NO RT H S Y DNE Y CO UNCI L RE P O RT S...107 84 105 82 109 110 103 80 101 107 108 78 99A 105 106 1...
Transcript of NO RT H S Y DNE Y CO UNCI L RE P O RT S...107 84 105 82 109 110 103 80 101 107 108 78 99A 105 106 1...
Item _____IPP07______ - REPORTS -______01/04/2015_________
N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S
NSIPP MEETING HELD ON 01/04/2015
Attachments 1. Site Plan
2. Assessment Report to NSIPP 5/11/2014 3. Noise Assessment Report - February 2015
4. Plan of Management - February 2015
ADDRESS/WARD: 220 West Street, Crows Nest (W) APPLICATION No: DA. 281/14 (S.82A Review Request No.1/15) PROPOSAL: Change of Use from Office Premises to a Dog Grooming Business PLANS REF: Drawings numbered SDB/01 through SDB/07, dated 21 August
2014, drawn by Dform Design, and received by Council on 24 February 2015
OWNER: Siobhan Macwhite APPLICANT: Barking Mad Pty Ltd AUTHOR: Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner DATE OF REPORT: 19 March 2015 DETERMINATION DATE: 5 November 2014 DATE REQUEST FOR REVIEW LODGED: 24 February 2015 AMENDED: Nil RECOMMENDATION Re-affirm refusal
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 2 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development Application 281/14 was lodged on 27 August 2014 seeking approval for a Dog Grooming Business. The development application was notified from 12 September 2014 to 26 September 2014. During this period the application received eighteen (18) individual submissions objecting to the proposal, and two petitions, containing a total seventy two (72) signatures. No submissions were received in support of the proposal. At the end of the notification period, Council received additional four (4) submissions objecting to the proposal. The application was reported to the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel at its meeting of 5 November 2014. The Council Officer’s recommendation for refusal on residential amenity grounds and non compliance with the zone objectives was endorsed by the Panel. The Panel however did not concur with the refusal on the grounds of permissibility (Reason 1) which was deleted. The applicant’s request for a 12 month trial was also not supported due to the lack of detail and documentation to support the development application and the uncertainty that may be created. The applicant is seeking a review of the determination to refuse the development application No.281/14 involving the Change of Use from Office Premises to a Dog Grooming Business. Council’s notification of the request for reconsideration has attracted 10 submissions and 2 petitions raising particular concerns about amenity, noise, odour, traffic, parking, suitability of site and zone objectives. This assessment of the proposal for the purpose of Council’s review has been carried out on the basis of a consideration of the grounds for refusal of the original application, evaluated against Council’s planning controls, the merits of the proposal, the concerns raised by submitters and the documentation submitted by the applicant in support of the Section 82A review request. The Panels charter provides that Section 82A Reviews of the decisions made by the panel, be ultimately determined by the panel. Internal processes dictate that this review is undertaken by persons not directly involved in the original assessment. It is recommended that the Panel re-affirm the decision to refuse the application.
LOCATION MAP
STREET
STREET
BURLINGTON
BURLINGTON LANE
CAHILLPLAYGROUND
ERNEST
BURLINGTON LANE
STREET
MA
CAR
THU
R
AVE
NU
E
ERNEST TRAFALGAR STREET
WARRINGAHCEMETERYLANE
STREET
MAT
THEW
ST THOMAS' REST PARKMETCALFE STREET
DEVONSHIRE STREET
EDW
IN
ST
REE
T
HUNTINGTON STREET ROSALINDHUNTINGTON STREET
THO
MA
S
LA
NE
WES
T
STREETERNEST LANE
SOPHIA
ERNEST LANE
116 118114
12069
112
12671
110
67
128 130
108106
73 13275
104
65
134
102100
77
63
98
79
9694
136140
8183
92
61
85
59
89 91 93 99 101
86
57
103 105
55A
107 107A 109
8482
55
80787674
53
7270
51
6866
49
6462
47
60
47A
58
45
45A
56
53
26
18
60
28
59
62
59
30 30A
64
61
32 34 36
63
38
66
40
(69)
(65)
42A
65
65-71
42
30
(71)
2826
44
2422
73
20
46
71
48
78
50
75
1815
16
52
77
32
1314
80
54
79
12
82
56
84
81
58
88
83
60
83
90
87
62-64
85
89
92
66
60
87
91
68
139
130
133
133A
128A
137
133B
128
131129
135
126
127
133
125
124
131
110
123
108
122
129
106
121
104
127
102
118
100
119
98
125
115
9694
123
9290
116
113
121
88
114
111
119
112A
86
109
115
112
113
107
84
111
105
82
109
110
103
80
101
107
108
78
99A
105
106
103
99
104
76
101
97
102
99A
95
100
72
99
93
98
97
91
95
96
70
93
89
595755(53A)
535149474543
94
(37-41)
3
2A
1
5
112
81
4
7
114
9
83
116
6
11
118
8
85
13
120
15
10
87
122
355033
3129 484627 44
42(25)40
38361715 32
30(11B)
119B9A9753
(49)47
4543
4139
3735
3331A
3129 42
402738
362534
32233019
2817 2624A
2422A
2220A
2018
1614
12
127125
123121
119117
115113
111109
107105
103101
9997
95162
16015893 156
1549189 152
150148
146144
142140
138136
134132
130128
124 126
1621
6 41 6
61 6
817
01 7
217
81 8
018
218
41 9
0
149
149151
153153A
155157
352
3 03
360
1 91
189
362
187
161
159
(152)150
148
141
61
112
63
52
143
114
65
145
116
54
147
67
149
56
192
(196
A)19
620
42 0
6 20 8
2 10
2 12
214
2 16
2 18
2 20
222
224
2 26
169
228
2 30
1 71
232
2 34
173
236
1 75
240
1 77
242
179
246
248
1 81
248A
1 83
1 87
191
1 93
250
143
195
197
199
201
201A
203
2 05
2
132 134
1
4
136
6
3
138
8
5
2-4
(9) (11)
10
7
15
140
12
9
14
11
6
16
8
142
13
450-
4 76
365
3 61
359
3 90
3 82
39
40-44
353
3735A
35
8
7
36-38
5
11
9
33
378
1614
7
31
14
1012
121 0
5
8
374 -
376
66
4
331
3
22 9
A29
370
2
1
272321
15
18
144
366
19
146
4447351143
46
SP 3044711
9877
6001
52
6090
52
A2
3382
96
B2
2346
12
ABA1131
7139
88
202201BA311
1
ADA
SP 600 12
E
SP 22136
C2118B 31126918A192191BABA11 443055
3429205197
69
3180
07
2
5954
64
4430
55
4434
49
9248
61
9238
93 214443
Sec 2178816 B 14443
1 546
1007
776
3739
81188371 42
A11
123
9266
54
A
455871
9266
55
2 1SP 60368
455871
Y
1
8268
06
1075391 X
1
10
1EC
7 3635
YXB
1843
83700114 546 437048100
10A
121120
8634
71 23
SP 5
7524
21
24
1127023 BA 101
A C
1079
72
SP 15514
191 192546102
1
546
5974
23
1
Sec 3
4438
6360
4433
Sec 3
1058
019
4316
56
Sec 14
SP 4
4133
3537
1441C N57A SP 5
5438
1 4404834 51
7915
44E
8296
98
8807
54
8461
271 14828461
27
1
A
9601
57
4071
74
9601
58
32
394887
1265
244268
1707
62 798577
6666
194018013
1
1
734253
1
SP 34740
1
5190
11
3189
51
Sec 3
4452
17Sec 2
4046
941
Sec 2
2781
4
22
861447
SP 5
1208
2781 1Sec 2 2
9196
94
1
SP 3
6092
199319
97
1627815706
99
1
2192
94
12
912121
3BA102101
5150432
4418
621
8465
08
1
8809
57B
7081
66
5334
081
1015
237
231
3287
SP
5671
5
4101
74606745
SP 5
3524
7870
61
3193
24
7081
66
1315
56
9470
11 X1211BA21
1067
75 11
6593
97
6559
25
110
2584
3251
64 2112AA
29F
A33 1265
1
4448
40
3
5908
9111
9660
4
7
B
1
1
5583
4163
0390
325869
