence to the Dunara Gardens boundary. The fence along the northern boundary would be a 1.8m solid masonry fence. Though it is forward of the principal dwelling it is technically a front fence, though it may be perceived as a side boundary fence, as it would bound a driveway that forms part of a handle to the site. The fence would not obstruct any views and would be bounded by an existing driveway adjoining to the north. The northern side of the existing driveway that adjoins the northern boundary of the site is bounded by an existing brushwood fence 1.8m in height that is built to the southern boundary of No.10 Dunara Gardens, listed as a heritage item under WLEP 1995. The proposed fence would not detract from the streetscape as its scale and volume would not be discernible from the public domain. The fence would provide an effective visual and acoustic barrier from noise and headlight spill from vehicles that currently use the existing driveway, improving the amenity for the subject property. The proposed fence would not obstruct the existing driveway as it would maintain a minimum driveway width of 2.43m. The width of the driveway would be greater than the minimum car parking space module as prescribed by the AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 Standard for vehicles. The standard also indicates that an 85 percentile car space width is 1870mm, thus the driveway would have a minimum clearance of 560mm or 280mm from each side of the vehicle. The driveway width would still be able to allow the passage of vehicles, thought it is acknowledged that it would be constrained. It is not envisaged that car doors would be opened on the driveway that would limit its usability.



Access for vans and trucks to Nos.1 and 2 Dunara Gardens, that currently have right-of-way over the existing driveway are currently constrained by the limited width of the existing driveway and this condition would not vary as a result of the proposed extension of the boundary fence. The fence would be splayed at the Dunara Gardens junction that would enable vehicles to enter/exit the driveway. Cars entering or exiting the driveway would need to be in a forward direction as reversing would be difficult. It should be noted that the proposed modification is only a partial extension of an approved fence by 4m or less than 1 car length. The existing driveway is limited in width and the proposed addition to the approved fence would not reduce its current width. The streetscape is characterized by a variety of high fences on grand estates. The proposed addition to the approved fence would reinforce this sense of historic grand estates, an important element of the streetscape, without restricting any vistas to the harbour. Having regard to these circumstances, the proposed extension of the boundary fence would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the DCP. The proposed fence fronting Dunara Gardens would be a steel gate of which more than 50% of the gate would be transparent. It would not obstruct any views, would be similar in height to other fences along Dunara Gardens, and would provide security to the subject site. Additionally, the transparent gate would ensure the garden setting and streetscape elements would be retained and visible from the public domain unlike other fences in Dunara Gardens which are solid and greater than 1.8m in height. Dunara Gardens is a private no-through road that does not have a footpath. It has localized vehicle and pedestrian movement on a common road way limited by the number of dwellings that are accessed by this roadway. The proposed fence would not have a detrimental impact on the safety of pedestrians or vehicles having regard to the limited number of people that access Dunara Gardens. The proposal would therefore satisfy the relevant objectives prescribed by the RDCP and is supported in this instance. Building size and location performance criteria (Section 5.2) § Building form and scale The proposed floor space for the development would exceed the maximum prescribed by the RDCP by 116m². The Council has approved the visible above ground envelope of the building. The proposed lower ground level would not alter the building footprint or the visible envelope of the building. The additional floor area is a result of excavation beneath ground level that is included as FSR by definition but does not contribute to the perceived bulk of the building. The majority of the excess floor space would be internalized within the development, with no resultant impact on the amenity of adjoining property with regard to privacy, sunlight access and views.



Council's Development Engineer has reviewed the implications of the additional excavation proposed to the lower ground level and has indicated that the excavation proposed would have no detrimental impact on adjoining structures or the natural environment, subject to conditions. The proposed building form relates to the topography of the site, with no resultant detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining property both during and after construction. Having regard to these circumstances, the proposal would satisfy the relevant objectives for floor space prescribed by the RDCP and is acceptable in this instance. § Site excavation The RDCP prescribes that excavation should not be less than 1.5metres from a side boundary. The proposed dwelling would have a basement floor level that would encroach within the 1.5m minimum setback. The total area of the building that would encroach within the prescribed setback is 1m² or 0.001% of the site area. Councils Development Engineer indicated that the extent of excavation proposed, subject to conditions, would have no detrimental impact on adjoining structures or the natural environment. The overall extent of excavation proposed would have little resultant impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. It would not alter the existing tree and vegetation networks and subject to conditions, would ensure that the amenity of adjoining properties is protected both during and after construction. The proposal would therefore satisfy the objectives and the intent of the numerical control prescribed by the RDCP. 11.2 DCP for off-street car parking provision and servicing facilities N/A 11.3 Woollahra Access DCP N/A 11.4 Other DCPs, codes and policies N/A 12. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS N/A



13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT The original report to the Development Control Committee supported the construction of the lower ground floor, currently being reviewed and which forms part of the S96 Application. Appropriate conditions from Council's Development Engineer and Trees Officer were included to address impacts associated with the excavation, landscaping and construction of the lower ground floor which included the swimming pool. These conditions that were originally recommended form part of the development consent issued on 14 June 2005. Additional conditions recommended by Council's Development Engineer are proposed to be added to the development consent (see Condition Nos.65-69). All other likely impacts of the proposal have been assessed elsewhere in this report. 14. SUBMISSIONS The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notifications DCP. Submissions were received from:

1. Drs P & V Papadakis - 18 Clarke St, Earlwood (owners of No.2 Dunara Gardens) 2. F.Cassen - 1/3A Wentworth Street, Point Piper 3. Dr K Lui - 5 Dunara Gardens, Point Piper 4. P & E. Ryba - 3 Dunara Gardens, Point Piper 5. C. Handler - 4 Dunara Gardens, Point Piper 6. A. Pollak - 1 Wentworth Street, Point Piper 7. G.Farkas - 10 Dunara Gardens, Point Piper

The objectors raised the following issues: § Resultant damage to adjoining property as a result of the excavation Considered above, see Section 6 - Development Engineer and Section 10 - Site Excavation § Excessive scale and bulk of the development and non-compliance with FSR control Considered above, see Section 10 - Building form and scale § The high fence would be detrimental to the streetscape, unsightly and bulky Considered above, see Section 10 - Front Fences § The high fence would be unsafe for pedestrians Considered above, see Section 10 - Front Fences § The fence would restrict access to Nos.1 and 2 Dunara Gardens Considered above, see Section 10 - Front Fences § The fence would restrict visibility for vehicles using the existing driveway Considered above, see Section 10 - Front Fences



§ The covenant restricts construction of the fence and gate A covenant is a civil matter between the relevant parties that cannot be used as a reason for refusal of an application under Section 79 or 96 of the EPA Act 1979. 15. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal is acceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C and would be in the public interest. 16. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT Council, as the consent authority, modify development consent to Development Application No. 929/2003/2 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new 3 storey dwelling on land at 9 Dunara Gardens Point Piper, in the following manner: Condition No.1 is deleted and replaced with: 1. Approved Plans

The development must be carried out in accordance with plans numbered DA04D to 14D inclusive, dated 15/3/2005, drawn by Jim Apostolou & Felix Antonius, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved DA Plans” and the signature of a Council officer; as amended by plans numbered DA04C dated 12/10/04, 05D, 13D and 14D, dated 15/3/2005, drawn by Jim Apostolou & Felix Antonius, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved Section 96 Plans” and the signature of a Council officer, except where amended by the following conditions.

