Agenda Template CouncilResume Ordinary Meeting ... Cr Patricia Harvey Balmoral Ward Cr Shirley...

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

AGENDA

MEETING DATE: 12 December 2005

INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Open Question Time Council meetings are scheduled to commence at 6.00pm. However, Open Question Time is held for a maximum of 10 minutes if required, from 6.00pm prior to the commencement of the meeting. Questions from members of the gallery may be directed to the Mayor on any relevant matter unless it is on the Agenda for this meeting. Open Question Time is an opportunity for questions only, not speeches, and every endeavour to answer will be given immediately by the Mayor or referred to the General Manager. Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting of Council commences in accordance with the Agenda prepared for the Meeting. Committee of the Whole The General Manager will ask residents prior to the commencement of the Council meeting if they seek to address Council on a General Manager’s and Departmental Report listed on the agenda and will register their names. Council will resolve into Committee of the Whole to allow residents to address the Committee and for Councillor discussion and questioning in relation to the report listed on the agenda. Reports on which residents wish to address Council will be dealt with expeditiously as possible between 6.00pm and 8.00pm. Should there be too many matters to be heard or should residents have major matters that need lengthy discussion, the affected residents will be advised to come back to the meeting at a particular time. All remaining items will be dealt with following resolution of reports which residents have an interest in. The Committee of the Whole is delegated authority to resolve items by majority vote. Supper Adjournment At approximately 9.00pm there is usually a recess break for 15 minutes at which time the Mayor will invite those people in the gallery to join the Councillors for supper. Resume Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting resumes at the conclusion of the supper break.

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEATING 2005-2006 MAYORAL TERM

Manager

Governance / Finance

Minutes

Secretary

General Manager

Mayor

Cr Denise Wilton Director

Environment and

Planning

Manager Development

Services

Director Corporate Services

DirectorCommunity

Development

Manager

Governance

General Manager

Mayor

Cr Denise Wilton Manager

DevelopmentServices

Minutes

Secretary

Director Environment

and Planning

Cr Patricia Harvey

Balmoral Ward

West Ward

Cr Shirley Jenkins

Cr David Strange

Middle Head Ward

Cr Lynette Elsegood

Cr Simon Menzies

Cr Anne Connon

Cr Martin Skipper

Cr Jim Reid

East Ward

Cr Andrew Brown

Cr Kate Traill

Cr Dom Lopez, OAM

AGENDA - ORDINARY MEETING 1. NATIONAL ANTHEM, PRAYER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS

PEOPLE 2. WELCOME TO VISITORS 3. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 5. DISCLOSURES OF NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Confirmation of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 28 November 2005

7. MAYORAL MINUTES 8. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE

T/90 Arbutus Street and Superba Parade Traffic Management ...........................1 9. DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES REPORTS

CS/121 Car Parking Fees-Foreshore Carparks (CS) ..............................................19 10. DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING REPORTS

EP/293 8 Beauty Point Road...................................................................................21 EP/294 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan

(Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005............................................................33 EP/295 Road Safety Action Plan 2005-2006 - Progress Report .............................37 EP/296 Mosman LEP Review 2005 - Progress Report...........................................41 EP/297 36 Bullecourt Avenue .................................................................................45 EP/298 4 St Elmo Street .........................................................................................65 EP/299 55A Prince Albert Street .............................................................................87 EP/300 22 David Street.........................................................................................115 EP/301 9-11 Shellbank Avenue ............................................................................139 EP/302 10 Little Street ..........................................................................................151 EP/303 43 Wolseley Road ....................................................................................157 EP/304 26 Rosebery Street...................................................................................165 EP/305 73-77 Shadforth Street .............................................................................173 EP/306 18 Hopetoun Avenue................................................................................179 EP/307 TPO Appeal – 2 D (aka1096) Middle Head Road ....................................187 EP/308 Development Applications ........................................................................189 EP/309 Land and Environment Court Legal Expenses .........................................191

11. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Report to Ordinary Meeting of Council – 12 December 2005 Page 1

T/90 Arbutus Street and Superba Parade Traffic Management MOSPLAN REF: 11.04.01 REPORT BY: Traffic Engineer, Sam Sathanesan SUMMARY Consideration of resident submissions on Arbutus Street/Superba Parade Traffic Management Options. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning and Transport recommends that:

A. An application to the RTA to convert Arbutus Street from two-way to one-way northbound and Superba Parade from two-way to one-way southbound as per the Traffic Management Plan for Option 4 be submitted for approval.

B. Existing half road closure at the intersection of Arbutus Street and Mandolong Road be retained as per the Traffic Management Plan for Option 4.

C. A half road closure at the intersection of Little Street and Arbutus Street (no southbound access from Little Street into Arbutus Street) be introduced as per the Traffic Management Plan for Option 4.

D. A “No Stopping” restriction on the eastern side of Superba Parade (upper level) be introduced as part of the Traffic Management Plan for Option 4.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee: Yes Mr Brian Wilder (7 Cobbittee Street) Mr John Thixton (56 Redan Street), Mr John Geismar (14 Balmoral Avenue), Ms Robyn Rihani (21 Mandolong Road), Mr Hamid Rihani (21 Mandolong Road), Mr William Trinh (8 Arbutur Street), Mr Jack Bennett (44 Almora Street), Mr James Philp (2/7 Little Street), Mrs Molino (6 Superba Parade), Mrs Barbara Harvey (42/43 Musgrave Street), Mr Vaughan Woods (15 Mandolong Road), Mr Stephen Paull (10 Arbutus Street), Mr Gordon Clubb (6 Arbutus Street), Mr Barry Parkinson (3 Arbutus Street), Ms Anne Philp (1/7 Little Street), Mr David Bailin (4/33 Moruben Road) and Ms Philippa Lehmann (17-19 Parriwi Road) addressed the Committee. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Motion Fenton/Lopez That an application to the RTA to convert Arbutus Street from two-way to one-way southbound and Superba Parade from two-way to one-way northbound as per the Traffic Management Plan for Option 5 be submitted for approval. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY HISTORY On the 1st of September 2004, Council implemented Stage 1 of the Arbutus Street Traffic Management Trial which consisted of a half road closure at the intersection of Arbutus Street and Mandolong Road. No access into Arbutus Street was possible for southbound traffic during the trial as a result.


Stage 2 of the Traffic Management Trial, which consisted of the retention of the existing closure at Arbutus Street/Mandolong Road intersection with the addition of a “No Left Turn” restriction from Little Street into Arbutus Street (south bound), was implemented on 18 October 2004. During the trial, residents were invited to comment on the trial. In response to the community consultation, Council received 137 submissions from 82 properties as well as 3 petitions with 238 signatories. The majority of these submissions raised objection to the trial. In February 2005, Council engaged a Consultant to assess the traffic impacts associated with the trial. Following the assessment and consideration of resident submissions, a report was prepared for Council’s consideration. The report examined 5 options: Option 1 - Do nothing (leaving Arbutus Street and Superba Parade as two-way). Option 2 - Change Superba Parade to a one-way southbound (northbound would be a similar option) and leave Arbutus Street as two-way with no improvements. Option 3 - Change Superba Parade to a one-way southbound (northbound would be a similar option) and leave Arbutus Street as two-way with significant improvements. Option 4 - Change Superba Parade to a one-way southbound and convert Arbutus Street to a one-way northbound. Option 5 - Change Superba Parade to a one-way northbound and convert Arbutus Street to a one-way southbound. The report concluded that Option 4 was the best solution from overall safety, accessibility and amenity considerations. If Option 5 were chosen over Option 4, the report noted that this option would be supported as it represents a significant improvement over Option 1 (i.e. Do Nothing). At an Extraordinary Traffic Committee Meeting on 27 April 2005, the Committee formally considered the report and recommended that Traffic Management Plans for Options 4 and 5 be prepared and placed on public exhibition for five weeks for community comment. The recommendation of the Traffic Committee was considered by Council at its meeting on 2 May 2005, where it was resolved that the Traffic Management Plans for Options 4 and 5 be prepared and placed on public exhibition for four weeks for community comment. REPORT 1. PUBLIC EXHIBITION Following Council’s decision, Traffic Management Plans for Option 4 & 5 were placed on exhibition for four weeks from 7 July 2005 to 4 August 2005 at Council Offices and Mosman Library. The plans were also published on Council’s website. 1229 consultation letters were sent to residents on 5 July 2005. In addition, notices were also placed in Mosman Daily on 7 July 2005, 14 July 2005, 21 July 2005 and 28 July 2005, and a notice was placed in the winter edition of Mosman 2088.


2. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Eighty four (84) submissions (including late submissions) were received from the community in relation to the Options 4 & 5. The submissions are summarised in the table below: NAME

OPTION 4

OPTION 5

RESIDENTS’ COMMENTS

Mr James & Mrs Anne Philp 7 Little Street

Preferred option

We object to the entire process. We simply want traffic arrangement to return to their original state. If Council insists on presenting us with these two options and only these two options then we strongly urge Council to support Option 5

Mr E Barclay 3 Superba Parade

Slight preference for Option 4

Option 4 will cause less confusion to vehicle seeking to travel southwards, as in Option 5 traffic will assume that the lower road is the southern pathway

Mr P A Fagan 1 Stanley Avenue (352 Victoria Street DARLINGHURST)

Disagree Disagree I object to the Council’s proposed changes to traffic flow in Arbutus Street. I cannot see why you would want to change the current traffic plan, which seems to me, being a resident in the area, to work well

Dr John Rolleston & Ms Philippa A Lehmann PO Box 494 (17-19 Parriwi Road)

Preferred option

The attempted forced accomplishment of Option 4 by means of attributing exaggerated costs to the community preference for Option 5 has attracted considerable negative comment

Captain A M Downes 6/8 Earl Street

Preferred option

Emphatic vote for Option 5

Mr J & Mrs P McDonnell 38 Almora Street

Preferred option

Turning into our place from Almora Street has always been a hazardous operation. Option 4 would be a highly undesirable one for us

Mr Hamid & Mrs Robyn Rihani 21 Mandolong Road

Disagree Disagree Not in favour of either option proposed and favour instead a return to two-way traffic in Arbutus Street, with some devices to slow down traffic and improvements to the flow along Military Road

Mr H C & Mrs S M Stevens 147 Raglan Street

Disagree Disagree It would appear that 11 residents in Arbutus Street have been able to dictate the movement of about 30% of Mosman residents (south eastern corner)

Mr Tim & Mrs Anneslie Edwards 31 Upper Almora Street

Preferred option

We ask the Council to look past the self serving interests of the residents of Arbutus Street and return things to the way they were (both streets two-way) if not adopt Option 5

Mr John & Mrs Heather Allen 4 Balmoral Avenue

Preferred option

T A Biet 10 Superba Parade

Preferred option

All the houses in Superba Parade have their garages in the rear lane. Access to both Military Road and Balmoral Avenue for all residents in this street become unnecessary circuitous should Option 4 be adopted. While I appreciate that Option 5 is more expensive, there are a few elements of it, which would appear to be unnecessary


NAME

OPTION 4

OPTION 5


Ms Jennifer Robyn Robbins 85 The Esplanade

Preferred option

I consider Option 4 to be the only sensible option

Ms Joan Ayling 47 Muston Street

Preferred option

Mr G J & Mrs R M Reaney 14 The Grove,

Note: It appears that they agree with Option 5

Dr William Trinh 8 Arbutus Street

Preferred option

Option 5 would seriously create two major potential accident sites – corner between Arbutus Street and Upper Almora Street & corner between Arbutus Street and Mandolong Road – due to poor visibility

Mr John & Mrs Eve Bagnall 31 Stanton Road

Preferred option (modified)

We suggest that Melaleuca Lane be part of the Traffic Management, be included as an additional part of Option 4. Make Melaleuca Lane “One Way” southbound

Mr J & Mrs L R Bennett 44 Upper Almora Street

Preferred option

We protest the findings in Option 4 of “Minor impact on local access-improved amenity.” If Superba Parade is made one-way north Almora Street corner will no longer be a blind hazard and this ever present danger will be eliminated

Mr Geoffrey de Ree 5/11 Moruben Road

Preferred option

A significant number of motorists flagrantly ignore the “No Left Turn” restriction at the top of Little Street

Mr Robert Ward 16 Gooraway Drive Castle Hill (1/23 Clifford Street)

Preferred option.

I am a non-resident owner

Mr Richard Allan 56 Upper Almora Street

Comments Comments In the final decision that needs to be made on Arbutus Street Traffic Management, I implore Council to consider resident safety over and above motorist’s convenience

Ms Lesley Mazlin 5 Government Road

Preferred option

I believe Option 4 is more workable solution for local residents trying to access Mosman Junction shopping centre

Mr Roger McCredie 46-48 Muston Street

Preferred option

Suggests that the section of Mandolong Road between Arbutus Street and Superba Parade should be made “One-way” eastbound. This will create, in effect, a large roundabout

Mr Bob & Mrs Carmel Clark 4 Superba Parade

Preferred option

Option 5 is a more contrived attempt to address the problems and would be a fall back choice if for some reason Option 4 was not acceptable

P R Munro 20B Redan Street

Preferred option

We think that there may be some value in adding a Stop sign at the intersection of Almora and Redan Streets

Mr Coutts 10/26 Moruben Road

Preferred option

Mr Maurice R Munsie 2A Little Street

Preferred option

Our preferred position is to revert to Arbutus Street being two-way street and Superba Parade to one-way in either direction

Mr Ian & Mrs Gillian Taylor 4/7 Mandolong Road

Preferred option


NAME

OPTION 4

OPTION 5


L J Corbett 18 Arbutus Street

Preferred option

Suggests a 2-way sign at southern entry of Arbutus Street be installed

Ms Wendy Slonim 7 Arbutus Street

Preferred option

Option 4 should help to alleviate the problems caused by the blind corner

Ms Melanie Coutts 25 Mandolong Road

Preferred option

Mr D &Mrs J McLean 9 Little Street

Preferred option

Suggests that the existing “No Left Turn” sign from Little Street into Arbutus Street be removed

Mr Geoff & Mrs Jan Gibson 85 Muston Street

Preferred option

Dr H A Hing 15 Stanley Avenue

Preferred option

We see no need what so ever to make this road one-way. It was perfectly safe and convenient for traffic to flow in both directions

Mr David P R Bailin 4/33 Moruben Road

Preferred option

I strongly support Option 5, failing that, Option 1

Mr David & Mrs Sue Barnett 19 Stanley Avenue

Preferred option

We are opposed to Option 4

Ms Anne Maher 67B Muston Street

Disagree Disagree Neither of Option 4 or 5 are valid. My suggestion is to leave Arbutus Street at the original plan of two-way traffic

Cambell Lobb, Peter MacCormick , Carl Peterson and Danareska Securities Pty Ltd 5B Arbutus Street

Preferred option

Mr B S Mackenzie 46 Redan Street

Preferred option

If one of those options is to be adopted I submit that it should be Option 4. Option 5 would result in considerably more traffic using Arbutus Street and Superba Parade than would Option 4

Mr Stephen Paull 10 Arbutus Street

Preferred option

I strongly support Option 4 over Option 5 as it more adequately addresses the various safety issues that exist around Superba Parade and Arbutus Street

Mrs Joan C Betteridge 3/27 Moruben Road

Preferred option

Mr & Mrs Molino 6 Superba Parade

Preferred option

We think that Option 4 will have a dangerous effect on lower Superba as residents have to do a sweep-path to turn in Superba Parade and a roundabout is not a good idea

Mr Peter & Mrs Melissa Miller 14 Bradleys Head Road

Preferred option

Mr Barry Parkinson 3 Arbutus Street

Preferred option

I wholeheartedly endorse the conclusion of the Arbutus Street Traffic Management options Report and consider there to be no other logical conclusion than to adopt Option 4

Mr Gordon & Mrs Lauren Clubb 6 Arbutus Street

Preferred option

We would ask Council to adopt Option 4. Any impact for this decision is already largely known, the dangerous intersections are eliminated /reduced


NAME

OPTION 4

OPTION 5


Ms Victoria Roberts-Thomson 17 Mandolong Road

Preferred option

Option 4 is the most effective for reducing traffic incidents that occur in this area of Mosman

Ms Trish Sherbon 38 Moruben Road

Preferred option

The visibility when entering Arbutus Street from Mandolong Road (southbound) is much better than entering Mandolong Road from Arbutus Street (northbound)

Ms Elizabeth Moore 10/8-10 Clifford Street

Preferred option

Ms Susan Segaert 20 Mandolong Road

Preferred option

We feel Option 5 would suit us the best because it will alleviate the traffic going down Mandolong Road

Ms Vivienne Mersiades 18 Moruben Road

Preferred option

Option 4 would be with traffic one-way southbound on Superba Parade seems a much more dangerous option. I would also consider the possibility of illegal left hand turns into Arbutus Street presenting an extremely dangerous situation if Option 4 were adopted

3/43 Stanton Road Disagree Disagree I would like to see Arbutus Street and Superba Parade both having two-way traffic, or at least Arbutus Street with two-way traffic

Mr George & Mrs Jacqui Abraham 6 Little Street

Preferred option

Ms Anne J Green 2 Little Street

Preferred Option 4 (modified)

I would propose a modified Option 4, making Superba Parade one-way southbound but keeping Arbutus Street two-way, but with the current blockage of the half the road closure and removing the “No Left “sign at Little/Arbutus Streets

Mr Gary & Mrs Lyn Avis 5A Arbutus Street

Preferred option

Option 4 is more acceptable to us as we believe it is less dangerous to exit at the Mandolong Road end of Arbutus Street than to enter Arbutus Street at that point

Mr Ian & Mrs Susan Ernst PO Box 500 Mosman (9 Arbutus Street)

Preferred option

We believe that Option 4 will be much safer than Option 5

Ms Helen Aladjadjian 6/49 Spit Road

Preferred option

Option 4 makes for a greater and surely unwanted influx of traffic either to Military Road via Mandolong Road or the precarious detour along Superba Parade

Ms Judith G Hodgson 2 Moruben Road

Preferred option

Option 5 will increase the volume of through traffic in both Mandolong and Moruben Roads. I strongly object to a roundabout being installed outside my heritage home

Ms Stowell Netherton 44/43 Mustgrave Street

Preferred option (modified)

If Arbutus Street is to be opened as a two-way street then I strongly prefer Option 5

Ms Barbara E Harvey 42/43 Musgrave Street

Preferred option

If Arbutus Street is not be reopened as a two-way street, then Option 5 is preferred

Ms Diane Lipman 10 Bruce Avenue Killara (Owner of 5/1 Superba Parade)

Preferred option


NAME

OPTION 4

OPTION 5


Mr G & Mrs P Hargrave 28 Muston Street

Preferred option

Mr A G Hodgson 5B Arbutus Street

Preferred option

As set out in the recommendation by the consultant to Council, Option 4 is logical, and will also be the most effective. Option 4 also has the added advantage of being approximately 25% of the cost of Option 5