A
1
2
1
11
4430
8237
9895
1153
316
B
2
1
12
A
5062
4643
7646
2
32
1
2
3387
33
B
1199
885
9114
20
1
2
31
B
1
2205
9632
2345
5255
4966
3561
42
1
3
8504
27
16
C
1
9752
0257
5322
1
4
1
546
7967
91
Sec 3
2
271
1088
51
43
7301
76
A
2
A
272
4383
8110
9436
5
B
1
B
441
SP 3
4745
7190
85
2
2
35
442
4390
2692
7119
5874
70
12
202498 312
11
39 59570638YX21 354
6
Sec
2546
SP 16904
4428
68 Sec 2
2154
55
SP 66299
1
5362602 13
9096112159
66
6594
35
7078
06
6562
99
6
2285
98
710837957474
98 546
Sec
2
21 811112211 1
1
1546
Sec
3 2
150 3
31
8382
05
SP 1
0815
546A
SP 1
8912
4
Sec 3714425
24372
70 12
447615
9217
92
1 1
SP
1204
1
1 A
SP 4
7936
C1
EA B 1 2 1 A439933 1
4405
69
A
5233
00
307039
SP 1
9757
1
9626
4632
1919
28369
5162
65
3915
37
SP 4
2647
5883
76
E1 2 X Y 2 443294B 1 2
1482
300087
2 1 2 1
1
2
1482
1 1
1
315 4
3 4
A
511204
2
1 1
A
1
3179
54B
8
12
440584
9
7 1 1155238
2
3
1
10
2052
37
BA
2088
33
2
127192
9803
33
1
4558
6791
7759
1111
049
1
6653
83
1185
453
1100
69
3054
58
2
4
1
1
609495
2
12
SP 42901SP 74088
104
92626981
9
654578
3042321
819
1B
181
9Se
c 2
1082266
221
211
Sec
1
5
624328
6547
44
SP 55361
447441
Sec
1
569701
A
SP 69821
9094
70
82957
86395
6
819
Sec 2
606376
SP
5280
9SP
230
2183
514
SP 11252
1
SP 9840
801983
1
SP 3448
1093
454
151
SP 16181
1106
873
SP 5218
16
SP 9042
SP 4657
SP 2953
7863
0
1
SP 4
528
922379
1976
8SP
316
83
1
1
9995
16
346731
1
2
171
6168
SP
1012
836
6632
SP 11923
2
A
B
8393
0
1
9391
31
1
CT 42
404740W
SP 5
4068
3731
93
SP 13298
X
SP 9428
SP 49012
3811
37D
9 501192
B2
8
4370
30F
58893 SP 7
3638
1059
84H
545295
SP 16960
SP
5187
4
Pt 5
5627
Pt 6
658352
7SP
807
51
SP 75109
SP 1
5842
SP
7450
6
SP 18830
SP 36369
SP 5
4352
SP 52898
SP 1
1124
SP
1434
1
B
324002
B395415
SP 2
080
D43
7029
1 2
CT 35
SP 7
5073
1976
8
SP 69895
B
SP 11390
SP
3830
2
3930
58
10
SP 75196
2
Y
1
1126
45
539590
5395
90
4
1
2
1
5
2
A
2
3857
81
311297
6
1
B
B
1
2109
47
1
311297
1665
21
2
2
4
1
10
1672
2465
6603
1
9142
4216
9047
10
SP
1067
0
24
6666
2192
1888
9217
91
790981104
9218
8692
1884
9218
85
922259 127 SP 22131922489261 SP 51320
432 1
1 948804211
9793
35191
1175
156
1
9227111124804 72
4 979
1
1
1072
450
1119
300
9613939793
35
2
901149178181
5 3
158917 4 90114832
112
B 168556
120A
99
1
790953
1192
624
11798
1
1659141
100
Sext
ons
Cot
tage
581560 111
1
1685
563
1748
51
3064
42
1776
92
8268
4
259929
783616
1550664 85995774511 1 11
22
4115114
774511 5
B 259929220721
728480 2
1057
5241 B (in stratum)
257
9592
3126
06A
11129460
184675
4
Re: Page 3
Property/Applicant Submittors - Properties Notified
220 West Street, Crows Nest - DA 281/14
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 4 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The applicant seeks a review of the determination to refuse the development application No.281/14 involving the Change of Use from Office Premises to a Dog Grooming Business. Fit-out Works:
• Installation of ground floor partition walls for ‘drying’, ‘waiting’, ‘separation’ and ‘resting’ areas;
• Installation of front reception desk fixtures, including retail shelving; • Conversion of existing ground floor storage room to ‘Washing Room’, including • Installation of ‘dog washing tub’ and facilities; • Installation of ground floor commercial vinyl flooring;
The proposal does not seek any first floor alterations or additions, and proposed the use of existing staff room, storage room, kitchenette and bathroom on this floor. Operational Matters: Further to physical works outlined, the proposal seeks the following hours of operation:
• Monday to Friday:7:30am to 6:00pm; • Saturday: 8:00am to 4:00pm.
The proposal seeks provision for a maximum of 25 dogs serviced at the site per day, to be dropped off and picked up by owners during hours above, with a maximum capacity of 10 dogs at any one time. The proposal includes provision for five (5) staff members. The proposal also seeks provision for a minor/ancillary retail component within the reception area, for sale of dog related items and handbooks/flyers etc. The applicant indicates that customers will be allocated set times for drop off and for collection of animals to ensure compliance with capacity measures outlined above. It is also proposed that should customers not collect animals within specified times that additional fees are to be charged. The proposed development remains the same as that which was refused. This S.82A review request is accompanied by submission in support of the proposal from the applicant’s consultant. An updated Noise Assessment Report dated February 2015 and Plan of Management dated February 2015 was also submitted and copies are attached to this report for the Panel’s information. STATUTORY CONTROLS North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 • Zoning – B1 – Neighbourhood Centre • Item of Heritage - No • In Vicinity of Item of Heritage – No • Contributory Item - Yes • Conservation Area – Yes (Holtermann Estate B Conservation Area) Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 5 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
POLICY CONTROLS DCP 2013 DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITY The site is identified as 220 West Street, Crows Nest (Lot 1 DP 1482). The site is regular in shape with a total area of 229.0m² (by Deposited Plan) and accommodates a two storey attached office/commercial building with rear open parking area. The site contains a primary frontage to West Street to the east, secondary frontage to Holtermann Street to the south, and also adjoins Thomas Lane to the west. The site has vehicular access from Thomas Lane to the west/rear via a single width crossing. The site and existing building is identified as being a Contributory Heritage Item, located within the Holtermann Estate B Conservation Area. The surrounding locality is characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses. The area also contains scattered stand alone business premises/zonings, generally located along West Street on corner lots including at Huntington, Holtermann and Ernest Streets. Development patterns within the locality are also characterised by a building orientation towards the street, with vehicular access (including garages, car parking or other structures etc.) obtained via a rear lane. It is noted the site contains a stand alone B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zoning, and is located within a predominately residential area. RELEVANT HISTORY Council records revealed the following recent development history on the subject site: DA.119/14 Development Application 119/14 was lodged on 15 April 2014 also seeking approval for ‘dog grooming and day care centre’. This application was subsequently rejected by Council on 17 April 2014 on the grounds of insufficient information relating to noise, odour, waste and management procedures.