Condition No. 2 is deleted. The following conditions being added to the development consent: 65. Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical and hydrogeological reports

The development works are to be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical and Hydrogeological report/s prepared by Geotechnical Report by Michael Adler & Assoc dated 17 December 2003 Ref No. 03

66. Structural Certification of excavation works and associated structures.

The following development works have been identified as possibly effecting the stability of surrounding property and structures during their construction;

• Swimming pool • Boundary retaining wall • Cellar/ Undercroft area including Bathroom and Sauna level Due to this, the excavation and construction of these development works must be overseen by an engineer. This is to ensure the stability of surrounding property / infrastructure is not adversely effected by such works.



Excavation, retention, underpinning and construction must be undertaken on-site by an excavation contractor with specialist excavation experience. A suitably qualified geotechnical or structural engineer, specialising in excavation, must supervise the excavation procedure. This engineer is to provide certification to the Accredited Certifier, prior to issue of Final Building Certificate, that excavation, retention, underpinning and construction of all the excavation works stated above has been conducted:

a. According to the relevant Australian Standards and Codes of Practice, and b. In a manner that does not compromise the structural integrity of all adjacent structures

and property. 67. Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program

Excavation works associated with the proposed development must be overseen and monitored by a qualified and practising geotechnical engineer. A Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program must be produced to ensure that all geotechnical matters are regularly assessed during the construction to prevent adverse effects resulting from the excavation. The Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program for the construction works must be in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Report prepared by Michael Adler & Assoc dated 17 December 2003 Ref No. 03/12999 Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant must submit to the Accredited Certifier details of the proposed Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program. A suitably qualified and practising geotechnical engineer must prepare the Program which must consist of the following;

• Recommendations as contained within the Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Report

prepared by Michael Adler & Assoc dated 17 December 2003 Ref No. 03/12999 • Recommended hold points to allow for inspection by a geotechnical engineer during the

following construction procedures;




Excavation and construction works must be undertaken in accordance with the “Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Monitoring Program” submitted as required by condition of consent. A qualified and registered geotechnical engineer shall provide certification to the Accredited Certifier that all earth works have been carried out; • In accordance with the Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Monitoring Program. • In accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Codes of Practise.



• In a manner that does not compromise the structural integrity of all adjacent structures, property and infrastructure.

The certification and a complete record of inspections, testing and monitoring (with certifications) must be submitted in report form to the Accredited Certifier for approval, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

69. Hand excavation within tree root zones.

To prevent damage to tree roots, excavation undertaken within the specified radius of the trunks of the following trees (Tree Root Zone) must be hand dug. Any root pruning must be undertaken by hand along the perimeter line of such works by a qualified Arborist (a minimum qualification of Australian Qualification Framework Level 4 or equivalent). Beyond this radius, mechanical excavation is permitted, when root pruning by hand along the perimeter line of the excavation completed. All root pruning must be completed in accordance with the Australian Standard 4373 Pruning of amenity trees.



9 Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna)

At south-western corner of No. 10 Dunara Gardens.

6 meters


To ensure the preservation of the above tree, NO APPROVAL is granted for severing of significant tree roots. Footings for any structures constructed within the radial area identified in the condition above (Tree Root Zone), must be constructed using an isolated pier and beam construction method. All existing tree roots, with a diameter equal to or exceeding 50mm are to be bridged. The piers shall be located such that no roots of a diameter greater than or equal to 50mm are severed.

Approval is granted for the root pruning of all roots of a diameter less than 50mm, subject to all pruning works being undertaken by a qualified Arborist (a minimum qualification of Australian Qualification Framework Level 4 or equivalent).

Mr J Lukas Mrs J Askin ACTING TEAM LEADER SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER ADVISINGS 1. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact Mr Jim Lukas. However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34 Conference, instead of a full Court hearing. This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to agree, in writing, to the Court appointed assessor having the full authority to completely determine the matter at the conference.





ANNEXURES

1. Plans and elevation of Section 96 Application 2. DCC report dated 6 June 2005




FILE No. DA 1010/2003/2

ADDRESS: 34 and 38 Wolseley Road POINT PIPER 2027

EXISTING CONSENT:

Demolition of two apartment complexes on adjoining titles. Construction of two new complexes on separate titles. Three storey apartment complexes with two levels of underground parking for 22 vehicles common to both complexes. Underground access to parking via vehicle elevator. Strata subdivision.

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Integrated

DATE OF CONSENT: 8th November 2004

ZONING: Residential 2(b)


• An increase of 990mm to the excavated depth for the lower basement to allow for services to be incorporated in the ceiling of each level;

• An additional area of excavation at levels 1 and 2 between the eastern side of the northern unit block and the eastern boundary (below the approved terrace area at Level 3); and

• Changes to the pool design and landscaping to allow additional planting that will mitigate the minor increase in the visibility of the building resulting from the additional excavation.

• Amendment to Condition No. 8 – compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act and Condition No. 67 – disabled access as per the Access DCP

DATE S96 LODGED:

06/04/2005 07/07/2005 – amended plans 29/07/2005 – amended plans 01/09/2005 – Submission of unjustifiable hardship against the Access DCP 28/09/2005 – landscape plan to foreshore

CONSENT AUTHORITY:

Council

APPLICANT:

Carpace Pty Ltd

OWNER:

Caprace Pty Ltd

AUTHOR: Ms C McMahon



LOCALITY PLAN


North

Locality Plan

1. SUMMARY Reason for report This Application is referred to the Development Control Committee as the Section 96 Application involves changes to a new residential flat building on land with a water frontage. The original application was approved by Council on 8th November 2004. Issues • Excavation • Compliance with Access DCP Objections One (1) Recommendation Approval 2. DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED PROPOSAL Development Consent No. 1010/2003/1 was issued in November 2004 for the demolition of two apartment complexes on adjoining titles, the construction of two new four storey apartment complexes with two levels of underground parking for 22 vehicles common to both complexes on land at 34 and 38 Wolseley Road Point Piper.



3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION The description of development is based on the final set of amended plans lodged 29th July 2005 and the submission of unjustifiable hardship against the Access DCP. This Section 96 Application seeks Council consent for the following changes to the development consent:-

1. An increase of 990mm to the excavated depth for the lower basement. The purpose of the proposed modification is to allow for services to be incorporated in the ceiling of each level. The approved DA allowed for floor (50mm), slab (210mm) and ceiling (300mm) structures to all habitable floors, which totalled 360mm. The increase to allow for services requires 990mm spread over 4 levels. Consequently there is a slight decrease in finished floor level of all levels. The proposal will not change in the internal height from floor to ceiling of the apartments. It will however decrease the lift shaft height from RL26.53 to RL26.1 – decrease of 430mm (as shown in the amended plans lodged 29th July 2005) as well as the roof level by 100mm.

In detail the changes are as follows:

Level/area of proposed

building Approved Proposed under Section

96 Application – amended plan lodged

29th July 2005 Basement 2 Floor level at RL7.88m with

10 car parking spaces Floor level now at RL6.890 with 10 car parking spaces

Basement 1 Floor level at RL10.38m with 12 car parking spaces

Floor level now at RL9.490m with 12 car parking spaces

Ground floor Floor level at RL13.13m. Two 2 bedroom units.