Mr Tony & Mrs Cheryl Crosby 6 The Grove

Preferred option

Option 5 to be the best solution as the traffic would then flow in the same direction as the parking in Superba Parade. If the flow is left as is (with two-way in Superba Parade &one-way northbound in Arbutus Street there will soon be a horrific accident

Mrs Diane Boyer 4 Little Street

Preferred option

None of these options is perfect. The Option 5 would be the most acceptable to us. However, this is acceptable if the “No Left” sign at Little/Arbutus Streets is removed otherwise it still means the present situation of going up to Moruben Road and a long wait near the Fire Station corner to get onto Military Road rather than using Arbutus Street then Muston Street

Mr Trevor & Mrs Susan Loewensohn 8 Lavoni Street

Preferred option

Option 5 would be our second choice. The current situation two-way traffic in Superba Parade is highly dangerous. Allow right turn from Arbutus Street into Little Street and right turn into Mandolong Road

Mr Keith & Mrs Mary Jones 22 Lavoni Street

Disagree Disagree Reinstate previous traffic arrangements. Were the Council still to be worried about vehicles needing wider use of Superba Parade, this could be achieved by preventing parking on the upper level

Mr Brian Wilder 7 Cobbittee Street

Preferred option

My first preference is to go back to how it was originally. The problem experienced by the residents of Arbutus Street is no different from that happening in numerous other streets around Mosman

Ms T Batchelor PO Box 529 (28 The Grove)

Preferred option

Driving south along Superba Parade is easier as it follows the traffic flow. Driving north along Arbutus Street allows you to exit either directly into Manadolong Road if heading west or along Little Street if heading east

Mr David & Mrs Christine Hartgill 2/10 Rawson Street

Preferred option

This will make Superba Parade less dangerous and take traffic off Military

Mr K S & Mrs J W Chesnut 5 Alexander Avenue

Disagree Disagree Council should revert the traffic flow to that which previously existed

Mr L H & Mrs S M Perrett Unit 5, 8-10 Clifford Street

Preferred option

This would create less confusion and allow traffic to avoid collisions on the winding downhill route of Mandolong Road

Mrs Judith Pearson 81 Muston Street

Preferred option

Superba Parade will also benefit from being a one-way street


NAME

OPTION 4

OPTION 5


Mr Gerald & Mrs Karin Saltman 1 Superba Parade

Preferred option

It is awkward accessing the upper part of Superba Parade from the lower part when �raveling in a southerly direction. The addition of roundabouts and threshold treatments seems excessive

Mr John & Mrs Elspeth Thixton 56 Redan Street

Preferred option

First preference is Option 1 – Do Nothing. Since it appears that this is not an option our second preference is for Option 4 Option 5 is far more expensive and will present some formidable traffic problems

Mr T W Calderwood 2 Muston Street

Preferred option

Whilst I object to making either Arbutus Street or Superba Parade one-way streets. My preference in the two options is for Option 4

Mr Michael & Mrs Merrilee Batten 1B Balmoral Avenue

Preferred option

Suggest a roundabout at the intersection Mandolong Road and Moruben Road

Ms Susan Lancaster 103 Spit Road

Preferred option

Option 4 would be preferable as traffic flow would be safer by continuing on the left side of the road not crossing over the intersection of Moruben/ Mandalong/ Arbutus Streets

Mr Peter Horton 40 Upper Almora Street

Preferred option

We would be considerably inconvenienced for access to our property under any other option.

Mr Phillip De Baun 3/53 Prince Albert Street

Disagree Disagree I find both option 4 &5 to be a restriction in day to day driving and ask that both streets (& all other streets in Mosman) remain two way trafficable

Ms Christine Clarke 3/1A Superba Parade

Preferred option

I have a major concern regarding the closure to northbound traffic of Little Street in Option 4. Residents east of Arbutus Street will not have access to their homes from the Raglan Street/Military Road shopping precinct without having to travel north to Mandolong Road along Military Road

Ms Rita Marshall 2 Fernhurst Avenue Cremorne 3/79A Muston Street

Preferred option

Option 5 would provide a more direct route in the southbound direction from Moruben Street to Muston Street, via Arbutus Street and Upper Almora Street

Mr John Geismar 14 Balmoral Avenue

Preferred option

There was no active problem with Arbutus Street traffic before the trial began. If we are confronted with the absurdity of the Hobson’s choice of Option 4 or Option 5, then Option 4 is highly preferred. Warning signs need to be posted at each blind bend and speed restricted to 20km/hr in Superba Parade

Mr Ken Washburn 39 Mandolong Road

Preferred option

I believe that the best outcome, short of banning all traffic and cars from Balmoral, is to have Superba Parade one-way north and Arbutus Street one-way south

Mrs Peta Neil Secretary Mallessons Stephen Jaques

Preferred option

I live in Superba Parade and would like to advise that I am in favour of Option 5


3. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK REGARDING THE PREFERRED OPTION In regard to Option 4 and Option 5 the community has a slight preference for Option 4 (44% favour the Option 4 and 39% favour the Option 5). Option 5 is not rejected by the community. However, it is an expensive option to implement and its implementation would be dependant upon successful grant application by RTA in 2006/2007. • REASONS GIVEN BY RESPONDENTS IN FAVOUR OF OPTION 4

1. Option 4 will cause less confusion to vehicle seeking to travel southwards, as in Option 5 traffic will assume that the lower level of Superba Parade is the southbound pathway.

2. Option 4 is more effective and less expensive compared to Option 5 in traffic safety management for Arbutus Street and neighbourhood local streets. Option 5 would create two seriously major potential accident sites – corner between Arbutus Street and Upper Almora Street and corner between Arbutus Street and Mandolong Road due to poor visibility.

3. The report is very comprehensive and supportive of what the Arbutus Street and Superba Parade residents have been telling Mosman Council for many years that there have been major traffic safety problems and the situation has been worsening over the years. I ask all Councillors to read the report and accept the recommendation – Option 4.

4. Option 4 is a more workable solution for local residents trying to access Mosman Junction shopping centre.

5. Option 4 to be the most effective and efficient provided that a road narrowing is put in place as a speed check and a protection against cars “cutting” this corner and coming close to the passenger side of cars parked south of the central change in direction in Superba Parade.

6. My property is on the bend in Arbutus Street. Option 4 should help to alleviate the problems caused by the blind corner.

7. Option 4 is preferable because for me it makes for easier access to both Spit Road and Balmoral, which causes the lesser inconvenience of returning via Mandolong Road, Superba Parade and Almora Street.

8. Option 4 more adequately addresses the various safety issues that exist around Superba Parade and Arbutus Street.

9. The consultant’s report was very thorough and considered all arguments raised by supporters and objectors and strongly recommends the implementation of Option 4.

10. In light of the expert report, I can see no reason why Council would not proceed to implement Option 4.

11. Making Arbutus Street one-way north (Option 4) solves one of the biggest issues in this whole debate - the dangerous intersection of Arbutus Street and Upper Almora Street. This intersection is only 70 metres from the crest of the Upper Almora Street hill and has been the scene of a fatal accident and two serious accidents 6 months prior to the current trial. Since the commencement of the trial there have been no accidents.

12. Option 4 eliminates the risks associated with cars trying to enter Arbutus Street from Mandolong Road coming down the hill around a blind corner and then having to make the dash into Arbutus Street cutting across traffic coming up Mandolong Road also around a blind corner.

13. Option 4 is the most effective for reducing traffic incidents that occur in this area of Mosman.


14. Option 4 is more acceptable to us as we believe it is less dangerous to exit at the

Mandolong Road end of Arbutus Street 15. Option 4 will be much safer because it eliminates the risk of traffic turning right

out of Arbutus Street across uphill traffic in Mandolong Road at a blind corner. 16. In respect of Little Street, Option 4 is preferable because these users of Little

Street would not risk an “illegal” left turn at this intersection if Arbutus Street was one-way because of the risk of oncoming traffic.

17. Option 4 also has the added advantage of being approximately 25% of the cost of Option 5.

18. Driving south along Arbutus Street is easier as it follows the traffic flow. 19. Option 4 will make Superba Parade less dangerous. 20. I support the Traffic Management Option 4. The reason being that most of the

dangerous traffic and potential accidents I have witnessed are from vehicles coming out of Arbutus Street into Upper Almora Street.

21. Option 4 is the cheaper option and less likely to result in accidents than Option 5. 22. Option 4 will mean that traffic returning to Mosman along Moruben Road will be

able to make two left hand turns into Military Road and then Almora Street to get to the Muston Street and Middle Head areas.

23. We are pleased that Council again is looking at this problem and personally strongly favour Option 4 because we believe it would provide a smooth traffic flow.

24. Option 4 is highly preferred because navigating the bends in a southerly direction is slightly safer than those same bends heading north.

25. Option 4 avoids the danger of a stream of cars lunging from Superba Parade into Mandolong Road to the surprise of drivers going up and down Mandolong Road (as opposed to the gentle access to Mandolong Road heading north on Arbutus Street).

• REASONS GIVEN BY RESPONDENTS IN FAVOUR OF OPTION 5

1. Option 5 represents some sort of compromise. It would mean that all those Mosman residents who live north of Mandolong Road retain some sort of reasonable access to our own suburbs, and it would ensure that Superba Parade does not become a “rat-run”.

2. Option 5 allows the greater level of safety for traffic using Superba Parade, already a dangerous street with a poor quality safety rail between the high and low sides of the street. Allowing traffic to travel north in this street facilitates safe set down and parking, with passengers able to alight on the footpath rather than being forced into the oncoming traffic.

3. We are strongly in favour of Option 5 as Option 4 would be a highly undesirable one for us. Turning into our property (southern corner of Almora Street and Superba Parade) from Almora Street has always been a hazardous operation.