DA.152/14 Development Application 152/14 was lodged on 16 May 2014 seeking approval for a ‘Dog Day Care and Grooming Business’. During assessment of the application, the proposed use was categorised as an ‘Animal Boarding and Training Establishment’ under the North Sydney Environmental Plan 2013, given the terms “keeping or caring of animals for commercial purposes” within this definition. Such a use is prohibited in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone. DA152/14 was subsequently withdrawn on 26 August 2014. DA.281/14 Development Application 281/14 was lodged on 27 August 2014 seeking approval for a Dog Grooming Business. The application was reported to the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel at its meeting of 5 November 2014. A copy of the assessment report is attached for the Panel’s information.
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 6 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
The Panel refused the application for the following reasons: 1. Zone Objectives The use of the premises would present an unreasonable impact to surrounding residential premises and is inconsistent with the objectives for the B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone, pursuant to the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013. Particulars: a) The proposal is not considered to be a small scale retail, business or community uses that
serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood and would result in a significant reduction in residential amenity. The scale of the proposal, including operating hours and animal capacity is considered to service an area significantly larger than the immediate surrounding neighbourhood. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not be in keeping with this objective for the provision of a small scale business within the zone.
b) The proposal does not encourage active street life while maintaining high levels of
residential amenity. The operational details of the proposal, including recommendations of the submitted Acoustic Report would indicate and/or require, day to day running of the business solely within the confines of the existing building and therefore would not encourage, nor contribute to, active street life surrounding the site. Further, the daily operation the business would have a significant impact on residential amenity within the locality, on the grounds of noise generated by animals within the premises as well as coming and going and as a result of the requirement for full time mechanical ventilation.
2. Amenity Matters The proposal does not satisfy the following provisions contained in the North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013: (i) Section 2.3.1 (Clean Air) in that the development has not adequately addressed outstanding concerns relating to waste management, including adequate ventilation to the subject premises and generation of odour impacts to adjoining residents, and is considered to reduce amenity to the surrounding locality. (ii) Section 2.3.2 (Noise) in that the development has not adequately addressed outstanding concerns relating to noise generation from the site and acoustic impacts to surrounding residents, and is considered to reduce amenity to the surrounding locality. It is considered recommendations in the submitted acoustic report would be unrealistic in the day to day operation of the business, and would be unable to be enforced by the applicant, customers or Council (iii) Section 2.5.9 (Garbage Storage) in that the development has not adequately addressed concerns relating to garbage storage and waste management procedures at the site. The applicant has not clearly identified the location of waste storage receptacles, types of receptacles to be used, security or screening provisions or any cleaning and collection procedures/schedules. 3. Public Interest The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest for the reasons outlined within this notice of determination.
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 7 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
The applicant’s request for a 12 month trial was not supported for the above reasons and due to the lack of detail and documentation to support the development application and the uncertainty that may be created. This S.82A Review Request On 24 February 2015 Council received the subject S.82A request for a review of the determination. REFERRALS Council’s Team Leader Environmental Health (F Mulcahy) has provided the following comments: I have read the Atkins Acoustics report re the Proposed Dog Grooming Facility for 220 West Street. The report advises that provided the recommendations made therein are adhered to the building structure can be made capable of containing noise from the proposed business activities to satisfy Council's noise criteria. The report refers to noise break out from the building itself and does not include potential noise or disturbance from those accessing, entering and/or leaving the building. SUBMISSIONS The development application was notified during the period 12 September 2014 to 26 September 2014. During this period the application received eighteen (18) individual submissions objecting to the proposal, and two petitions, containing a total seventy two (72) signatures. Following the end of the notification period on 26 September 2014, Council received additional four (4) submissions objecting to the proposal. Prior to determination of the application, the applicant submitted petitions in support of the proposal. Matters raised in objections to the proposal predominately include those of amenity, relating to noise, odour, parking, traffic, access and waste, as well as matters of legal permissibility and suitability of the site. In accordance with Council policy, the submitters to the application were notified on 26 February 2015 of the Section 82A review of determination. The submitters were advised that all previous submissions made in relation to this proposal are still valid and will be taken into account in Council’s assessment of the application. The notification of the Section 82A application resulted in the following submissions.
• Not a business for residential area • Basis of refusal still valid – residential amenity and non compliance with zone objectives • Nothing has changed in Section 82A application • 12 month trial also previously rejected, too many conditions required that are
unenforceable
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 8 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
• Share common wall, acoustic report is wrong in that there is no air gap in upper level where bedrooms are, require daytime bed rest
• Noise will directly penetrate into premises from barking dogs • Dogs defecating in surrounding streets • Dogs barking in street
• Work from home • 40m from site • Acoustic report flawed and not objective • Barking of dogs will impact on amenity • Opposed to trial • Site not suitable, many other more suitable sites to rent
• Traffic congestion • Noise, smell and waste disposal • Parking pressures • Use of St Thomas Rest Park to walk dogs
• Unsuitable for animal based business in neighbourhood zone • Fails to address concerns • Noise • Scale and opening hours • Parking and traffic risks • Hygiene • 12 month trial risky • More suitable premises available where residents not affected
• Traffic • Impact on community through noise • Should be in commercial/industrial area
• Noise • Parking/traffic • Hygiene
• Noise • Traffic
• Noise • Hygiene • Traffic
• Inappropriate development for residential area
• Complete disapproval
Petition from 37 residents of West Street, Holtermann Street, Huntington Street and Rosalind Street in the following terms:
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 9 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
• Strongly against any application to use the property as a dog grooming business in any shape or form
• Do not consider this business to be at all appropriate in a residential area • Do not want business to start on a trial basis as we do not believe it will be able to meet
the conditions and also believe that Council will not be able to remove them if they fail to comply
• The Independent Planning Panel considered this matter fully and their endorsement of the Council’s recommendation for refusal of the DA should stand.