Floor level at RL12.335m. No change in units. The amended plans indicate a winged area off the southern side of each building.

First floor Floor level at RL16.13m. Two 2 bedroom units.

Floor level at RL15.515m. No change in units.

Second floor Floor level at RL19.13m. Two 3 bedroom units.


Third floor Floor level at RL22.13m. two 3 bedroom units.


Roof level RL25.30m RL25.2m Top of lift shaft RL26.53m RL26.1m

2. An additional area of excavation at levels 1 and 2 between the eastern side of the

northern unit and the eastern boundary (below the approved terrace area and pedestrian entrance area at Level 3). This additional area is required to accommodate a tank for the retention and reuse of water on the site and associated plant and equipment. The excavation is sited between 1.5m to 2m



from the eastern boundary and 3.950m from the northern boundary. There is no loss of deep soil landscaping as a result of the additional excavated area.

3. Amendments to the pool design and landscaping to allow additional planting that will

mitigate the minor increase in the visibility of the building resulting from the additional excavation. The applicant has stated that this change reflects the comments made in the minutes of the pre-DA meeting. An amended landscape plan has been submitted for the foreshore area and the podium has been lowered and therefore the pool has been lowered. By letter dated 30th September 2005 the applicant’s landscape architects – Pittendrigh Shinkfield Bruce Pty Ltd have advised as follows:- Landscape documentation provided as part of the Section 96 application reflects detail design and visualisation of the earlier submitted concept. The proposal is founded on the idea of reinstating the harbour side heath through soft engineering methods of soil retention and stabilisation and the planting of provenanced and propagated endemic plant material specific to the foreshore zone. Given the raw nature of the initial installation (small plant materials) the proposal is to install the foreshore landscape in the early phases of the project, resulting in a partially established landscape on completion of the building.

4. Amendment to Condition No. 8 – compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act and Condition No. 67 – disabled access as per the Access DCP The applicable conditions relating to access requirements are as follows:-

8. Compliance with Disability Discrimination Act

The development must be designed to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and AS 1428 – “Design for Access and Mobility”, Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

66. Disabled access in accordance with DCP for Access to and within Buildings

In order to provide adequate disabled access to the building, the visitor carparking space within the basement carpark level is to be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1. Such is to be indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate Application.


In order to provide adequate disabled access to the building, a continuous, accessible, uninterrupted path of travel from the footpath to the main entrance and to the lift at ground floor level is to be provided. This accessible path is not to incorporate any steps, stairways or other impediment preventing the path being used by people with disabilities. Such is to be indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate Application.


In order to provide adequate disabled access to the building, the lift is to be wheel chair accessible. Such is to be indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate Application.



The applicant has submitted a report dated 31st August 2005 from Morris-Goding Accessibility Consulting which indicates that although the development is compliant with AS1428 and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), wheelchair access to the main entry is extremely difficult. The applicant states in a covering letter dated 1st September 2005 that installation of alternate access options will create loss of amenity for the adjoining properties by potential noise, loss of privacy and loss of views. These options would also decrease the amount of landscaped area. Disabled access to the site will be via the car lift which will be finished to a very high standard, as it is the main access point to our development.

4. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject sites are located on the western side of Wolseley Road, north-west of the intersection with Wentworth Street. The site comprises two allotments of land No. 34 (being Lot B DP 318858) and No. 38 (being Lot 2 DP 389037). No. 34 Wolseley Road is a hatchet shaped allotment fronting the harbour and is located directly behind No. 36 Wolseley Road. The site has a total site area of 994m². The site previously contained an existing three storey inter-war residential flat building known as ‘Runneymede’ which comprised of 4 dwelling units. The property (only) has pedestrian access via a stepped pathway from Wolseley Road. No. 38 Wolseley Road is a hatchet shaped allotment fronting the harbour and is located directly behind No. 40 Wolseley Road. The site has a total site area of 995m². The site previously contained an existing part-three storey post-war residential flat building which comprised of 3 dwelling units. The property has a steep vehicular driveway from Wolseley Road. The surrounding area comprises a mixture of dwelling houses and residential flat buildings. The existing building/s are prominent when viewed from the harbour. 5. PROPERTY HISTORY Development Consent No. 1010/2003/1 was issued in November 2004 for the demolition of two apartment complexes on adjoining titles, the construction of two new four storey apartment complexes with two levels of underground parking for 22 vehicles common to both complexes on land at 34 and 38 Wolseley Road Point Piper. A pre-DA for a proposed Section 96 Application was submitted to Council and a meeting held on 22nd February 2005. In the minutes to Caprace Pty Ltd the applicant was advised:-

It is the position of Council Officers that the modifications sought to the approved development should comply with the objectives and controls in the Woollahra Residential DCP 2003. Modifications to the location of the plant and tank rooms will be required to address the concerns raised in this report. Plans lodged with the Section 96 Application should also reflect the approved plans in all other respects.

The concerns raised with the proposal in the pre-DA were:-

1. Extent of excavation and non-compliance with the setback control of 1.5m; 2. The Cabbage Tree Palm located adjacent to the proposed excavation; 3. Requirements for deep soil landscaped area and landscaped open space; and 4. Discrepancies between the approved plans and the proposed Section 96 Application plans.



The covering Council letter dated 24th February 2005 to the applicant also advised:- Although the proposed section 96 does not involve any increase in the overall height of the development, that is the reduced level of the roof does not change, the extent of excavation will increase beyond what is already, in my opinion, an excessive amount of excavation. The effects of this in terms of clause 18 of Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995 and the non-compliance with controls in Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003 (see figure 5.2.11) are therefore exacerbated. As you will recall Council’s Assessment Officer and Team Leader did not support the original development application, due primarily to the extent of excavation and the visual scale of the elevation facing Sydney Harbour. The perceived bulk of the building in elevation will further increase under this amendment due to the podium level being lowered by 990mm. We cannot give any undertaking that such amendments could be favourably considered. Again the issue is that the perceived bulk in the elevation facing Sydney Harbour needs to be addressed to meet the objectives of WLEP 1995 and the WRDCP 2004. It is suggested, but this suggestion in no way binds us to a favourable consideration of any section 96, that the single large retaining wall facing the Sydney Harbour be terraced and planters provided both within each terrace level and at the top of the wall such that native screening vegetation is provided. This would soften the impact of the wall and soften the view of the ground floor level from the harbour. The wet edge pool design would be impacted and some vegetation would extend above the podium level over the carpark levels. We fully realise that this may have some impact upon views from the ground floor level towards Darling Point and beyond but we consider that to have any realistic chance of being favourably considered the visual bulk of the building facing the Harbour must be mitigated.

6. REFERRALS 6.1 Comments from external approval bodies NSW Maritime The original DA was classified as ‘Integrated Development’ under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) due to the proposed excavations which required approval under part 3A of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act. NSW Maritime raised no objection to the proposal. Condition Nos. 98 to 111 of the Development Consent required compliance with a number of matters including a Part 3A Permit prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate and erosion and sediment control measures. 6.2 Building No referral required. 6.3 Health No referral required.



6.4 Heritage No referral required as issues were addressed in the original DA. 6.5 Urban Design Council’s Team leader, Urban Design, Margaret Zulaikha, advised as follows:-

The following comments are based on amended plans prepared by BSA & Associates Pty Ltd and dated 6.04.05.