4. We strongly support Option 5 because we fear if Arbutus Street becomes one-way northbound, more traffic than ever from the northern side of Mandolong Road will be forced down Mandolong Road and along Superba Parade to shops, amenities, public transport, etc.

5. All the houses in Superba Parade have their garages in the rear lane. Access to both Military Road and Balmoral Beach for all residents in this street will become unnecessarily circuitous should option 4 be adopted.

6. There will be a major impact on access to Almora Street properties (No’s 38 - 44), and a major loss of amenity if we are denied two way access in this section of Almora Street, one way under Option 4.

7. Option 5 is the most effective plan. 8. The Option is the best solution. 9. In our opinion, Option 5 is far and away the better and safe option.


10. I would consider the possibility of illegal left hand turns into Arbutus Street

presenting an extremely dangerous situation if Option 4 was adopted. 11. I have decided that Option 5 is best because Option 4 makes for a greater and

surely unwanted influx of traffic either to Military Road via Mandolong Road or the previous detour along Superba Parade.

12. Option 5 is more convenient to a greater number of residents. 13. Whilst none of these options is perfect for any residents of Little Street to reach

Mosman Junction quickly and easily, Option 5 would be the most acceptable to us. However, this is only acceptable if the “No Left Turn” sign at the top of Little Street is removed.

14. Superba Parade to be safe because of its geography and given the side of the road on which vehicles must be parked, (i.e. facing in the direction of the traffic flow) it can only be safely one-way as shown in Option 5.

15. We are of the opinion that it is the most practical solution to use Option 5 for ease of traffic flow to Almora Street. This would create less confusion and allow traffic to avoid collisions on the winding downhill route of Mandolong Road.

16. Our preferred option is Option 5, the main reason being that it is awkward accessing the upper part of Superba Parade from the lower part when travelling in a southerly direction. However, the addition of roundabouts in already narrow, difficult to negotiate roads, and threshold treatments seems excessive.

17. We feel that Option 5 is the only way to go. According to Council’s report, the Police favour this option too.

18. I believe that the best outcome, short of banning all traffic and cars from Balmoral, is to have Suoperba Parade one-way north and Arbutus Street one-way south.

19. I am in favour of Option 5. The natural flow of traffic is from Almora Street to Mandolong Road.

20. Option 5 would provide a more direct route in the southbound direction from Moruben Street to Muston Street, via Arbutus Street and Upper Almora Street.

21. We believe Option 5 to be the best solution as the traffic would then flow in the same direction as the parking in Superba Parade. To drive down the hill that is Upper Almora Street lends itself to a left turn into Superba Parade rather than Arbutus Street.

22. We feel Option 5 would suit us the best because it will alleviate the traffic going down Mandolong Road.

23. My reason for preferring Option 5 is that visibility when entering Arbutus Street from Mandolong Road (southbound) is much better than entering Mandolong Road from Arbutus Street (northbound).

• REASONS GIVEN BY RESPONDENTS NOT IN FAVOUR OF ANY CHANGES

(OPTION 1)

1. We are not in favour of either option proposed and favour instead a return to two-way traffic in Arbutus Street, with some devices to slow down traffic and improvements to the flow along Military Road.

2. We are most concerned at the proposals to create one-way traffic in Arbutus Street and Superba Parade and especially to prohibit exit from Arbutus Street at Little Street and Mandolong Road. This would make it difficult to enter our garage (our property borders on Mandolong Road, Little Street and Arbutus Street) as the only entry would be via Mandolong Road.

3. As we see it, through traffic should be using main roads rather than being forced onto residential streets. Council should be finding ways to encourage cars onto Military Road, our main road.

4. We wish to register our strong objections to Options 4 and 5. It would appear that 11 residents in Arbutus Street have been able to dictate the movement of about


30% of Mosman residents (south eastern corner). I find both Options 4 & Option 5 to be a restriction in day to day driving and ask that both streets (& all other streets in Mosman) remain two way trafficable.

5. There are many streets in Mosman that have similar problems to Arbutus Street & Superba Parade (eg Milner Street, Muston Street), and I believe that to accept either option will become an open invitation to alter other roads.

6. I would like to submit that neither Option 4 nor 5 are valid. My suggestion is to leave Arbutus Street at the original plan of two way traffic. I have never seen an accident on this street and I have no idea why it suddenly has to be changed.

7. When using Superba Parade as a two way street we have encountered no problems with oncoming traffic. When we have seen a vehicle approaching, a sprit of corporation has always existed. The vehicles pass each other and no inconvenience occurs. It is a slow speed street so there is no danger.

8. Were the Council still to be worried about vehicles needing wider use of Superba Parade, this could be achieved by preventing parking on the upper level.

9. I write to express my dissatisfaction with both of the options for the management of traffic in the Arbutus Street area. Option 4 appears to be the ridiculous proposal for southbound traffic to have to make a virtually blind right hand turn in front of upcoming traffic from Balmoral, into Superba Parade, and being faced with the option of two entries to the Parade. While Option 5 requires northbound traffic to cross the path of southbound traffic, both as it enters and again as it leaves Arbutus Street.

10. I cannot see why you would want to change the current traffic plan which seems to me, being a resident in the area, to work very well. For my money, we should leave well alone.

11. The entire process effectively denies us safe and convenient access to our own

suburb; shops, schools, public transport, parks, sporting facilities and the entire southern end of Balmoral Beach. We simply want traffic management to return to their original state.

• EVALUATION OF THE OPTIONS 4 & 5

Evaluation of the options was conducted by the Traffic Consultant using historic traffic data, new traffic counts, estimates and inspections/survey data using manual method of network analysis as well as from information obtained from various stakeholders. The extent of traffic survey and analysis covered the general limits from The Esplanade to Spit Road /Military Road, Awaba Street to Raglan Street. The evaluation was carried out based on: o Overall network safety; o Overall network accessibility; o Residential amenity/safety in Arbutus Street, Superba Parade and other associated

streets; and o Overall network capital and maintenance costs.

Summary of the assessment under the above criteria are given below:


• IMPACT ON SAFETY, EFFICIENCY AND ACCESSIBILITY

FAVOURABLE (BENEFITS)

UNFAVOURABLE (DIS-BENEFITS)

O P T I O N 4

• Improved safety at the intersection

of Almora Street and Arbutus Street due to elimination of southbound flow

• Reduced speed of northbound traffic

in Arbutus due to proposed safety improvements at the intersection of Arbutus Street and Mandolong Road and general uphill grade

• Elimination of Illegal southbound

movement from Mandolong Road into Arbutus Street

• Moruben Road to Mandolong Road

to Superba Parade (upper level) is a relatively short southbound transfer route compared to other transfer routes under Option 5

Reduced enforcement resources needed to enforce the half road closure at Arbutus Street/Mandolong Road

• Increase in traffic that uses Military

Road southbound morning by 68 vehicles per hour and similarly for south bound evening (but which is considered manageable for the network and users under Option 4)

• Additional travel time for the above

southbound users who transfer to Military Road

• Possible increase in southbound flow

on Redan Street • Safety problems associated with

passengers alighting from parked cars on Superba Parade

FAVOURABLE (BENEFITS)

UNFAVOURABLE (DIS-BENEFITS)

O P T I O N 5

• Right turns from Military Road to get

to Superba Parade is reduced because the northbound Superba Parade flow would be unavailable

• Elimination of complaints against the

southbound closure of Arbutus Street (as in Option 4)

• Elimination of the enforcement

resources needed to enforce a southbound closure at the intersection of Arbutus Street and Mandolong Road

• The problem in Arbutus Street is mainly

excessive volumes of traffic in relation to the capacity of the street. Historically Arbutus Street was the major carrier of southbound demand compared to other local streets in the network. Returns to southbound traffic in Arbutus Street with higher volumes as before will not address this problem

• An increase in Mandolong Road

westbound flow between Superba Parade and Arbutus Street / Moruben Road past the Mandolong Road / Arbutus Street intersection with limited sight distance. Accident potential is likely (estimated additional 40 vehicles per hour west bound)


• Increases in Military Road usage of

right turns out of Military Road with removal of the northbound opportunity in Arbutus Street

• Possible increase in northbound

flow in Redan Street

• Possible increase in northbound flow in Melaleuca Lane

• Safety problems associated with

passengers alighting from parked cars in Arbutus Street

Note: See Arbutus Street Options Report dated 13 April 2005 for further details • THE TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS

Traffic flow data for the relevant streets in the network were also used to determine the overall impacts of each option (4 & 5). Summary findings from the traffic flow analysis are given below:

IMPACT ON STREET

OPTION 4

OPTION 5

Arbutus Street Elimination of southbound traffic and reductions in peak and daily flows to acceptable levels Best safety solution

Elimination of northbound traffic and reductions in peak and daily flows to acceptable levels Second best safety solution

Superba Parade Elimination of northbound traffic and reductions in peak and daily flows and safest one-way solution Minor impact on local access improved amenity

Elimination of southbound traffic and second safest one-way solution Impacts on local access and will attract Muston Street / Redan Street traffic to create significant increases in one-way flow

Superba Lane No perceived issues No perceived issues Little Street Likely increase in south bound traffic

with slight accessibility loss Possible increase in south bound traffic with accessibility changes. Probably more acceptable to residents than Option 4

Military Road Mandolong Road / Almora Street

Manageable Increase in southbound traffic and left turns from Military Road

Increase in northbound traffic and right turns from Military Road

Military Road Almora Street / Avenue Road

Increase in southbound traffic. Probably manageable at the traffic signals but dependent on legal parking near right turns

Increase in northbound traffic. Probably manageable at the traffic signals but dependent on legal parking near right turns

Military Road Avenue Road / Raglan Street

Increase in southbound traffic. Probably manageable at the traffic signals but dependent on legal parking near right turns

Increase in northbound traffic. Probably manageable at the traffic signals but dependent on legal parking near right turns


Melaleuca Lane/ Mandolong Road

No foreseeable increase in traffic in an unattractive laneway thoroughfare

Likely increase in northbound traffic and may result in unsafe laneway conditions

The Grove Minor changes in traffic flow Minor changes in traffic flow Evans Lane Minor changes in traffic flow Minor changes in traffic flow Redan Street Manageable increase in southbound

flow from Superba Parade Significant increase in northbound flow to Superba Parade

Redan Lane Minor changes in traffic flow Minor changes in traffic flow Stanley Avenue Mandolong Road to Awaba Street

Likely increase in southbound traffic with some accessibility loss

Possible increase in southbound traffic with accessibility changes acceptable to residents

Muston Street Decrease in southbound traffic and total traffic

Increase in northbound traffic and total traffic because reassignment will occur to Melaleuca Lane from Muston Street

Moruben Road Possible decrease in southbound flow due to re-assignment to other comparable south bound routes. No significant change anticipated in north bound flow.