Additional petition from 15 residents of West Street, Holtermann Street and Rosalind Street in the following terms:
• Value the nearby park (St Thomas Rest Park) in its current form and do not want any sort of business using the park – this is public green space – not for commercial use in nay form
• Do not want to see hundreds of extra dogs per month using this park prior to going to dog grooming business
• Strongly believe that traffic around the corner of West and Holtermann Streets is already dangerous and addition of people and cars dropping off and collecting dogs is likely to lead to accidents with cyclists, pedestrians and/or motorists
• Section 82A should be declined under Council delegation and the DA refusal should stand
The applicant has also submitted copies of submissions in support that were previously before the Panel including petitions and emails from customers. The submission also included a letter from a neighbour at the Willoughby premises refuting claims about noise and odour impacts. A large number of the supporters do not appear to live in close proximity to the proposed site. REVIEW OF THE DETERMINATION
This request for a review of the determination of Development Application No 281/14 has been made and must be determined within 6 months of receipt of the notice of determination, and the appropriate application fee for the review has been paid. In this regard the matter is in accordance with the provisions of Section 82A (2), (2A) and (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The request for the review of the determination was notified and submissions have been received that require consideration in this report, in accordance with Section 82A (4) (a) and (b). Accordingly the Panel is able to conduct a review of the determination.
CONSIDERATION
This assessment of the proposal for the purpose of the Panel’s review has been carried out on the basis of a consideration of the grounds for refusal of the original application, evaluated against Council’s planning controls, the merits of the proposal, and the documentation submitted by the applicant in support of the Section 82A review request.
The applicant has chosen not to amend the proposal in this S.82A request for a review of the determination to refuse the application other than provide an updated acoustic assessment and plan of management (copies attached)
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 10 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
Ground for Refusal 1 Zone Objectives
The use of the premises would present an unreasonable impact to surrounding residential premises and is inconsistent with the objectives for the B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone, pursuant to the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013. Particulars: a) The proposal is not considered to be a small scale retail, business or community uses that
serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood and would result in a significant reduction in residential amenity. The scale of the proposal, including operating hours and animal capacity is considered to service an area significantly larger than the immediate surrounding neighbourhood. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not be in keeping with this objective for the provision of a small scale business within the zone.
b) The proposal does not encourage active street life while maintaining high levels of residential amenity. The operational details of the proposal, including recommendations of the submitted Acoustic Report would indicate and/or require, day to day running of the business solely within the confines of the existing building and therefore would not encourage, nor contribute to, active street life surrounding the site. Further, the daily operation the business would have a significant impact on residential amenity within the locality, on the grounds of noise generated by animals within the premises as well as coming and going and as a result of the requirement for full time mechanical ventilation.
Applicant’s submission:
We have submitted additional documents that address these concerns. One is the street address list of our clientele base which shows the locality of our clients. We are a small scale business that services mainly the Crows Nest area and surrounding suburbs. We could not be a more local business. Very few clients come from outside the municipality. The nature of the business is that people prefer to use a local groomer rather than drive across suburbs to visit a dog groomer in another locality. They usually walk to the shop. North Sydney and particularly Crows Nest has a very high percentage of households that own a dog. Additionally we have submitted a further independent noise assessment report that shows that with minor acoustic treatments and minor management systems, that there will be little noise impact on the surrounding neighbours. Particular focus was applied to the adjoining building to consider if the noise of high pitched barking dogs would be heard through the walls. The report clearly states that there will be no noise transfer. Further the report addresses the additional concerns raised by the panel of noise leakage at the rear. These concerns have simple solutions that are listed in the report. The building has a relatively new air conditioning system that was designed to ventilate for a large workforce. The previous tenant had a workforce of 25 staff members and the system was designed to operate for them. The application is for four staff and four dogs at any one time. The worse case scenario allows for ten dogs on the premise at a single moment which would be four dogs arriving, as four dogs were leaving with two dogs still in being groomed. The air conditioning will be underutilised, even with the grooming of the dogs. Dog hair is swept up similar to a hair dresser and disposed of after each grooming. There will be no opportunity for the dog hair to breach the outside area. Regular daily cleaning will ensure that any remaining dog hair is wiped off all surfaces.
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 11 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
The air conditioning system previously operated without any neighbour concerns and it will be turned off in the evenings when the noise from an air conditioning system would be most noticeable. During the business hours the air conditioning unit noise will be barely noticed above the background noise especially given the close proximity to the Expressway and the high level of traffic on West Street. The noise assessment report dated 13 February 2015 indicates that there will be no noise impact on the amenity of the neighbours. This confirms the original report that was submitted with the application. Assessment Planner’s Comment
:
The site is located within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone, however, it is noted as being an isolated zoning situated in an area that is predominantly characterised by low density residential uses. Similar anomalies are found on corner allotments fronting West Street to which traditionally have accommodated small retail and office type business with low amenity impacts. It is agreed that the proposal could not be considered to be a small scale retail, business or community use that serves the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal has the capacity to result in a significant reduction in residential amenity. The commercial success of the proposed business relies upon a catchment that extends beyond the local neighbourhood. The applicant has submitted emails and petitions in support mainly from customers that do not live in the surrounding neighbourhood as well as a list of customers that may be within walking distance. The submissions from surrounding residents object to the proposal on amenity grounds including noise, parking and traffic. These concerns are valid and relevant to the review of the unsuccessful application. There are no guarantees about how many customers are likely to drive or walk to the premises. This cannot be adequately controlled by condition. The limited scope of the proposed use could quickly extend beyond the limits of servicing a maximum of 25 dogs per day with 4 animals being actively serviced on premises at any one time. The premises have the capacity for more dogs to be accommodated than proposed. Council should not be placed in a position to constantly check on the premises to ensure compliance with conditions. The applicant has no control over customers or their dogs outside the premises, where they park or whether dogs bark outside of neighbouring residences. Noise disturbance on a regular basis would certainly reduce neighbourhood amenity. The proposal is simply not appropriate for an isolated site that is surrounded by dwellings. A more suitable site would be within a commercial shopping strip where there are minimal to no adjacent dwellings.
Ground for Refusal 2 Amenity Matters
The proposal does not satisfy the following provisions contained in the North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013:
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 12 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
(i) Section 2.3.1 (Clean Air) in that the development has not adequately addressed outstanding concerns relating to waste management, including adequate ventilation to the subject premises and generation of odour impacts to adjoining residents, and is considered to reduce amenity to the surrounding locality.
(ii) Section 2.3.2 (Noise) in that the development has not adequately addressed outstanding concerns relating to noise generation from the site and acoustic impacts to surrounding residents, and is considered to reduce amenity to the surrounding locality. It is considered recommendations in the submitted acoustic report would be unrealistic in the day to day operation of the business, and would be unable to be enforced by the applicant, customers or Council
(iii) Section 2.5.9 (Garbage Storage) in that the development has not adequately addressed concerns relating to garbage storage and waste management procedures at the site. The applicant has not clearly identified the location of waste storage receptacles, types of receptacles to be used, security or screening provisions or any cleaning and collection procedures/schedules.
Applicant’s submission:
As indicated in the above section, the premises have an extensive modern air conditioning system that was newly installed in recent years. The unit is designed to ventilate the premises for a workforce of 25 employees. The air conditioner was installed into the building with the intention that no windows would be operable and that the building would be sealed. The noise assessment report notes that most of the windows are fixed. With regard to Section 2.3.1the property has more than adequate ventilation for the use proposed, and that the ventilation system will prevent any odour leakage to adjoining properties. As the windows are all inoperable or are recommended to be fixed then there is little risk of odour leakage.