The proposed amendments involve the excavation of the area within the building footprint by 990mm and excavation for the construction of a recycled stormwater tank system on the western side of the building. The height and setbacks of the building are the same as the approved DA and the proposed landscape works will obscure the additional excavation. The visual impact of the additional excavation is therefore considered minimal and the Section 96 Application is recommended for approval.

The amended plans lodged with Council on 29th July 2005 decrease the lift shaft height from RL26.53 to RL26.1 – decrease of 430mm. No other changes were proposed under these plans as compared to the plans lodged with Council on 6th April 2005. 6.6 Technical Services Council’s Development Engineer has advised as follows:-

Site Drainage comments The revised proposal incorporates a relatively large rainwater tank, supplying water for irrigation and non-potable water uses within the development. It is proposed the tank will be topped up with mains water. The design and construction of this connection will be subject to the requirements and approval of Sydney Water which would appear to be addressed by condition 17 “Compliance Certificate from Sydney Water” of the original Development Consent. No further or amended conditions are required. Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and/or Structural comments The applicant has submitted a detailed Geotechnical report which expands upon the recommendations of the original. They have also submitted a statement claiming the revised scope of excavation does not alter the recommendations made within the original report.

It was expressed within the Pre-DA minutes that the proposed location and scope of excavation works for the rainwater tank would pose a great risk nearest property. It was also apparent that there was little potential for the proposal to prop the wall of the excavation in the event that the neighbouring property owner was not conducive to permitting the installation of rock anchors. The submitted application has revised the original concept by providing a 2 metre setback from the adjoining the property and splitting the volume with floor levels such that the dwelling may be designed to prop the wall of the excavation if required. The submitted plan therefore satisfies Technical Services original concerns.

No changes to the original development conditions concerning geotechnical matters are required.



6.7 Landscaping/Trees Management Council’s Trees Officer has advised as follows:-

Comments: The property has been inspected in regards to vegetation potentially affected by modifications to the excavation area. No vegetation appears to be affected by the Modifications to the excavation area.

Recommendations Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer has determined that the development proposal is satisfactory in terms of tree preservation and is recommended for approval.

Council’s Trees Officer further advised by referral dated 20th September 2005:

Impacts on existing trees and vegetation During my site inspection I found that Tree No1 has been incorrectly identified in the original consent as a Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palms. This specimen is in fact a Livistonia australis Cabbage Tree Palm. At the time of my inspection, excavation works were at an advanced state. The Cabbage Tree Palm appeared to be in a stabilised situation and should be able to be retained throughout the works period. When the new finished level and garden bed is established, the temporary concrete shell encasing the palm should be removed to allow root development.

I have included a modified version of condition 19 and 21 from the original development consent that correctly identifies the subject palm.

The amended landscape plan lodged 29th September 2005 was referred to Council’s Tree Officer who raised no objections to the plan, stating that the proposed landscaping construction methods and plant materials shown in the supplied drawings are acceptable. It should be noted by the Committee that the Council’s Tree Officer did verbally indicate that the landscape plan provides a better outcome for the foreshore. ASSESSMENT UNDER S96 7.1 S96 (1) Correction of minor error, misdescription or miscalculation Not applicable to the application. 7.2 S96 (1A) Modification involving minimal environmental impact Not applicable to the application. 7.3 S96 (2) Other modifications This application is to be assessed under Section 96(2) of the EP& A Act as the proposed modification is additional excavation and changes to the pool design requiring assessment of the environmental impact.



7.4 S96AA Modification of a consent granted by the Court Not applicable to the application. 7.5 Substantially the same development The provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, require Council to be satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all). It is considered that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development. Approval of this modification will result in substantially the same the development as that assessed under the original development application. 7.6 S96 (2) (b) Consultation with Minister, public authority or approval body Not applicable to the application as the Section 96 Application does not seek to amend or delete any conditions imposed by the NSW Maritime. 7.7 Threatened species Not applicable to the application. 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: 8. RELEVANT STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION 8.1 SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land Under clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. An assessment of the Initial site evaluation provided by the applicant indicates the land does not require further consideration under clause 7 (1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 56 - Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries SEPP 56 applies to all land with a water frontage and land that is separated from the waterfront by a public reserve, road or open space. Under clause 7 of SEPP 56 Council is required to consider the relevant guiding principles. The proposal is assessed against the relevant principles and a comment is provided under each in terms of the developments ability to fulfil those principles:



(a) increasing public access to, and use of, land on the foreshore, The subject site does not, as existing, support public access to the foreshore.

(b) the fundamental importance of the need for land to be made available for public access, or

use, on the foreshore to be in public ownership wherever possible, particularly land that is within the foreshore area as defined in the Sydney Harbour Foreshore, The existing access to the private wharves at No. 34 and 38 Wolseley Road, will be maintained. There is currently no natural access to the harbour.

(g) the protection and improvement of unique visual qualities of the Harbour, its foreshores and

tributaries, Concern was raised in the pre-DA with the perceived bulk in the elevation facing Sydney Harbour. It was suggested that the single large retaining wall facing the Sydney Harbour be terraced and planters provided both within each terrace level and at the top of the wall such that native screening vegetation is provided. This would soften the impact of the wall and soften the view of the ground floor level from the harbour.

The Section 96 Application proposes amendments to the pool height and the landscaping to allow additional landscaping to mitigate the minor increase in the visibility of the building resulting from the additional excavation.

(h) the relationship between the use of the water and foreshore activities,

This will continue, as is currently the case.

(j) the scale and character of any development, derived from an analysis of the context of the site, The scale and character of the development as approved will not alter as a result of the Section 96 Application.

(k) the character of any development as viewed from the water and its compatibility and

sympathy with the character of the surrounding foreshores, As stated above the Section 96 Application proposes amendments to the pool height and the landscaping to allow additional landscaping to mitigate the minor increase in the visibility of the building resulting from the additional excavation.

(n) the feasibility and compatibility of uses and, if necessary, appropriate measures to ensure

coexistence of different land uses, The approved development will remain consistent with the residential use of the site.

(o) increasing opportunities for water-based public transport,

The proposed development will provide an opportunity for residents to utilise water-taxi services.

In accordance with the above, the proposal is satisfactory when assessed against the relevant guiding principles in Clause 7 of SEPP 56. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development SEPP 65 applies to new residential flat buildings, substantial redevelopment/refurbishment of existing residential flat buildings and conversion of a building to a residential flat building. All development applications for residential flat development are required to be referred to a design review panel. This panel has yet to be formed for the Woollahra local government area.



The original DA was assessed against the ten principles contained in clauses 9-18 of the SEPP and against the considerations contained in the publication “Residential Flat Design Code”. The Section 96 Application is assessed the ten principles as follows: Context Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area. Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies. New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

The proposed amendment does not alter the context of the approved development Scale Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings. Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

The proposed amendment does not increase the overall height of the approved development. Built Form Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of building elements. Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

The proposed amendment has addressed the built form principle. Density Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents). Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

There is no increase in the approved density (8 units) as a result of the Section 96 Application. Resource, energy and water efficiency Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including construction. Sustainability is integral to the design process. Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.

In this regard, the applicant has submitted an Energy Performance Statement with the original DA stating that the proposal will be designed to achieve an energy efficient star rating of 3.5 stars.