Likely increase in southbound flow due to attraction to the Arbutus Street one-way south bound link. Manageable increase in north bound flow

The Esplanade Minor changes in traffic flow Minor changes in traffic flow Beach Lane No perceived issues Possible increase in right turn from

Military Road to Melaleuca Lane Note: See Arbutus Street Options Report dated 13 April 2005 for further details

The report concludes that Option 4 is the most cost effective solution from overall safety, accessibility and amenity perspectives. The outcome of the public consultation indicates that the community has a slight preference for Option 4. The outcome of the consultation also indicates that a number of respondents (11%) are not in favour of either option proposed, instead they favour a return to two-way traffic in Arbutus Street. The respondents believe that the entire scheme effectively denies short cut routes to Balmoral Beach, local schools and shops. It is accepted that both options (Option 4 & 5) will cause increase in trip time (to southbound travellers under Option 4 and to northbound trips under Option 5). This is the main reason for a number of respondents disagreeing with these options. It should be noted that prior to the development of traffic management options for Arbutus Street and Superba Parade, there were a lot of submissions for and against the changes that have been trialed. The key issues identified by the community relating to changes to Arbutus Street and Superba Parade were assessed by the consultant at that time. Another key safety issue that has been identified by the community is related to vehicles turning left illegally from Little Street into Arbutus. Under the Traffic Management Plan for Option 4, a half road closure at Little Street/Arbutus Street intersection will be introduced. It is expected that the proposed traffic island at the intersection of Little Street and Arbutus Street will assist in overcoming the issue raised by the residents. Under the proposed traffic management plan for Option 4, northbound access from Arbutus Street into Little Street will be banned. Considering the proposed “No Right Turn” from Arbutus Street into Mandolong Road, it is recommended that right turn from Arbutus Street into Little Street be retained. This arrangement will assist in overcoming the problem of northbound access to the garage in Little Street.


• COMMENTS FROM THE POLICE

It is understood that Option 5 has been favoured over Option 4 by the Police. The main reason being that Option 5 (i.e. Superba Parade one-way northbound) allows safe set down and on-street parking in Superba Parade, with passengers able to alight on the footpath side of Superba Parade rather than being forced into the oncoming traffic. A number of respondents have also raised this issue. It should be noted that a similar situation exists in other streets in Mosman and other LGAs in NSW and a similar situation will occur in Arbutus Street with Option 4. In an effort to improve the situation, it is recommended that a “No Stopping” restriction on the eastern (barrier side) of Superba Parade and an edge line on the western side of Superba Parade (footpath side) be installed. It is expected that the proposed measures will assist in overcoming the issue raised by Police.

• COMMENTS FROM THE RTA In regard to Traffic Management Options for Arbutus Street and Superba Parade the following preliminary comments have been received from the RTA representative of Mosman Traffic Committee: “Options 4 and 5 both have merit. It appears the community vote on both options is almost evenly divided. However, it is considered that Option 4 should best satisfy overall safety, accessibility and amenity considerations.” Council has been further advised by the RTA that a two-way street cannot be changed into a one-way street by Council until a Traffic Management Plan, which must include an assessment of the impact of the proposed changes and proposed measures to ameliorate such impact, has been approved by the Authority. This means that the implementation of either Option 4 or 5 would be subject to RTA approval.

• CONCLUSIONS IN RELATION TO THE OPTIONS 4 & 5

1. In regard to Option 4 and Option 5 the community has a slight preference for Option 4 (44% favour the Option 4 and 39% favour the Option 5).

2. The implementation of Option 4 offers overall benefits at an estimated cost of $28,000.

3. Option 5 is not rejected by the community. It is an expensive option ($88,000) to implement.

4. The outcome of the consultation also indicates that a number of respondents (11%) are not in favour of either option proposed, instead they favour a return to two-way traffic in Arbutus Street.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost estimates for Options 4 and 5 are $28,000 and $88,000 respectively. It should be noted that no funding provision has been made in the Council’s 2005/06 Budget. Council can apply for dollar for dollar funding from the RTA and if successful would require the allocation of an appropriate level of funding. BICYCLE STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS There are no implications.


ROAD SAFETY COMMENT Accidents records indicate that there have been a few accidents including a fatal crash within the subject streets of this roading network. A safety risk assessment was carried out as part of the evaluation of Options 4 and 5 in the Consultant’s Report of 13 April 2005. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Submissions from residents


CS/121 Car Parking Fees-Foreshore Carparks (CS) MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.01 REPORT BY: Manager Finance, Mark McDonald SUMMARY Standardisation of fees through all foreshore car parks OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Finance recommends: That : A. Council adopt the recommended fee structure as highlighted within the report B. The number of stickers required to obtain the 10% discount be reduced from 50 to 10

for local sporting organisations as detailed in the report C. Council’s Pricing Policy be amended accordingly. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No REPORT Council resolved within the Financial Statement to September 2005 Review (CS/113-7/11/05) to place on public exhibition a review of its car parking fees which:

• standardised the fee structure across all reserves • reduced the short term parking fees from Monday to Friday where there was

previously a flat $10 fee for all day at Clifton Gardens, Balmoral and Rosherville Reserves whether it be for 1 hour or 10.

The recommended fee structure as advertised is as follows: Clifton Gardens, Balmoral and Rosherville Reserves Are regulated seven (7) days, 52 weeks a year between the hours of 7.00 am and 8.00 pm: Up to 2 Hours $5.00 2-3 Hours $8.00 3-4 Hours $12.00 Greater than 4 Hours $15.00 The Spit West Side, East Side and Ellery Park Are regulated Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays between the hours of 7.00 am and 8.00 pm, 52 weeks a year: Up to 2 Hours $5.00 2-3 Hours $8.00 3-4 Hours $12.00


Greater than 4 Hours $15.00 SUMMARY: Clifton Gardens, Balmoral and Rosherville Reserves It was recommended to amend the short term parking fees from Monday to Friday at Clifton Gardens, Balmoral and Rosherville Reserves as Council had received many representations from mothers who wanted to take their young children down to the beach or playground for an hour and having to pay the $10 to do so. The Spit West Side, East Side and Ellery Park Council has on previous occasions resolved not to charge parking fees at The Spit on normal business weekdays as an acknowledgement of the annual contribution paid by the 10 retailers in the area during the 15 year period from 1970 to 1984 as a Local Loan Rate. Council raised a loan of $22,000 to meet the cost of constructing the car park on the western side of The Spit where the retailers met 50% ($1,113) of the loan repayments for the first 5 years and 75% ($1,670) for the remaining 10 years of the loan with their contribution of interest and principal over the period of the loan being approximately $22,265. It is not recommended to change this policy. Car park entry fees for the Spit West side have been charged since 1985. An analysis of the fee structure revealed that it would be more equitable to standardise the fee structure at all foreshore car parks. Council had previously received a request from The Middle Harbour Yacht Club who pointed out that the fees at The Spit for a stay of 2 to 3 hours being $10 was more expensive than the other reserves which had a rate of $8. The recommendation changes the rate for the Spit back to $8. In addition to the above, Council’s Pricing Policy currently provides for local sporting organisations who purchase a minimum of 50 parking stickers for non-Mosman resident members being offered a 10% discount following the provision to the Council of name, address and membership number of purchasing members. It is recommended that this discount be applied to the purchase of minimum lots of 10 parking stickers following receipt of member details. It is considered that this action will promote a greater take up by club members. The recommended new fee structure will be advertised until 7 December 2005 with any submissions received circulated to Councillors. No submissions had been received at the time this report was prepared. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services

CS/122 1 Raglan Street - Restriction as to User MOSPLAN REF: 02.01.08 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Seeking authority to affix Council’s Common Seal to the Deed of Variation of the restriction as to user required as a condition of development consent for 1 Raglan Street. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That the Common Seal of Council be affixed to the Deed of Variation of the restriction as to user required by Condition 2 of development consent 8.2004.294.1 for 1 Raglan Street. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Council granted development consent on 19 September 2005 for the demolition of an existing garage, erection of a new double garage and a new passenger lift at 1 Raglan Street. Condition 2 of that consent requires variation to the restriction on the use of land for Lots 1 and 2 in DP 827938 under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act prior to release of the Construction Certificate. Council remains the owner of the airspace above and the ground below Lot 2. The restriction as to user that applies to the subject site provides that no building or structure shall be erected on the affected land. As development consent 8.2004.294.1 approves the widening of the garage within the stratum area of the lot, the restriction as to user was required to be varied. The applicant has now submitted a Deed of Variation which has been approved by Council’s solicitors. However, as the Deed is required to be executed under the Common Seal of Council, it is necessary for Council to pass a resolution to approve the affixing of the Common Seal to the Deed, as it was not passed at the time of granting development consent. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services