The garbage receptacle will be stored inside the premises in the main grooming room and will be collected weekly. The business at present generates less than one 120 litre bin per week. On average the bin is % full. It is not anticipated that there would be any increase in the waste generated. The bin will be placed out for collection on a weekly basis. It will be taken out via the side entranceway to minimise any noise to the neighbours behind. A full waste management plan has been submitted and a further plan of management for cleaning of the public domain schedule has been attached with this submission.
We submit that the application does meet the zone objectives and that it will be a positive addition to the locality once operating. It is very much a small local business with less than 5 employees compared to the previous tenant use with 25 employees. The customer list submitted shows the level of local patronage and the application clearly fits into the description of a small-scale retail, business or community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood. Finally the issues of noise, garbage and odour have been comprehensively addressed in the previous submissions and with the additional statements provided. We are happy to accept a l2 month trial to prove that we can meet all the requirements and conditions indicated in the reports.
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 13 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
Assessment Planner’s Comment
:
The premises could be physically modified to limit noise from the premises but there is no absolute guarantee that dogs barking would not be audible from the adjoining residence. The control of noise relies on windows and doors being kept closed at all times and acoustic treatment to the building itself. The potential noise or disturbance from those accessing, entering and/or leaving the building has not been addressed or cannot be controlled. As with most of the issues, garbage, hygiene and odour could be the subject of numerous conditions. Considerable doubt remains that the impacts of the proposed use could be reasonably managed by conditions. When assessing an application for change of use, a proposal is considered to be suitable if it can be approved with a minimum of conditions in that its normal operation would not impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood. The more conditions required the less suitable the proposal is. Trial periods are not often used to test whether a proposal is suitable or whether it should be established. A trial is used mainly where there is an extension of hours to an established use to ensure that amenity impacts are acceptable or reasonable. Should problems arise, then the use reverts to its previous hours. This cannot be easily done in closing down a business. It should also be noted that consents for a use stay with the property and not the user. A different operator may not be intending to use the premises in the same manner or in accordance with management plans. Ground for Refusal 3 Public Interest The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest for the reasons outlined within this notice of determination.
Applicant’s submission:
No comment provided. Assessment Planner’s Comment
:
Having regard to the issues raised in the residents’ submissions and given the impacts likely to arise from the occupation of the premises for dog grooming purposes, the proposed change of use application is not considered to achieve the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone to provide services to residents solely at the local level in a manner that would preserve the residential amenity of the neighbourhood. The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest. SUBMITTERS CONCERNS The issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 14 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
The proposal would result in unreasonable noise impact to surrounding properties Strict compliance with recommendations provided by the acoustic report would be unrealistic in the day to day operation of the business. The stated capacity of the premises, including up to 25 dogs, would necessitate multiple trips throughout the premises per hour, including regular opening of doors which are recommended to remain closed. The potential noise or disturbance from those accessing, entering and/or leaving the building has not been addressed or cannot be controlled. The proposal would result in unreasonable waste and odour impacts to surrounding properties This could be conditioned but difficult to enforce. The proposal would result in increased traffic and demand on parking at the site Patrons to the premises would most likely travel by private car or by walking. There are no guarantees on the likely number of vehicle trips. The proposed use is not suitable for the site A number of concerns relating to amenity impacts at the site have been raised particularly relating to noise, odour and waste management, cumulatively these impacts would result in a loss of amenity to surrounding properties. the proposal could not considered to be a small scale retail, business or community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighborhood . The proposal would result in a reduction in property values. Concerns relating to property values are not able to be determined by Council only the possible amenity impacts. Use of St Thomas Rest Park to walk dogs The applicant has refuted that use of the park is part of their proposal. CONCLUSION Following this request for a review of the decision to refuse development application DA 281/14, the application and the accompanying material have been assessed against the reasons for refusal, Council’s planning controls, submissions from surrounding residents and having regard for the applicant’s submission. The site is located within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone, being an isolated site situated in an area that is predominantly characterised by low density residential uses. It is agreed that the proposal could not be considered to be a small scale retail, business or community use that serves the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal has the capacity to result in a significant reduction in residential amenity. It is concluded that the previous decision to refuse the application should be re-affirmed.
Report of Geoff Mossemenear, Executive Planner Page 15 Re: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
RECOMMENDATION THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel re-affirms its previous decision to refuse development application No.281/14, for the reasons indicated in Council’s notice of determination. Geoff Mossemenear Joseph Hill EXECUTIVE PLANNER DIRECTOR CITY STRATEGY
85995
ü6(\€
N
@o()o
4
ooo
SIREEI
90961
North Sydney CouncilNo paft ofth¡s m¿p måy be reproducêdsions should not be made bafd onthout frl ch<king deta¡ls held by the
Fufther details can be obt¿¡ned by calling (02) 9936 8100 or e mailm¿[email protected].
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 16
DECISION OFNORTH SYDNEY INDEPENDENT PLAI\NING PANEL
MEETING HELD OI{ 5 NOVEMBER 2014
28u14DA No:
ADDRESS: 220 West Street, Crows Nest
Dog Grooming BusinessPROPOSAL:
Jonathan Archibald, Assessment OfÏicerREPORT BY NAIVIE:
Public InterestREASON FORNSIPPREFERRAL:APPLICAIIT:
ITEM 4
Public submissions
Business ltem Recom mendations
The Council Officer's Recommendation for refusal on residential amenity grounds and non
compliance with the zone objectives is endorsed by the Panel. The Panel however does not concur
with the refusal on the grounds of permissibility (Reason l) which is deleted.
The applicant's request for a 12 month trial is also not supported for the above reasons and due to the
lack of detail and documentation to support the development application and the uncertainty that may
be created.
Voting was as follows: Unanimous
Yes NoYes No Panel MemberPanel MemberXX Francesca O'BrienJan MurrellXx Michael HarrisonIan Pickles
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 17
To locate the previous report, click on the hyperlink under attachments on the top of page 1.
45.6953.L l.Rev0l :CFCD7
Barhng Mad Pty Ltd156 Mowbray RoadWILOUGHBY NS}V 2068
13 February 2015
Postal Address
P.O. Box 432
Gladesville
N-S.V/. 1675
AUSTRALIAA.C.N.068 727 rgsA.B.N. 19 068727 tgsTelephone: 029879 4544
Fax:02 9879 4810
Email : AtkinsAcoustics@bi gpond.com.i
Attention: David GavenAtkins Acoustics and Associates Pty Ltd.
Corsulting Acoustical & Vibration Engineers
NOISE ASSESSMENTPROPOSED DOG GROOMING FACILITY220 WEST STREETCROWS NEST
l.O INTRODUCTION
Atkins Acoustics was engaged by David Gaven of Barking Mad Pty Ltd to provide a
noise impact assessment for the proposed dog grooming facility at220 West Street,
Crows Nest. The proposal involves the use of the existing building to accommodate
reception, waiting, separation, washing, d.ying and grooming areas on the ground
floor. The upper floor of the building accommodates a staff bathroom, kitchenette,
lounge and administration office (Appendix I).
A Development Application (No. D281lI4) for the proposal was refused by North
Sydney Càuncil on 5 Novemb er 2074. A review of the Notice of Determination dated
7 November 2014 does not outline any specific noise issues. Council officers have
raised a concern that in order to control potential noise impacts from the use of the
facility, fu|I time mechanical ventilation would be required. We note that the majority
of the windows within the ground floor of the existing building are either fixed glass or
functionally ' non operable', with the previous occupation of the building as
commercial office utilising the existing mechanical ventilation (AC) system. We have
been advised that the proposal intends to retain the existing mechanical ventilation
system, no additional ventilation plant is proposed.