Landscape Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain. Landscape design builds on the existing site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways. It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values. It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character. Landscape design should optimise useability, privacy and social opportunity, equitable access and respect for neighbours’ amenity, and provide for practical establishment and long term management.

The Section 96 Application proposes amendments to the pool height and the landscaping to allow additional landscaping to mitigate the increase in the visibility of the building resulting from the additional excavation. Further Council’s Trees Officer has raised no objections to the amended proposal. Amenity Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development. Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

There is no change in the amenity of the apartments as a result of the Section 96 Application. Safety and Security Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain. This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

The approved layout of the residential flat building is considered to optimise safety and security. Social Dimensions Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities. New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

The approved development responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability and access to social facilities. Aesthetics Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development. Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.



The approved development has addressed these issues. Residential Flat Design Code Urban Structure There is no change to the built form and type from that approved. Site design There are no major changes to the site design from that approved. Environmental design The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objective relating to energy efficiency. Building Design There is no major change from that approved under the original DA. 8.2 REPs Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours (now repealed) The subject site is located upon land to which SREP 23 applies and is adjacent to the W1 General Waterways Zone. The subject site is not zoned under this plan, however in determining a development application, the matters for consideration listed under Section 18 must be addressed. The proposal is assessed against the relevant matters for consideration and a comment is provided under each in terms of the developments ability to fulfil them: the appearance of the development when viewed from the waterway and the foreshores;

The visual appearance of the development when viewed from the harbour has been considered by the applicant when lodging in the Section 96 Application. The Section 96 Application proposes amendments to the pool height and the landscaping to allow additional landscaping to mitigate the minor increase in the visibility of the building resulting from the additional excavation.

whether the development will cause pollution or siltation of the waterway to an extent that it would

jeopardise any existing or potential uses of the waterway; The proposed development is such that there will be no adverse siltation or pollution of the harbour to an extent that it would jeopardise any existing or potential uses of the waterway.

whether the development will have an adverse effect on wetlands or flora and fauna habitats;

The proposed development is located in an existing urbanised area of Point Piper and is not in reasonable proximity to any wetlands or specific flora and fauna habitats that would be affected by the proposal.

the noise likely to be generated by the development and any adverse effect that any such noise

would have on existing uses of the waterway or nearby land; The noises likely to be generated by the development during construction phase or upon its completion would not have an adverse impact upon the existing uses of the waterway or nearby land.



whether the development will have an adverse effect on drainage patterns or cause shoreline erosion; An assessment of the impact of the proposal on the hydrology/groundwater and the type of retention required for the site has been provided by the applicant (see report by Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd). The approved repairs to the walkway, boat ramp and boat shed will be of a scale that will result in no adverse effect upon the erosion of the shoreline.

whether the development will cause excessive congestion of, or generate conflict between people

using the waterway or waterfront The proposal will retain the private use of the foreshore and waterway at this site and will not result in any conflict of use in this area.

the demand for storage space for boats on the harbour or on Parramatta River;

The proposal will provide necessary storage limited to the residents on the subject site. Only crafts such as windsurfers, dinghies and small vessels will be stored in the boatsheds.

whether the development warrants a foreshore location;

There will be no change to the existing residential use of the subject site. whether the development will have an adverse effect on the views to and from the waterway as a

result of the size of vessels capable of being accommodated within the development; The existing jetty on the site is to be retained. The nature of vessels being capable of using it are consistent with the capabilities of the existing boatshed and will not result in restricting views to and from the waterway.

the effect of the development on any conservation area or on any building, work, relic, tree or place

that is a heritage item of significance to the locality and the effect on its site and in the vicinity; Heritage items in the vicinity of the proposal include:

• the residential flat building at No. 16-18 Wolseley Road, Point Piper; • Norfolk Island Pine within the road reservation of Wolseley Road; and • Lady Martins Beach.

The proposed development should not impact upon the heritage significance of surrounding heritage items.

any other relevant plan of management, urban design or other development control guidelines that

apply to Sydney and Middle Harbours and their foreshores and which have been notified and provided to the consent authority by a public authority;

The original DA was referred to the NSW Maritime. The general terms of approval were included as conditions of consent.

(r) the importance of giving priority to onshore access to the foreshores and waterway rather than

access by means of boardwalks; The proposed development will not significantly alter the existing access to the foreshore/waterway.

The Sydney Harbour and Parramatta River DCP supplements SREP 23 by establishing guidelines for development and activities with the aim of: • minimising impacts on ecological communities; • ensuring that the scenic quality of the area is protected or enhanced; • providing siting and design principles for new buildings and waterside structures; and



• identifying locations with potential for foreshore access. The location, use, scale and form of the proposed development will not result in any adverse impact on the existing waterway/s as compared to the original approved development. The Section 96 Application proposes amendments to the pool height and the landscaping to allow additional landscaping to mitigate the minor increase in the visibility of the building resulting from the additional excavation. Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 The Harbour REP includes a transitional provision that saves (and does not impose the provisions of the Harbour REP on) any EPIs, master plans, DCPs and development applications that have been exhibited, substantially completed or finalised prior to the gazettal of this REP. Given that this Section 96 was exhibited and that the assessment and report was substantially completed prior to the gazettal date the REP does not apply. 8.3 Section 94 contribution No additional Section 94 Contribution is required under the Section 96 Application. 8.4 Other relevant legislation None relevant 9. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995 9.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone (Clause 8(5)) The proposal is permissible and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the relevant objectives of the Residential 2(b) zone. 9.2 Statutory compliance table

Site Area: 1734m²1 Approved

Development Proposed

Modification Control Complies

Site Area and Lot Frontage 1734m²

No. 34 – 4.95m No. 38 – 3.3m

No Change 930m² 21m

No change from approval2

Overall Height 11.4m 11.4 9.5m No change

from approval3

Floor Space Ratio 1.58:1 2740m²

1.61:1 2801.9m²

0.625:1 (1083m2) No4

FSBL 20m 30m 30.0m No change

from approval5 9.3 Site area requirements No change to the existing site area and frontage as a result of the Section 96 Application.

1 Not including access handle 2 Approved non-compliance 3 Approved non-compliance 4 Increase of 61.9m² 5 Approved non-compliance