CS/123 21 The Grove - Easements MOSPLAN REF: 02.01.08 REPORT BY: Manager Governance, Anthony Fitzpatrick SUMMARY Seeking authority to affix Council’s Common Seal to the documentation required for the removal of various restrictions from and the addition of a new restriction on the title of 21 The Grove. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Governance recommends: That the Common Seal of Council be affixed to the appropriate documentation including Transfer Granting Easement, Transfer Releasing Easement, and Withdrawal of Caveat as required in association with the removal of various restrictions from and the addition of a new restriction on the title of 21 The Grove. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Council at its meeting on 6 June 2005 considered a request by the owners of 21 The Grove to remove various restrictions from their property title. The restrictions on title that involve the Council are a drainage easement, an easement for support across the front boundary and a caveat relating to an elevated pedestrian bridge at the front of the property that traverses the drainage easement and the easement for support. Council agreed to the removal of the drainage easement over the property subject to an indemnity being provided in relation to potential future claims arising from the presence of the pipe and the fact that Council no longer maintains it. Council also delegated authority to the General Manager to use the best endeavours with the property owners on the removal of the easement of support and caveat. Agreement has been reached on the removal of the existing easement for support and the existing caveat by Council being withdrawn with a new easement for support being registered on the title. The width of the new easement for support is to be reduced to 6 metres. Council’s solicitors have prepared the appropriate documentation including Transfer Granting Easement, Transfer Releasing Easement, and Withdrawal of Caveat to give effect to the above. As certain documentation is required to be executed under the Common Seal of Council, it is necessary for Council to pass a resolution to approve the affixing of the Common Seal to the documents, as it was not passed at the time of consenting to the request. Recommendation endorsed by Director Corporate Services


EP/293 8 Beauty Point Road DA NUMBER: 5.1994.169.2 PROPOSAL: Modification to approved dwelling house additions REPORTING OFFICER: Colin McFadzean, Manager Development Services LODGEMENT DATE: 24 July 2003 (Downtime 23 months) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

10

7

A

9

17A

1

34

16

36

27

11

29

28

2

3

4

B1415

13

12

1020

41

DP 102042

DP 1065733

DP 10912

DP 10912

DP

1612

3

DP 16123

DP

1091

2

103

104

SP 4

9821

DP

1088

48

DP 16123

DP

3456

6097

101

98

B

A

6

32

531

7070

26

30

102

37

3433

DP 10912

293

94B

95B96

DP

4026

24

B75

7338

2

1

20

36 35

11121 22 23

24 25

21

3230

28

2624

34

21

31

36

3840

42

2527

2929

44

108

64 35

33

2

4341

39

37

131

3

21

4

14 1210

86 2

2A

11

16 1412

34

97

5

5

7

3

25

32

2327

29

1816

FIG TREE WALK

BA

Y

MAR

SALA

T

AVE

AVE

RD

PEARL

RD

RD

BEAUTY POINT


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council previously considered the application for modifications to approved dwelling additions and raised no objection on town planning grounds. The critical issue with the application was how the site was to be drained. The earlier recommendation incorporated a charged drainage system to Beauty Point Road. However, following an offer for a drainage easement though the property to the rear, 8 Delecta Avenue, the application was deferred to facilitate signed agreement for an easement in lieu of the charged system. For reasons not relevant to this assessment, negotiations for the easement have broken down and the owner of No. 8 Delecta Avenue has now withdrawn his offer for an easement. The owner now seeks to rely on the charged or gravity fed system. Following a review of the system and further supplementary information, Council’s Engineers are satisfied that if the development proceeds the runoff to 8 Delecta Avenue would be less than if 8 Beauty Point Road was in an undeveloped state. On this basis, the applicant’s scheme is supported and the application is recommended for approval. A matter linked to but now not of direct relevance to the drainage for the house is the retaining wall structure between the two properties. Following its partial failure, an order had previously been issued for construction of a new wall. A development application was approved for a wall but determination of the construction certificate was withheld while negotiations occurred between owners for the easement. Now that the easement offer has been withdrawn, the method of construction for the retaining wall has become certain. A new order requiring its completion by 1 February 2006 has been issued.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the northern side of Beauty Point Road about 30m east of its intersection with Pindari Avenue. The site is regular in shape with a frontage of 17.5m to Beauty Point Road. The site has a maximum fall of about 6m to the rear. Existing on the site is a part two and part three storey dwelling house. A retaining wall in a partly dilapidated state is located along the rear boundary. Vehicular access is currently gained from Beauty Point Road. Surrounding development consists of dwelling houses. 2.0 BACKGROUND On 3 August 1994, Council approved Development Application No 5.1994.169.1 for alterations and additions to the dwelling house and a new pool on the subject site. The consent has been activated and there is substantial physical commencement. The new pool and ground floor alterations and additions have commenced but due to personal reasons the owner has not done anything to the building in the last seven to eight years. Following the partial collapse of a retaining wall at the rear of the subject site, a joint emergency order was issued on 1 May 2003 to the owners of the subject site and 8 Delecta Avenue to erect a replacement wall. The order was not pursued at the time following the approval of Development Application 8.2003.181.1 for a concrete block retaining wall in November 2003.


On 24 July 2003, an application under section 96 was lodged for variations to the plans approved under Development Consent No 5.1994.169.1. A report recommending conditional approval of the application including the implementation of a charged drainage system was presented to the Development Control Unit’s 7 January 2004 meeting and then the Development Assessment Committee’s 10 February 2004 meeting. The matter was deferred from the latter meeting to enable the applicant to consider an offer from the owner of 8 Delecta Avenue for the creation of an easement to drain stormwater from the site. It seemed at the time that agreement for an easement was likely and as this represented a preferred drainage solution, the Committee resolved as follows:

“That Council grant the General Manager delegated authority to approve Development Application 8.19994.169.2 pursuant to section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act pending receipt of a signed agreement between the owners of Nos. 8 Beauty Point Road and 8 Delecta Avenue for the creation of an easement over No. 8 Delecta Avenue benefiting No. 8 Beauty Point Road and then subject to the terms and conditions in the report to the Development Assessment Committee meeting of 2 March 2004.”

The applicant was requested to provide a signed agreement for the easement. In the meantime, determination of the Construction Certificate for the retaining wall approved under DA 8.2003.181.1 was placed on hold as the method of drainage within the wall may have differed depending upon whether an easement was created. Signed agreement has still not been reached for the easement. The respective owners of 8 Beauty Point Road and 8 Delecta Avenue provide different accounts as to why this is the case. Ultimately whomever’s account is correct is immaterial and accordingly this report will not pursue applicable lines of argument. The fact remains that there is no agreement and on 22 September 2005 the offer for an easement was formerly withdrawn. The application is referred back to Council for determination. The applicant seeks to rely on a charged or gravity fed drainage system complemented by on site absorption. As will be outlined within comments from Council’s Manager Assets and Services, sufficient information has been provided to enable Council to establish the appropriate method of drainage for the retaining wall. Accordingly the Construction Certificate has now been issued together with an order requiring completion by 1 February 2006, accounting for the present state of the wall and the possibility of its failure. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The application was described in the report to Council dated 7 January 2004 and will not be repeated in full for this report. The only changes from that previously considered by Council relates to the detailed drainage design. In this regard, the applicant has put two systems to Council. The first system involves a charged line from the base of the front corner of the existing dwelling. The second, referred to in subsequent sections of this report as “the temporary system”, involves a drainage pipe connected from the gutter level of the front corner to a pipe connected or located adjacent to the garage of the neighbouring property at No. 6 Beauty Point Road and then along the line of the side wall before being located below ground and travelling at an angle within the footpath area to Council’s drain in Beauty Point Road. Depending on where the pipe heads below ground, the system may rely on gravity only or on a charged system.


4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT & PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS There is no change to the earlier assessment with regard to the building works proposed. Comments within this section will be limited to drainage. Numerous public submissions have been received from the owner of No. 8 Delecta Avenue. The submissions have been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer and Manager Assets and Services. On 20 October 2005, the Manager Assets and Services provided the following comments:

“I refer to the above matter and the current proposal whereby Council has been considering a section 96 application to modify this consent. I also understand that the original 1994 consent has been acted upon in part with some work already being completed at 8 Beauty Point Road. As you are aware the section 96 application has been problematic due to issues surrounding drainage of the site, a structurally unsound retaining wall at the rear of the property on the boundary with 8 Delecta Avenue, and continuing concerns from the owners of 8 Delecta Avenue, Mr and Mrs Lehmann. On 25 September 2003, GW Engineers submitted to Council a proposal to dispose of stormwater from 8 Beauty Point Road. This can be found as document no. 803579 in Dataworks. The proposal was for a charged system to dispose of all roof drainage to the street in Beauty Point Road and an absorption trench in the rear yard to dispose of remaining stormwater from the site. Council’s then Development Engineer, Andrew Lam, considered the proposal and after some revision by the applicant, approved it on 11 November 2003. Subsequently, Council wrote to the owner of 8 Beauty Point Road, Mr Linney, on 13 November 2003 advising that the proposed stormwater disposal system had been approved and requesting advice as to when it would be implemented. I have not been able to find on the file any response to this letter from Mr Linney. It would appear that the proposal has not been implemented and this would undoubtedly have been influenced at the time by ongoing discussions and suggestions that a drainage easement through 8 Delecta Avenue was a better way to dispose of stormwater from 8 Beauty Point Road. Council was considering the section 96 application across Christmas 2003 and into the early months of 2004. By way of letter dated 10 February 2004 Mr and Mrs Lehmann made an offer to provide a drainage easement through their property at 8 Delecta Avenue to drain 8 Beauty Point Road. This would have certainly led to the owners of 8 Beauty Point Road discontinuing any plans to implement the stormwater disposal system approved by Council in November 2003. However, the creation of an easement and subsequent construction of the necessary drainage pipes would have taken some time. It would appear that in order to deal with some of the drainage issues, a temporary drainage disposal system to dispose of all roof water from the property at 8 Beauty Point Road was developed and lodged with Council. This proposal is drawing number E147-CK0002, Revision A, prepared by G W Engineers and dated 4 February 2004. It can be found on Dataworks as document no. 879159. It is not clear whether this proposal was requested by Council or if in fact it has been implemented. However, given the ongoing nature of this matter, it would be my recommendation that this proposal be implemented as soon as possible, if it has not already been put in place. In addition to the drainage issue the matter of a structurally unsound retaining wall on the boundary between 8 Beauty Point Road and 8 Delecta Avenue has been ongoing. I will not provide detailed history to this matter as I believe you are fully


aware of the circumstances. However, it is important to note that drainage behind the proposed new retaining wall is an issue and has been linked to the issue of general drainage from the site. I have recently been in discussion with Mr and Mrs Lehmann who are concerned about a lack of progress in addressing both the drainage issues and the retaining wall on their rear boundary. In my discussions with Mr and Mrs Lehmann, they have withdrawn their offer of a drainage easement through their property, 8 Delecta Avenue. This is stated in their correspondence of 22 September 2005 and can be found on Dataworks as document no. 1231693. In view of this I understand that you will be preparing a report to Council to determine the current section 96 application. The matter of stormwater drainage will therefore again be subject of debate. In these situations where a property drains away from the street through a downstream property, the provision of a drainage easement through that downstream property is always the best solution to drainage issues. In the absence of such an easement, the solution as proposed by GW Engineers in their submission to Council of 25 September 2003, or similar, is the next best and perhaps only option to dispose of stormwater. I would assume that in the absence of an easement through 8 Delecta Avenue, the owners of 8 Beauty Point Road would seek to rely on the approval for this system which Council communicated to them by letter on 13 November 2003. Whilst this proposal appears satisfactory, certainly in principle, there is some further detail that would be required to confirm its suitability. In particular, the proposed system will result in a discharge of water across the rear boundary of 8 Beauty Point Road into 8 Delecta Avenue in some storm events. This in itself is not necessarily an issue as downstream properties will always be subject to some runoff from upstream properties. However, some analysis is required to quantify this runoff. It needs to be demonstrated that the quantity of this runoff for all storm events up to the 1 in 100 year storm will not exceed the volume of water that would run off 8 Beauty Point Road into 8 Delecta Avenue if 8 Beauty Point Road was in its natural state – i.e. undeveloped. The analysis would need to include some assessment of the absorption capacity of the soil and what volume of water could expect to be absorbed into the ground before surcharge out of the absorption trench and across the boundary to the downstream property would occur. It would appear that GW Engineers may have undertaken such an analysis as they have included in a letter of 3 February 2004 to Council (Dataworks document no. 875909) a statement that “The site will actually produce less runoff to the Lehmann property in the developed state than what it would if it was undeveloped”. This statement needs to be supported with appropriate calculations and analysis. Further details would also be required to show how any discharge across the boundary from 8 Beauty Point Road to 8 Delecta Avenue would be managed. The overflow would need to be managed in such a fashion that it flowed across the boundary in a sheet flow across a wide area and not be concentrated to a single point of discharge. These details would need to be submitted prior to release of a construction certificate. Since the proposal for stormwater disposal from GW Engineers was approved by Council in November 2003, the introduction of the State Government’s BASIX system has occurred. It may be possible to include a rainwater tank within the approved system of stormwater disposal to capture some of the runoff and further reduce the volume of water disposed of to the rear of the property. Issues such as NSW Health


Department Guidelines would need to be addressed and these may preclude the capture of surface water for some re-use purposes. I note that Council may not be able to require the applicant to pursue this issue, but it is considered worthy of investigation. Mr Lehmann has made a number of suggestions about how the site at 8 Beauty Point Road could be drained of stormwater. Some of these suggestions are not considered practical, and in the absence of an easement, some are not considered to be legal. I will not detail all of Mr Lehmann’s suggestions or my responses here but can provide written comments if required. The important point to note is that Mr Lehmann’s suggestions appear generally to be motivated by the same principles that Council applies to these situations. Subject to my comments above, I believe the system approved by Council in November 2003 will meet these principles. The final issue to be addressed is that of the retaining wall between the two properties. I note that Council has previously issued an emergency order in 2003 to repair the retaining wall and subsequently approved a development application to reconstruct the wall in a different form. At the present time it is understood that no further action is being taken in regard to the emergency order due to issues relating to drainage to be installed behind the retaining wall. I further understand that the intention was to connect drainage from behind the wall into a pipe to be installed in the proposed easement through 8 Delecta Avenue and this issue has been delayed due the parties being unable to reach agreement on the easement issue. Given that the Lehmanns have withdrawn their consent for the proposed easement through 8 Delecta Avenue, it will not be possible for any drainage behind the retaining wall to be connected into a pipe through that property. The only option remaining for drainage of the ground behind the retaining wall is therefore to install weep holes in the wall to allow any water that collects to flow through the wall and drain away through 8 Delecta Avenue. If negotiations were to recommence on the provision of the easement, allowance could easily be made in the design and installation of the retaining wall for this drainage to be connected into any pipe at a future time. In my opinion, seeking to connect the issue of drainage from behind the retaining wall to the provision of an easement cannot and should not be used as a reason to further delay taking any action on repairing the retaining wall. There have been three reports by external structural engineers prepared regarding the retaining wall, the first by Nasseri Associates dated 3 July 2002 and the second and third by Cardno BMK dated 17 October 2002 and 21 March 2003. The latter reports could not be located however it is noted that the report by Nasseri Associates describes the western section of the wall as “structurally unsafe” and notes that there is no footing or foundation present. Whilst the decision on whether to pursue the emergency order rests with yourself, given these circumstances, I would recommend that Council act as soon as possible to enforce the terms of the emergency order. Of particular concern in regard to the structural stability of the retaining wall is the existing drainage from the property at 8 Beauty Point Road. GW Engineers state in their report of 25 September 2003 (Dataworks document no. 803579) that there is an existing absorption trench in the back yard of the property. If this trench is still in use, stormwater discharged to it may be contributing to the structural problems associated with the retaining wall. It is therefore considered important to determine as soon as possible if the absorption trench is in fact in operation to dispose of roof water from the house and if so, to immediately discontinue its use for this purpose. The temporary drainage system as referred to earlier in this report could be implemented immediately as an alternate measure.


Finally I would make comment about the drainage of the Lehmanns’ property at 8 Delecta Avenue. The first point is that their property is located downstream of the property 8 Beauty Point Road. It is therefore inevitable that some overland flow will find its way to their property. This was acknowledged by the Lehmanns in my discussions with them. I was also shown video footage of stormwater flowing through various parts of their own property and their neighbour’s property. I observed from the video that there is only one small drainage sump in the rear of their property and questioned them about this. It was confirmed to me that this is the only sump installed to drain the entire rear yard. I commented to the Lehmanns that even without doing any analysis, it seemed to me very unlikely that this single drainage sump would be enough to cater for stormwater from their own property, let alone anything extra coming from the neighbouring upstream properties. I also noticed that there appeared to be water falling from the roof of their property. Mr Lehmann acknowledged that there were issues with the guttering on the house that needed to be addressed and that he would need to do some work to improve the drainage in the rear of his own property. I believe that this needs to be taken into consideration by any person assessing the drainage issues associated with this application as clearly there are deficiencies in the existing stormwater drainage system at 8 Delecta Avenue. These deficiencies would potentially be exaggerating the effects of stormwater flows onto the property from the upstream property at 8 Beauty Point Road. I also commented to the Lehmanns that if they were going to withdraw the offer of the easement, as they have subsequently done, they should be prepared for the fact that there will be a discharge of water onto their property from the upstream property in most storm events and this would likely be much more than they might expect. I also re-iterated to them that the best solution in these situations is always the provision of an easement through the downstream property. Recommendations 1. Council’s Building Surveyor immediately inspect the property 8 Beauty Point

Road with Council’s Development Engineer to ascertain if the temporary drainage arrangements outlined in drawing number E147-CK0002, Revision A, prepared by G W Engineers and dated 4 February 2004 (Dataworks document no. 879159) have been implemented.

2. In the event that the temporary drainage arrangements outlined in point 1

have not been implemented, Council’s Building Surveyor take appropriate action to have the property owner install the temporary stormwater drainage system as soon as possible.

3. In assessing the section 96 application to alter consent number 5.1994.169.2,

and in the absence of a drainage easement through a downstream property, Council require further information to be lodged in support of the stormwater drainage disposal system lodged by GW Engineering on 25 September 2003, amended and approved by Council in November 2003 as follows:

a. Calculations and analysis to support the statement made in GW

Engineering’s letter of 3 February 2004 to Council (Dataworks document no. 875909) that “The site will actually produce less runoff to the Lehmann property in the developed state than what it would if it was undeveloped”. It needs to be demonstrated that the quantity of this runoff for all storm events up to the 1 in 100 year storm will not exceed the volume of water that would run off 8 Beauty Point Road into


8 Delecta Avenue if 8 Beauty Point Road was in its natural state i.e. undeveloped.

b. The analysis must include a geotechnical report on the soil profile

detailing the infiltration capacity of the soil, water table details and moisture conditions such that an assessment of what volume of water can be absorbed by the soil can be made. This will allow an assessment of how much water is likely to overflow to the downstream property, 8 Delecta Avenue, to be made.

c. Information needs to be provided on the proposed method of managing

and discharging stormwater overflow from 8 Beauty Point Road into 8 Delecta Avenue such that it flows across the boundary in a sheet flow across a wide area and is not concentrated to a single point of discharge.