We are advised a maximum of four (a) dog groomers would work at the facility atany
one time, on a rotational basis within the facilþ (separation, wash, dry and grooming
areas). It is confirmed that the maximum number of dogs on the premises at peak
times would be ten (10), with a typical 'worse case scenario' of four (4) dogs arriving,
four (a) dogs leaving and two (2) dogs inside drying.
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 74
NOISE ASSESSMENTPROPOSED DOG GROOMING FACILITY220 WEST STREETCROWSNEST
Page2 45.6953.L1.RevO1 :CFD7
February 2015
The trading hours proposed for the facility are:
7.30anto 6.00pm Monday to Friday
8.00am to 4.00pm Saturday (no trading proposed on Sunday or Public Holidays)
A review of the Plan of Management (PoM) for the facility conflrms that the majorityof customers would be local and arrive on foot. Parking for up to four (4) vehicles is
provided at the rear of the site fronting Thomas Lane. These car spaces were utilisedby the previous commercial office occupants of the site.
Site inspections identified that the closest neighbouring residential dwellings are
located to the north (222West Street), east on the opposite side of 'West Street (183
West Street) and west on the opposite side of Thomas Lane (116 Holtennan Street).
The property at222 West Street is separated from the subject premises by twomasonry walls (one on each property) comprising approximately 22Ûmmthick each
separated by a l0-20mm void with the wall of 222 West Street projecting beyond the
roof of both buildings. To the south on the opposite side of Holterman Street is a
commercial premises (Douglas Wright Pty Ltd).
2.0 ASSESSMENT GOALS
This assessment has considered noise requirements referenced in the North Sydney
Council DCP 2013 - Section 2 Commercial and Mixed Use Development (2.3.2
Noise). Specifically the noise emission limits outlined in the DCP 2013 are rls follows:
PI Noise emission qssociatedwith the operation of non-residential premises
or non-residential components of a building must not exceed the
mascimum I hour noise levels (IÁeq I Hour) specified in Table B'2'3.
TAßLE B-2.3 -Noìse Emßsìon LÛmíß
Tínte Period
MaxÍtmtm t hou¡ noise level (LAeql Hour)TímeDty Week
6OdBADay 7am- 6pm
SOdBAEvening 6pm- 10pm
45dBANight 10pm- 7am
Ttteekday
6OdBADay 9am- 7pm
5OùBAEvening 7pm- 10pm
10pn- &am 45dBANight
Weekend
P2 In terms of determining the maximum levels as required by PI above, the
measurement is to be taken at the property boundary of the nearest
residential premises. Within a mixed use development, the boundary is
ACOUSTICS
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 75
NOISEASSESSMENTPROPOSED DOG GROOMING FACILITY220 \ryEST STREETCROWSNEST
Page 3 45.6953.L1.Rev01:CFD7
February 2015
talrcn to be the nearestfloor, ceiling or wsll to a residential dwelling onthe site.
P3 Despite Pl above, the noise emission associatedwith the operation ofnon-residential premises or non-residential components of a buildingmust not Øcceed sdBA above the background mmimum I hour noise level(LAeq I Hour) during the day and evening and not exceeding the
background level at night when measured at the boundary of the
property.
The 'intrusive criteria' criteria (P3) for noise emission (La"q) +5dB above the
background (Leso) is consistent with ttre procedures of the Noise Guide þr LocalGovernment (NGLG) and has been adopted for assessment purposes.
3.0 BACKGROTIND NOISE LEVELS
To establish existing ambient background noise levels, the site was inspected and
ambient noise levels measured between 8.00-8.45am on Saturday 17 Jarruny 2015 to
the west adjacent 116 Holterman Street and east adjacent 183 West Street. Conditions
at the time of the me¿ìsurements were clear, calm and dry and considered suitable fornoise measurements. This time period was selected to represent the quietest period forthe proposed hours of operation in order to provide a conservative assessment.
Additional noise measurements were conducted within the northern most rooms
(washing and drying rooms) of 220 V/est Street, in order to represent the likelyinternal noise levels experienced at222 'West
Street. 'We note that the measurement
locations are well shielded from road traff,rc noise and not directþ exposed to extemal
street facades, accordingly considering the design and degree of glazing and façade
exposnre, internal noise levels within 222West Street may actually be higher than
those measured.
The results of measurements confirmed the following background (Laso) and arnbient
(Le.q) noise levels:
116 Holterman Street Leso
183 West Street Leso
220 V/est Street* Lasr¡
* to ropresent intemal levels for 222 West Street
Aural observations conf¡med the ambient noise was influenced by local and distant
traffrc, domestic activities and nafural elements. The measured levels were considered
representative for the residential receivers potentially exposed to noise from the
facilþ.
4rdB(Ð
46dB(A)
2s-28dB(A)
Leeq 53dB(Ð
Laeq 57dB(A)
La"q 37-43d8(A)
ACOUSTICS
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 76
NOISE ASSESSMENTPROPOSED DOG GROOMING FACILITY22OWEST STREETCROWSNEST
Page 4 45.6953.L1.Rev01 :CFD7
February 2015
From the measured noise levels, intrusive goal (Laso +5dB) and recommended levels,
the project specific noise goals adopted for the assessment of noise from the facilityare presented below:
116 Holterman Street
183 West Street
222West Street
Le"q 46dB(A) boundary
Leeq 51dB(A) boundarv
Lneq 3odB(Ð inte-ul
4.0 ASSESSMENT
The principal noise sources associated with the facility would be grooming equipment
(clippers, blower dryers, etc) and dogs barking. The incidence of dogs barking would
primarily be associated with dogs being unattended and located in the holding /separation area. When dogs are managed during drop off, washing, drying and
grooming, barking is unlikely. It is understood that staffwould be fully trained and
proficient in the appropriate handling to minimise stress and agitation for the dogs
whilst being, washed, dried and groomed.
The equipment utilised for dog grooming is similar to a normal hair salon with typical
noise levels from clippers and hair dryers in the order of 60-75d8(A) at one (1) metre.
For dogs barking, a space averaged level of 91dB(A) was established by Atkins
Acoustics from previous investigations of a pet boarding kennel facility. It is noted
that this noise level is a short term 1-3mi1Le"t level, assessed over a 15 minute or
one (1) hour as recornmended by North Sydney Council, actual levels would be
lower. Notwithstanding, the noise predictions and assessment has considered a worse
case of gldB(A) space averaged within the dog holding / separation area.
Source noise levels were predicted to the closest residential receivers taking into
account distance separation, site shielding, noise reduction across external building
façades and noise reduction across the double separated masonry walls (for 222 West
Street).
The calculations confirmed the following cumulative (dog barking and grooming
activities) noise levels to the referenced receivers:
116 Holterman Street L¡."q 38dB(A) boundarv
183 West Street La"q 38dB(A) boundary
222WestStreet Ln q 25dB(A) int'*'r
The above resultant noise levels confirm that the 'intrusive' noise goal in accordance
with North Sydney Council DCP 201 3 and the NGLG is satisfied at the closest
residential receivers (183 West Street, 116 Holterman Street and222 West Street).