9.4 Height The overall approved height of the building is not changing as a result of the Section 96 Application. 9.5 Floor space ratio The proposed modifications involve an additional 61.9m² of gross floor area and will increase the floor space ratio of the subject development from 1.58:1, as approved, to 1.61:1, - both which exceed the Council’s maximum floor space ratio development standard of 0.625:1. Whilst an objection to Council’s floor space ratio development standard under the provisions of SEPP No.1 – Development Standards is not required for Section 96 Applications, the objectives of the standard are relevant. The objectives of Council’s floor space ratio development standard contained under Clause 11AA of Woollahra LEP 1995 relate to the control of building density, bulk and scale in all residential localities in the area in order to achieve the future character objectives of those localities, to minimise adverse environmental effect on the use or enjoyment, or both, of adjoining properties and to relate new development to the existing character of the surrounding built and natural environment. Having regard to the abovementioned objectives and the non-compliance with Council’s floor space ratio control, the proposed additional floor area of 61.9m² to the subject development is considered to be satisfactory as the additional floor area is minimal and will not impart any excessive building density, scale or bulk to the streetscape and adjoining properties, nor will it have any adverse impacts upon the amenity of the locality and surrounding development. The modifications will not change the height, façade modelling or architectural character of the approved development. The plant rooms are underground. 9.6 FSBL The approved development encroached into the 30m building line. Council supported a SEPP No. 1 objection in this regard. The Section 96 Application does not increase the degree of encroachment in terms of building footprint; however the lowering of the building results in more excavation within the building line. The Section 96 Application proposes amendments to the pool height and the landscaping to allow additional landscaping to mitigate the minor increase in the visibility of the building resulting from the additional excavation. 9.7 Other special clauses/development standards Clause 18 Excavation: The proposed additional excavation is acceptable in terms of Clause 18. The Statement of Environmental Effects lodged with the Section 96 Application includes a letter dated 27th January 2005 from Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd which states that the increase in excavation by up to 1m will not provide any significant change to their earlier recommendations or change any of the potential impact on adjoining properties. It is considered that, in the context of the existing consent, the extent of additional excavation meets the objectives of clause 2(l) of WLEP 1995, because the additional excavation is small in context to that already granted consent, there are no additional geotechnical or hydrogeological concerns beyond those already considered under the original development assessment and already subject to relevant conditions (see 6.6 above), and the proposed landscape works will obscure the additional elevation height caused by the excavation (see 6.5 and 6.7 above). The cumulative impact of the excavation it is not



substantially different from that already approved. The benefit of the additional excavation is a reduction in the overall height of the building by 100mm (excluding a more significant reduction in the lift overruns) and the provision of rain water tanks. This benefits the public and neighbours in slightly better access to views from the public domain and private properties meeting the objectives of clause 2(2)(h)(iv-v) of WLEP 1995. The rain water tanks (being pre-BASIX) further promote ecological sustainable development. Clause 19 HFSPA: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 19(2). This is expanded upon in the more detailed assessment in Part 8 of this report under SEPP 56 and SREP 23. Clause 24 Land adjoining public open space: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 24(2). Clause 25 Water, wastewater and stormwater: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 25(1) and (2). Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils: The proposed works do not require the need for an assessment of acid sulfate soils under clause 25D of Woollahra LEP 1995 Clauses 26-33 Heritage and conservation area provisions : Heritage items in the vicinity of the proposal include the residential flat building at No. 16-18 Wolseley Road, Point Piper; a Norfolk Island Pine within the road reservation of Wolseley Road; and Lady Martins Beach. The proposed amended development will not have any adverse impact upon the heritage significance of surrounding heritage items. 10. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 applies. Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Act requires that in determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority. Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 ("the proposed SEPP") is on exhibition and Council has been notified. This draft SEPP will, when it commences, require a higher threshold test in order for an objection against a development standards to be sustained however, Clause 14 of the draft SEPP provides Saving and Transitional provisions. These provisions provide that any application submitted prior to the commencement of the proposed SEPP and within 28 days after the commencement of the proposed SEPP are to be determined in accordance with the former SEPP No.1 as if the former SEPP No.1 had not been repealed by the proposed SEPP. Having considered the draft environmental planning instrument, the proposed SEPP, it is not relevant given the proposed Clause 14 Savings and Transitional Provision. Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 This SREP has been gazetted but does not apply having regard to the transitional provisions. The relevant assessment, of like issues, has been undertaken under SEPP 56 and SREP 23 in this report. 11. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS



11.1 Numeric Compliance table - Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan 2003 Site Area (1734m²) (not including the access handles)

Approved Development

Proposed Modification Control Complies

Ancillary Development (plant rooms) Maximum Height Side Setback (north) Side Setback (east)

N/A

N/A6

3.950m 1.5m to 2m

3.6m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m

Yes

Setback from Significant Mature Trees <3m <3m 3.0m No*


(570m2 ) No change 35%

(606.9m2 ) Yes

Excavation Piling and Subsurface Wall Setback

Car parking – 1.5min

Access tunnel – nil

1.5m to 3.950m 1.5m

Yes to S96


51.3% (775.6m²) No change

40% (693m2 ) Yes

* Existing non-compliance Site analysis performance criteria (Part 3) The Section 96 Application has addressed the requirements of Part 3 of the DCP. The application seeks to lower the building and increase the level of landscaping within the foreshore building line area. Desired future precinct character objectives and performance criteria (Part 4) The Section 96 Application has addressed the future character performance criteria and desired future character objectives for the Point Piper Precinct. With respect to the objective that requires Council to consider new development reinforces the stepped and sloping topography of the Precinct the development consent has already approved a large amount of excavation on the site. The additional excavation sought under the Section 96 Application is very minor as compared to the approved. Streetscape performance criteria (Section 5.1) There is no change to the streetscape as approved by the original development application. Building size and location performance criteria (Section 5.2) The proposed modifications involve an additional 61.9m² of gross floor area and will increase the floor space ratio of the subject development from 1.58:1, as approved, to 1.61:1, - both which exceed the Council’s maximum floor space ratio development standard of 0.625:1. This has been considered previously in this report. The location of the underground plant rooms comply with the minimum side setbacks for both ancillary development and excavation. There is no change in building footprint as approved under the original consent.

6 Underground – will not be seen



Open space and landscaping performance criteria (Section 5.3) The Section 96 Application seeks an additional area of excavation at levels 1 and 2 between the western side of the northern unit and the western boundary (below the approved terrace area and pedestrian entrance area at Level 3). This additional area is required to accommodate a tank for the retention and reuse of water on the site and associated plant and equipment. The excavation is sited between 1.5m to 2m from the eastern boundary and 3.950m from the northern boundary. There is no loss of deep soil landscaping as a result of the additional excavated area. It should be noted that the area of deep soil provided by the approved development complies with the Council’s requirement of at least 40% of the site area. Fences and walls performance criteria (Section 5.4) Not applicable to the application. Views performance criteria (Section 5.5) There will be no loss of view from adjoining properties as a result of the Section 96 Application. Energy efficiency performance criteria (Section 5.6) Not applicable to the application. Stormwater management performance criteria (Section 5.7) Council’s Engineer has advised: The revised proposal incorporates a relatively large rainwater tank, supplying water for irrigation and non-potable water uses within the development. It is proposed the tank will be topped up with mains water. The design and construction of this connection will be subject to the requirements and approval of Sydney Water which would appear to be addressed by condition 17 “Compliance Certificate from Sydney Water” of the original Development Consent. No further or amended conditions are required. Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria (Section 5.8) There will be no additional loss of acoustic or visual privacy as a result of the amendments sought under the Section 96 Application. Car parking and driveways performance criteria (Section 5.9) The Section 96 Application does not alter the approved number of car parking spaces nor the access to the basement carparks. Site facilities performance criteria (Section 5.10) Not relevant to the Section 96 Application. Harbour foreshore development performance criteria (Section 5.11) The DCP contains the following objectives in respect of harbour foreshore development:



• 5.11.1 To protect the scenic quality of the natural landscape and built environment as viewed from Sydney Harbour.

• 5.11.2 To protect indigenous flora and fauna habitats and minimise disturbance of ecological communities.

• 5.11.3 To conserve the natural land and water interface and reinforce the natural character of the foreshore.

The Section 96 Application proposes amendments to the pool he ight and the landscaping to allow additional landscaping to mitigate the minor increase in the visibility of the building resulting from the additional excavation. Mixed development in business zones performance criteria (Section 5.12) Not applicable to the application. Access and mobility performance criteria (Section 5.13) The relevant control is that development is to comply with the requirements of the Access DCP. The applicant has submitted a report dated 31st August 2005 from Morris-Goding Accessibility Consulting which indicates that although the development is compliant with AS1428 and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), wheelchair access to the main entry is extremely difficult. The applicant states in a covering letter dated 1st September 2005 that installation of alternate access options will create loss of amenity for the adjoining properties by potential noise, loss of privacy and loss of views. These options would also decrease the amount of landscaped area. Disabled access to the site will be via the car lift which will be finished to a very high standard, as it is the main access point to our development. The report is considered in Section 11.3 of this report. Inter-war flat buildings performance criteria (Section 5.14) Not applicable to the application. 11.2 DCP for off-street car parking provision and servicing facilities There is no change in the car parking 11.3 Woollahra Access DCP Council’s Access DCP requires for Class 2 buildings 1 visitor accessible dwelling and one AS2890.1 disabled space for each visitor accessible dwelling or adaptable dwelling. The DCP defines visitor accessible or visitor access as access to a building from a road that allows people with a disability to access the main room of the building through the front door as well as the provision of a toilet that is easily accessible to a wheelchair user and which complies with the BCA and AS1428.1. The applicable conditions relating to access requirements are as follows:-

8. Compliance with Disability Discrimination Act The development must be designed to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and AS 1428 – “Design for Access and Mobility”, Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.




In order to provide adequate disabled access to the building, the visitor carparking space within the basement carpark level is to be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1. Such is to be indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate Application.


In order to provide adequate disabled access to the building, a continuous, accessible, uninterrupted path of travel from the footpath to the main entrance and to the lift at ground floor level is to be provided. This accessible path is not to incorporate any steps, stairways or other impediment preventing the path being used by people with disabilities. Such is to be indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate Application.


In order to provide adequate disabled access to the building, the lift is to be wheel chair accessible. Such is to be indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate Application.

The applicant has submitted a report dated 31st August 2005 from Morris-Goding Accessibility Consulting on the issue of accessibility with a covering letter claiming unjustifiable hardship with respect to wheelchair access to the development from Wolseley Road. The report does indicate that there is an appropriate level of accessibility within the development to ensure that the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act are met. These are stated in the report as follows:-

General All common paths of travel to and from the basement levels to the fourth level apartments have appropriate circulation areas in accordance with AS1428.1 and Woollahra Access DCP. The circulation areas allow a person in a wheelchair to manoeuvre a 180 degree turn and pass one another wheelchair/pram in conjunction with draft DDA Premises Standard. Lift There are 2 passenger lift that provide direct access to all apartment on all floors from all basement levels. There is also an additional 3rd lift (nearest lift 2) providing access only to and from the 1st floor basement level to the 4th floor main entry. The lift cars have 2400mm x 2100mm internal dimensions and a 900mm lift door openings, and complies with AS1735.12, AS1428.2, the draft DDA Premises Standards and Woollahra Access DCP. The lift lobbies on all floors have appropriate circulation for a wheelchair user to turn to and from lifts. Car Parking All car parking has access to the passenger lift and therefore access to all 8 residential apartments. Common Amenities There are storage rooms and garbage rooms located throughout the development and are accessible in accordance with AS1428.1.



With respect to the access to the development from Wolseley Road the Council’s Access DCP requires that in assessing claims for exceptional circumstances the following elements are to be considered:- The degree of use by the public of a building or proposal The report states that the development comprises of 8 (class 1) single dwelling residential apartment. It is considered that there would not be a high degree of use by the public of the building – it would be residents and visitors only. Due to the nature of the use, the building is only likely to be accessed by persons residing on the premises and possibly visitors. It is therefore considered that the degree of use by the public does not warrant full compliance with the Access DCP, when having regard to the other considerations below. The degree of exclusion to people with a disability which may arise Persons with a disability will be able to access the building. The report indicates that the applicant will provide a partial solution in order to promote a better degree of accessibility by:-

- Provision of an intercom at street level, which will be accessible. The intercom will be connected to each unit so visitors can contact the residents when required. The area surrounding the intercom should be sheltered and illuminated.

- The external entry stairs are equipped with handrails, indicative colour contrast on all step nosings and TGSI in accordance with AS1428.1 and AS1428.4

- Provision of an accessible visitors/resident parking bay with a minimum 3.2m width and a 2.5m height clearance compliant with Council DCP and AS2890.

- Ensure the car park passenger lift has grab rail and control panel compliant with AS1735.12. Ensure the lift car has a positive aesthetic appeal.

- Additionally, line markings (zebra crossing) to be placed providing a safe pah of travel to and from the car lift to the lift lobby, for people in wheelchairs.

The cost of undertaking the modifications to make the building or space accessible when compared to the overall project costs The applicant has advised that the cost of providing the ramp from the street is approximately $250,000.00. Whilst this cost is relatively small as compared to the total development cost it should be noted that the construction of a ramp from Wolseley Road to the site would remove the majority of the deep soil landscaping within the access corridor and would have an adverse impact on the broader community through the removal of proposed vegetation. The topography and slope of the land The report states that all 4 levels of the development are positioned on land that has an extreme topographical gradient with access to the fourth floor main entrance via a stair access from the public foot path (approximately 25 metres in length). The report also states that due to the existing nature of the land, access to the 2 basement parking levels is achieved by car lift. The report also states that the access to the main entrance doorway of the building is via stair access that rises over 9.72 metres from the pedestrian footpath in front of the property boundary. Currently the stairs have excessive gradients steps and numerous steps/stairs/landings. Other relevant matters The report also states that the following options have been analysed in the provision of wheelchair access to the building with regards to DDA:-



1. Wheelchair Stair Platform Lifts to Main Entrance The provision of wheelchair stair platform lifts at all stairs leading to the building entrance from the pedestrian footpath would involve having a stair of 1.5 metre width and level sections between the stairs. This option would also involve significant cost and possible significant impact on the streetscape.

2. Ramp Access to Main Entrance The provision of a ramp system in accordance with AS1428.1 would be at least 154 metres long. The provision of ramps would cause the consideration of other factors as follows:

a. the ramp would occupy all the proposed area designated for landscape b. significant impact on the streetscape and adjacent conservation listed gardens c. cost of ramp would be expensive

3. Individual Passenger Lift to Car Park Tunnel The provision of an additional passenger lift adjacent to car park lift would involve significant cost. Furthermore, the path of travel from along the basement tunnel to the lift would also have safety and dignity issues and as such would not be suitable under the objectives of the DDA.

4. Combined Passenger Lift and Car Park Lift A means of wheelchair to and from the apartments to the public footpath via the car lift is possible. Although the car park lift will have AS1735.12 compliant control buttons and grab rail, it’s combined use with vehicles is not considered safe or equitable for people in wheelchairs. There would also be safety and dignity issues using the basement tunnel access, as mentioned.

The report in Section 3.3 also states:-

Unjustifiable Hardship As stated previously, section 23 of the DDA provides a defence of "unjustifiable hardship". A person or organisation may claim that providing a particular level of access would be technically impossible, impose major difficulties or involve unreasonable costs. However, the applicant has also provided a partial solution in order to promote a better degree of accessibility - Provision of an intercom at street level, which will be accessible. The intercom will be

connected to each unit so visitors can contact the residents when required. The area surrounding the intercom should be sheltered and illuminated.