ATKINS ACOUSTICS
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 77
NOISEASSESSMENTPROPOSED DOG GROOMING FACILITY220 WEST STREETCROWSNEST
Page 5 45.6953.L1.Rev01:CFD7
February 2015
4.1 RecommendationsThe above predicted noise levels are based on the effective implementation ofthe following controls and management procedures.
1. Rear french doors to incorporate perimeter acoustic seals including drop
seal / weather flap at bottom of doors.2. Rear french doors only used during emergency or disabled access / egfess
only and closed at all other times. Grooming activities should cease when
doors are open. Should ceasing of grooming activities not be feasible foroperational reasons, we would recommend an 'air lock' be considered and
constructed within the grooming room comprising a small holding area
withwalls and secondary door to ensure that only one door shall always
remains closed. Self closing mechanisms to be incorporated into dooroperation.
3. Glass witlìin window to holding / separation foom replaced with 6.38mm
laminated glass (Rw30-32) and acoustically sealed.
4. Light well to be upgraded with provision of a secondary transparent
internal lining to the bottom of entire light well shaft consisting of glass or
polycarbonate (min. 6mm thick) installed in sealed ftanes.5. Solid core internal door to holding / separation room.
6. Ground floor door / windows to West Sfeet and Holterman Street closed
during normal operation, excluding entry / egress to Reception on cornet ofWest and Holterman Street.
7. Grooming and drying equipment selected on acoustic performance to
achieve the internal noise levels adopted in this assessment.
8. Plumbing services to be acoustically isolated from the northern wall of 220
West Steet. Specifically no chasing ofwater pipes within masonrywalls-
9. The calculations identiff that no additional treatment is required to the
northem wall of the premises separating 220 West Sheet from 222 West
Street.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The assessment has shown with effective management and noise controls, breakout
noise from the proposed grooming facility can be controlled for the referenced
residential receivers and satisff the 'intrusive' +5dB noise criteria and limits (Table B-
2.3) refererrcedtnNorth Sydney Council DCP 2013 - Section 2 Commercial and
Mixed (Jse Development (2. 3.2 Noise).
Regards,ATKINS ACOUSTICS & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD.
Carl Fokkema
ACOUSTICS
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 78
PLAN OF MANAGEMENT
Dog Grooming Premises
220 West StCROWS NEST
February 2015
L
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 81
1.O INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This document constitutes a plan that describes the way inwhich environmental issues and operations will be managedfor Secret Dog Business at the subject address.
The aim of this document is to outline what constitutes 'betterpractice'in the dog grooming industry. Better Practice in thiscontext, means achieving occupational health and safetyobjectives and minimising the potential for noise and theimpact of premises upon neighbourhood amenity and as wellthe local environment..
The plan integrates environmental management into the dailyoperations, long term planning and other quality managementsystems for the premises.
Providing safety and amenity to the community, patrons,employees and owners, requires informed and thoroughplanning and organisation, with the active involvement of allstakeholders.
The plan describes strategies and approaches for thepreyention and minimisation of environmental impacts causedby the dog grooming premises use.
t.2 Plan of Management
The document is known as a Plan of Management (POM) andrelates to the minimisation of environmental harm/impacts inthe immediate environment surrounding the premises as wellas in terms of the internal operation of the facility and itsinfrastructure.
The POM outlines environmental goals and strategies and listsactions that will suppoft them. The POM provides a
framework to meet legislative, policy and communityrequirements and expectations.
2
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 82
This POM has, as its focus, strategies employed to mitigateenvironmental disturbance caused by the dog groomingservices premises activity.
The environmental policy forming the basis of this POM takesaccount of the principles of ecologically sustainabledevelopment; corporate and individual responsibility andcompliance with relevant legislation.
2.O SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject propefty is located on the eastern side of West Street in
Crows Nest on the corner of Holtermann Street.
The existing improvements occupy almost all of the total site area,
Vehicular access to the rear is available.
Pedestrian access will be available to site users, directly from WestStreet via the existing shopfront,
The property does not enjoy lift access.
The property is a heritage item.
The subject property is known as 220 West Street Crows Nest.
Pedestrian access to the upper levels is via a stair leading frominside the premises.
There are four (4) parking spaces provided for the property;however as well there is reasonable access to street parking locatedin the near vicinity. However parking is not considered an issue as620/o of the clients live within walking distance of the premises.Most would prefer to walk their dog to the shop as part of itsexercíse regimen.
3
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 83
3.O PROPOSEDMANAGEMENT
3.1 Trading Name
The Trading name of the business will be
"Secret Dog Business".
3.2 Business Owner
The owner of the proposed business is:
Name: Barking Mad Pty Ltd
ACN: 168 365 713
Address: Unit 315-7 Marlborough Road, Willoughby
Contact= 0,459223525
3.3 Property Owner
The owners of the propefty are:
Name: Siobhan MacWhite
Addresst clo Delmege Asset management
Suite 2a, level 2, 2C Bungan Street, Mona Vale
Contact: Robbie Delmege O4O2 992 277
4.O DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The development proposal involves the fit-out and use of paft of thepremises as dog grooming services premises (see plans atAnnexure 1) on the ground floor and head office for the parentbusiness on the upper level.
The dog grooming services premises provides for three (3)workrooms, all at ground floor level.
4
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 84
There will be a maximum of four (4) dog grooming workers workingat the site at any given time on a rotational basis operating fromthe rooms as specified in the development application drawings.There may also be a receptionist/manager operating from thereception area. Upstairs will be an office with accounts staff asrequired.
The maximum number of dogs in a day to attend the premiseduring a working day would be 25 dogs.
The maximum number of dogs on the premises at any one timewould be ten (10) dogs in peak times. They would be four dogsarriving for grooming and four dogs leaving, whilst two dogs couldbe inside drying, This accounts for the absolute maximum thatcould happen. The usual would be three (3) dogs during a one hourtime period.
The standard procedure would take ninety (90) minutes from whenthe dog arrives.
The dog grooming workers will be managed by the businessmanager and will follow a code of conduct as specified including:
Ensure clients entering and exiting the premises do so inan orderly manner so as not to disturb the amenity ofthe surrounding area.
Regularly patrol the street entrance area to the premises
to ensure no dog droppings have been left by dogsarriving or leaving.
5.O BUSINESS OPERATION
The business will operate six (6) days per week. The business willcater to a predominantly local clientele.
Ancillary services will include the provision of small items to bepurchased from the front area, Clíents will be able to purchaseleashes, dog grooming products, dog coats, tick and flea treatmentand dog treats. There will be written material provided on doghealth information and behavioural information. In addition to this
5
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 85
the dog grooming workers will be educated in dog groomingpractices and behavioural techniques.
The manager proposes to run the business and will be involved in
the day to day management of both the employees and clients. Themanager will act as the liaison person in dealing with introductionsto the dog grooming workers.
The ground floor rear access will only be used by disabled persons.
6.0 STAFF FACILITIES
The staff of the premises will be provided with a safe workingenvironment and private facilities and amenities have been setaside for their exclusive use upstairs away from areas where clientsand dogs are permitted to enter.
The staff area will provide for kitchen and eating/lounge facilities.
7.O ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILIW
The establishment seeks to provide access to all members of thecommunity. Given the nature of the building layout however, it is
not physically possible to provide access for clients with significantmobility constraint via the front door. Access will be provided viathe rear entrance with prior notification from the client.