- The external entry stairs are equipped with handrails, indicative colour contrast on all step nosings and TGSI in accordance with AS1428.1 and AS1428.4

- Provision of an accessible visitors/resident parking bay with a minimum 3.2m width and a 2.5m height clearance compliant with Council DCP and AS2890.

- Ensure the car park passenger lift has grab rail and control panel compliant with AS1735.12. Ensure the lift car has a positive aesthetic appeal.

- Additionally, line markings (zebra crossing) to be placed providing a safe pah of travel to and from the car lift to the lift lobby, for people in wheelchairs.

Having regard to the constraints of the site and the arguments contained in the report dated 31st August 2005 from Morris-Goding Accessibility Consulting no objection is raised to the proposal on access grounds and it is considered that the claim for exceptional circumstances be supported. 11.4 Other DCPs, codes and policies None other applicable to the Section 96 Application.



12. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS None other applicable to the section 96 Application. 13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT The impacts as a result of the Section 96 Application have been assessed in this report. 14. SUBMISSIONS The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and Notifications DCP. Submissions were received from:

• Letter dated 5th May 2005 from Secretary, Board of Directors, 36 Wolseley Road, Point Piper. The submission states that the application does not seek to reduce building height and on that basis they cannot the application and strongly object to any change in excavation unless it results in a reduction in excavation. The submission does not raise an objection to the pool design and landscaping as long as these changes do not impede the proposed right of way and access to Seven Shillings Beach, which is subject of a contract to be honoured by Bezzina Group. Comments by Assessment Officer The proposal will decrease the finished height of the development by 100mm but will not change in the internal height from floor to ceiling of the apartments. It will however decrease the lift shaft height from RL26.53 to RL26.1 – decrease of 430mm (as shown in the amended plans lodged 29th July 2005).

The applicant has advised in respect of the access to Seven Shillings Beach that the propose changes will not impede access for either property 36 and 40 as out lined in Agreements between the relevant parties.

• Email dated 5th May 2005 from Genevieve Reed on behalf of the owners of 42 Wolseley

Road, Point Piper, supporting the application. Comments by Assessment Officer Noted

• Letter dated 25th July 2005 from Bernard Curran, 2/32 Wolseley Road, Point Piper, in

support of the applicant. Comments by Assessment Officer Noted

The replacement applications (as defined by Clause 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000) were not renotified under clause 5.1 of the DCP because, having considered clause 9 of the DCP, the replacement applications are substantially the same development as the original proposal and considered to have no greater environmental impact upon neighbours. 15. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal is acceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C and would be in the public interest.



16. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 THAT Council, as the consent authority, modify development consent to Development Application No. 1010/2003/2 for the demolition of two apartment complexes on adjoining titles and the construction of two new residential unit complexes with two levels of underground parking on land at 34 Wolseley Road Point Piper, in the following manner: Amend Condition No. 2 to read:- 2. New development

The development must be carried out in accordance with the amended plans numbered: 03769 – S96-08K 03769-S96-09K 03769 –S96-10J, 03769-S96-11M 03769 –S96-12M 03769-S96-13J 03769-S96-14L 03769-S96-15L 03769-S96-16M 03769-S96-17M 03769-S96-18L 03769-S96-20L 03769-S96-21L 03769-S96-22/1K 03769-S96-22/2L 03769-S96-23M 03769-S96-24K RECEIVED BY Council on 29th July 2005, drawn by BSA and Associates Pty Ltd and the submitted Landscape Plans (LO1A, LO2A,LO3A, LO4A dated 16th September 2005 prepared by PSB) and, on which there is a Council stamp, “Approved Section 96 Plans” and signature of a Council officer, and Landscape Plans (Drawing Nos. SK01G and SK02F dated 23rd September 2004 and prepared by Pittendrigh Shinkfield Bruce Pty Ltd) and on which there is a Council stamp “Approved Development Application Plans” and the signature of the Council Officer, except where amended by the following condit ions.

Delete Condition No. 8 (It should be noted that the contents of this condition are included as Advising No. 11 in the Consent issued for the development) Amend Condition No. 18 to read as follows:- 18. Landscaping plan - Class 2-9 buildings

Landscaping of the site shall be undertaken in accordance with Drawing Nos. SK01G and SK02F dated 23rd September 2004 and prepared by Pittendrigh Shinkfield Bruce Pty Ltd as amended by Drawing Nos. LO1A, LO2A, LO3A, LO4A dated 16th September 2005 prepared by PSB which relate to the foreshore.



Amend Condition No. 19 to read as follows:- 19. Existing trees which must be retained

Approval is NOT granted for the removal of the following trees, which Council has determined to be significant landscape elements. Where indicated a Tree Preservation Bond is required to be lodged with Council. The Bond has been applied in accordance with Council’s policy regarding the bonding of trees on or adjacent development sites, where an assessment has determined that the proposed development may impact on the preservation of the following trees.



1 Livistonia australis Cabbage Tree Palm Front – NE corner 17 x 3 2 Ficus rubiginosa Port Jackson Fig Rear – West centre 10 x 10 3 Glochidion ferdinandii Cheese Tree Rear – West centre 10 x 8 4 Angophora costata Sydney Red Gum Rear – West 15 x 15


Amend Condition No. 21 to read: 21. Level changes in the vicinity of trees

No level changes are to occur within the dripline of the canopy of the following trees in order to allow for the preservation of their root zones.



1 Livistonia australis Cabbage Tree Palm E boundary No. 38 Wolseley Rd 17 x 3 2 Ficus rubiginosa Port Jackson Fig Rear – West centre 10 x 10 3 Glochidion ferdinandii Cheese Tree Rear – West centre 10 x 8 4 Angophora costata Sydney Red Gum Rear – West 15 x 15

Delete Condition No. 67 Amend Condition Nos. 66 and 68 to read as follows:- 66. Disabled visitor carparking space

In order to provide adequate disabled access to the building, the visitor carparking space within the basement carpark level is to constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1. Such is to be indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate Application.




In order to provide adequate disabled access to the building, the lifts are to be wheel chair accessible. Such is to be indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate Application.

Ms C McMahon Mr Brett Daintry TEAM LEADER MANAGER DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ADVISINGS 1. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact Ms C McMahon. However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34 Conference, instead of a full Court hearing. This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to agree, in writing, to the Court appointed assessor having the full authority to completely determine the matter at the conference.



H:\Development Control Committee \AGENDAS\2005\oct17-05dccage.doc 1

Item No: D15 Delegated to Committee Subject: Register of Current Land and Environment Court Appeals for

Building and Development Applications Author: Les Windle, Manager - Governance Council, at its meeting of 17 August 1994 resolved in the following terms: THAT the Register of current Land and Environment Court Appeals for Building and Development Applications presented in the Development and Building Applications Summary be transferred to the Development Control Committee to be considered at each meeting. Please find attached a copy of the current register. Recommendation: THAT the attached register of current Land and Environment Court Appeals for Building and Development Applications be received and noted. Les Windle Manager – Governance

Agenda: Development Control Committee · 10/17/2005 · C McMahon (Team Leader – Team Central) B...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda: Development Control Committee · 10/17/2005 · C McMahon (Team Leader – Team Central) B...