8.O HOURS OF OPERATION
The proposed hours are as follows:
7.30a m 6.00pmMonday
5
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 86
Tuesday 7.30am 6.00pm
Wednesday 7.30am 6.00pm
Thursday 7.30am 6.00pm
Friday 7.30am 6.00pm
Saturday 8.00am 4.00
Sunday closed closed
9.0 ROLES OF EMPLOYEES
9.1 Management and Reception
The manager will be responsible for the day to day running ofthe facility. The manager will be responsible for ensuringadherence to all policies regarding health, hygiene, safety andnoise.
Responsibilities will also incorporate management of cleaningservices, telephone use including booking arrangements,access for clients, monitoring of all areas where clients haveaccess, input of computer data, collection and depositing ofpayment monies, ensuring supplies of products and cleantowels, overseeing waste management procedures,supervision, training and monitoring of dog groomingworkers, overseeing of emergency procedures including OH&Swhere necessary.
7
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 87
9.2 Dog grooming Workers
All staff working on the premises will repoft directly to themanager.
Service providers will conduct themselves so as to ensurecompliance with requirements of NSW Health and WorkCoverNSW.
All staff are required to maintain a high standard of personalhygiene at all times.
Demonstrated knowledge and an understanding of doggrooming health is required including related physical andemotional health and well-being of dogs.
Dog grooming workers must also have knowledge regardingdog behaviours.
A designated staff member will be responsible for provision ofclean and tidy dog grooming rooms and removal of usedtowels and dog grooming products, after the provision of thedog grooming services. The dog grooming services wouldpredominantly comprise washing, combing, clipping anddrying. The cleaning of ears and cutting of toe nails will alsobe undeftaken.
1O.O RESTRICTION ON DOG BREEDS
Dogs to be serviced will be restricted to small and medium breedsgenerally. No dangerous dogs or restricted breeds will be permitted.Breeds such as Rottweilers, German Shepherds and other largebreeds will not be catered for at this time.
11.O NOrSE
It is the duty of the manager to manage and monitor the arrivaland departure of clients and to transfer dogs to where the servicesare peformed. Noisy dogs will be placed in the separation area to
8
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 88
minimise noise and remove possible distractions that aggravatetheir behaviour.
Access to the premises will be controlled and monitored to ensureminimal disturbance to neighbours.
Adequate lighting for security purposes will be províded at theentrance and in all hallways and reception areas.
In circumstances where antisocial behaviour occurs by a dog,clients will be advised to come and collect their dog. They will beadvised to leave the premises quietly and consider others. Signs tothis effect will be provided on the exit door to the premises.
12.O HEALTH OF WORKERS & CLIENTS
The business will be operated as a safe, clean and quietenvironment.
Products will be checked by the business manager and doggrooming workers on a regular basis to ensure they have notpassed their expiration date. Out-of-date equipment will bedisposed of as trade/commercial waste which is removed via a
private collector.
A noticeboard in the reception area will display information for dogowners and staff.
13.O EDUCATION
Educational material will be available at reception, in work roomsand as well in the waiting area.
The manager will be responsible for ensuring that dog groomingprocedures are kept up to date and follow industry standards. Newstaff will be inducted into the operating procedures relating to thepremises.
All staff must undergo education and training in regards to noiseand management of dogs.
9
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 89
L4.O CLEANING AND WASTE COLLECTION
Linen and towels are to be replaced after each use by a designatedstaff member.
At the end of each work period, the designated staff member willclear all wastes¡ vacuum the floor area and wipe used flat surfaceswith disinfectants and detergents. The designated staff member willbe responsible for provision of clean and tidy dog grooming servicerooms and removal of used linen and towels, after the provision ofthe dog grooming services.
Dog grooming clippers are required to be cleaned after use.
The Manager will ensure areas are cleaned, and that work roomsare checked following client use; general areas are clean andpresentable, with attention to the kitchen and toilets beingundertaken as a daily task (or more often as needed). Generalmaintenance of the property will be attended to when required. Acontract cleaner will ensure cleaning on a regular basis.
Cleaning is to be undertaken throughout the day to ensure a highstandard of cleanliness. Additional closets are provided for cleaning,implements and products. Adequate storage for clean and usedlinen is provided in receptacles.
Dogs will be washed in a purpose built dog bathing tub designed forgrooming. A back flow prevention valve to the water inlet will beinstalled by a licensed plumber as required by Sydney Water.
EPA Guidelines will be followed for disposal of waste. A 120 litrewheelie bin will be located within the grooming area,Trade/commercial waste will be collected via a private contractor ona weekly basis.
The bin will be located in the main grooming area to ensure easyaccess by staff and to ensure no noise leakage to the rear at anytime. This will ensure that any smells are restricted to the internalbuilding and thus not affect any neighbours.
EPA has indicated that dog grooming waste ís not consideredcontaminated waste and as such only a standard commercial wastecollectíon will be required.
10
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 90
The bin will be placed out for collection weekly just prior tocollection. Consideratíon will be given to using Nofth SydneyCouncils trade waste collection to minimise disruption to adjoiningneighbours. Waste collection by Council is on a Thursday morning
All waste is to be double bagged to prevent any odours, Any animalwaste is to be triple bagged to ensure hygiene is maintained. Allstaff shall be familiar with the premises waste management plan.
Staff will conduct regular patrols of the local area to ensure no dogdroppings are left by patrons to the premises. An annexure to thewaste management plan is attached with the application.
15.O IMPACT ON NEIGHBOUR AMENITY
Entry to and exit from the premises will be provided from one pointat ground floor level on West Street by appointment. The businessoperation will take place on the ground floor.
Clients will not have access to the upstairs. The keys to the balconydoors and windows will be held by the manager who will beresponsible for ensuring that the balconies are not utilised by thestaff .
Access by staff will be restricted to the front door and no general inthe rear doors will be permitted except for disabled clients.
The manager/owner will be responsible for monitoring personsentering and leaving the premises.
No dog grooming workers will be permitted to tout for businessoutside of the building.
The business will operate with 'discretion' and also in a quietmanner such as to cause minimal impact to local amenity, Allwindows and sliding doors to West Street, Holtermann st and therear boundaries will have obscure glazing, double glazing and willbe fitted with locks. Keys to the locks will be held by the Manager.
Ventilation will be provided by existing air conditioning units whichare relatively new. The skylights will be fitted with additionalinternal glazing material to minimise noise extrusion.
1.1
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 91
16.0 LATE PICKUP FOR CLIENTS
Clients will be allocated a time slot for the grooming and collectionof their dogs. For a wash and dry of a short hair dog a time of onehour will be allocated whilst a wash and groom of a long hair dog a
time of 90 mins will be allocated.
Clients are to be provided with a set time for pick-up of their dog.
A grace period of 20 minutes after the allocated pickup time will beallowed for clients to collect before an overtime fee will be charged.
After the 20 minute grace period has finished a late fee will apply.The late fee will be $1.00 per minute.
Groomed dogs will be walked from the grooming area directly toowners as they are completed.
Dogs whose owners are delayed will be placed in the separationarea to await their owners.
There is no provision for overnight care for dogs or extended pickup times.
T2
ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 01/04/2015 Page 92