4. Consideration be given to acting immediately on the emergency order issued

in 2003 for repair of the retaining wall on the boundary between the two properties, 8 Beauty Point Road and 8 Delecta Avenue to have it repaired or reconstructed.”

Regarding point 1 of the recommendation above, an inspected subsequent to the above advice disclosed that no drainage measures of a temporary or permanent nature have been implemented to date. Regarding points 2 and 4 an emergency order based upon the approved DA and CC design for a wall was issued on 28 November 2005. The order requires completion within 65 days, that is by 1 February 2006. Regarding point 3, a meeting with the applicant and a request for further information was made. In response to information submitted, Council’s Manager Assets and Services made the following comments:

“I have received the submission from GW Engineers Ref E147 Dated 4 November 2005. I have also received a copy of the geotechnical report by Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd Ref 19910ZAlet Dated 22 November 2005. Reviewing this information it is clear from the calculations provided from GW engineers that the proposed stormwater plan Drawing No.E147-CK0001 Revision B (Involving a charged pipe system from the roof and the proposed garage discharging to Beauty Point Road) by GW Engineers will result in the property at 8 Delecta Avenue Road experiencing less run off than that which would be expected on a green field site. This plan was approved by Council’s then Development Engineer, Andrew Lam on 10 November 2003. In addition to this it is also clear that the proposed temporary stormwater plan Drawing No. E147-CK0002, Revision A, Dated 4 February 2004 (involving a “temporary” measure connecting a charged pipe system from the roof to the side of the neighbouring garage and to Beauty Point Road) by GW Engineers will result in the property at 8 Delecta Avenue Road experiencing less run off than that which would be expected on a green field site.


The areas used in the calculations have been confirmed and are deemed satisfactory. My calculations indicate that the property in 8 Delecta Avenue will receive less stormwater than is actually indicated. This is because the areas calculated by GW Engineers draining to the rear of the 8 Beauty Point Road is more than the areas used in my calculations.

The geotechnical report has been reviewed and it is also deemed satisfactory. The report has shown that the soil at the rear of the yard has absorption properties and the charged system in conjunction with the absorption trench will actually reduce the amount of flow expected by the downstream property.

In summary, the applicant has satisfactorily shown that if a charged drainage system or the gravity based system shown in the temporary plan was implemented on the site, the downstream property would experience less run off than that which would be experienced in a green field site. Additionally the applicant has shown that the introduction of an absorption trench will further reduce the run off expected into downstream properties.

Based on the above information the stormwater plan Drawing No. E147-CK0002, Revision A, Dated 4 February 2004 (the gravity based solution) should be stamped for DA approval and the following conditions are to apply:

As there have been numerous plans a full revised plan will be necessary indicating the location of the absorption trench and the conditions as follows.

Drainage Plans

A new revised drainage plan is to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. This plan is to include the details given in the temporary stormwater plan by GW Engineers Drawing No. E147-CK0002, Revision A, Dated 4 February 2004 and the location of the proposed absorption trench. The plan is to encompass all conditions related to drainage as stated below.

Absorption Trench Position

The absorption trench is to be positioned closer to the deck of the rear property. The exact location is to be determined by a geotechnical engineer and the distance between the trench and the rear retaining wall is to be maximised.

Overflow

The applicant is to provide an over flow detail with regard to the absorption trench and the retaining wall. The trench should be designed in a manner in which any overflow from the trench will result in sheet flow across the ground surface. In addition to this the area at the rear of the retaining wall bounding 8 Delecta Avenue and 8 Beauty Point Road is to be constructed in a manner which results in a sheet flow in the event the absorption trench overflows. Details of the overflow mechanism for the trench and the retaining wall are to be approved by Council’s Development Engineer prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Absorption Trench Details

The cumulative void space within the absorption trench is to be designed to withstand the 1 in 5 year storm event. Details of the absorption trench are to be submitted by a Civil Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and


competence in the related field certifying that it had been designed in accordance with the above conditions.

Support for Drainage Work Support details for the elevated drainage pipe structure along the Boundary of 8 and 6 Beauty Point Road are to be supplied with the Construction Certificate. If it is proposed to support the drainage pipes on the garage wall of 6 Beauty Point Road, permission and the possible creation of an easement for support must be undertaken. Alternatively, a support mechanism independent of the garage is to be constructed. Details of the proposed method of construction and any creation of easements must be supplied with the Construction Certificate.”

5.0 CONCLUSION Drainage to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineers has been achieved. The application may therefore be approved. 6.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant and owner is John Linney. 7.0 COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be re-inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 5.1994.169.2 be approved pursuant to section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following: A1. By amending condition No 1 to read as follows:

“1. The development must be carried out in accordance with the following stamped approved plans and documentation, except where amended by later conditions of consent:

Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by

L1.01 and L1.02/A

September 2002

Marjorie Gamble

A2. By deleting conditions 2 and 3. A3. By the addition of the following conditions:

Construction Certificate Application Plans 32. Two copies of architectural and Structural Engineer’s plans must be

submitted with a Construction Certificate application. The structural engineering plans must be signed by a qualified practicing Structural Engineer with membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field. One set of plans should show the extent of all new works in colour.


Drainage Plans

33. A new revised drainage plan is to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. This plan is to include the details given in the temporary stormwater plan by GW Engineers Drawing No. E147-CK0002, Revision A, Dated 4 February 2004 and the location of the proposed absorption trench. The plan is to encompass all conditions related to drainage. as stated within the consent.

Absorption Trench Position

34. The absorption trench is to be positioned closer to the deck of the rear property. The exact location is to be determined by a geotechnical engineer and the distance between the trench and the rear retaining wall is to be maximised.

Overflow

35. The applicant is to provide an over flow detail with regard to the absorption trench and the retaining wall. The trench should be designed in a manner in which any overflow from the trench will result in sheet flow across the ground surface. In addition to this the area at the rear of the retaining wall bounding 8 Delecta Avenue and 8 Beauty Point Road is to be constructed in a manner which results in a sheet flow in the event the absorption trench overflows. Details of the overflow mechanism for the trench and the retaining wall are to be approved by Council’s Development Engineer prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Absorption Trench Details

36. The cumulative void space within the absorption trench is to be designed to withstand the 1 in 5 year storm event. Details of the absorption trench are to be submitted by a Civil Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field certifying that it had been designed in accordance with all relevant conditions of this consent..

Support for Drainage Work 37. Support details for the elevated drainage pipe structure along the Boundary of

8 and 6 Beauty Point Road are to be supplied with the Construction Certificate. If it is proposed to support the drainage pipes on the garage wall of 6 Beauty Point Road, permission and the possible creation of an easement for support must be undertaken. Alternatively, a support mechanism independent of the garage is to be constructed. Details of the proposed method of construction and any creation of easements must be supplied with the Construction Certificate.”


COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS • A4 Plans • Report to DCU dated 7 January 2004 • Report to DAC dated 2 March 2004


EP/294 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

MOSPLAN REF: 03.02.02 REPORT BY: Strategic Planner, Joe Vertel SUMMARY Advice on the gazettal of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning and Transport recommends that: A. Council note the content of this report. B. Council write to the Department of Planning requesting it to rectify the anomalies and

omissions identified in this report. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (the SREP) was gazetted on 28 September 2005. The aim of the SREP is to provide an improved and clearer planning framework and better environmental outcomes for the Harbour and its catchment. Copies of the SREP are available from the Department of Planning web site – www.planning.nsw.gov.au/harbour/harbour.asp or from Council’s Planning and Transport Department on request. The SREP consolidates and replaces Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.22 – Parramatta River, Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours and State Environmental Planning Policy No.56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries. The SREP applies to the hydrological catchment of the harbour which includes the whole of Mosman and areas as far afield as Bankstown, Blacktown and Ku-ring-gai. It also defines and contains specific provisions for the “Foreshores and Waterways Area” (which is generally the area one street back from the foreshore), strategic foreshore sites, heritage items and wetlands protection areas. A Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan (2005) (the DCP) and a Boat Storage Policy for Sydney Harbour have also been prepared to support the SREP. The DCP applies to the “foreshores and Waterways area” and includes design guidelines for development, assessment criteria for marinas including visual impact assessment and criteria for natural resource protection. The Boat Storage Policy sets out the NSW Government’s strategic policy for dealing with various forms of boat storage on the Harbour including marinas, single moorings, private wharves and jetties, and dry boat storage.


Background Council considered a report on the Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) and accompanying Draft Sydney Harbour and Waterways Area Development Control Plan and Draft Boat Storage Policy for Sydney Harbour on 19 July 2004 when Council resolved to forward a submission to the Department of Planning. The issues of concern that were raised are summarised as follows: 1. The Draft SREP did not include Taronga Zoo as a “Strategic Foreshore Site”. Planning comment – The gazetted version of the SREP now includes Taronga Zoo as well as Middle Head in the list of “Strategic Foreshore Sites”. 2. Council requested that the Spit Bridge and the boatshed at No.3 Musgrave Street be

listed as heritage items within the SREP. Planning comment – The Spit Bridge has been included as a heritage item but the boatshed at No.3 Musgrave Street has not been included. From discussion with the Department of Planning, it appears that the non listing of the boatshed is an unintentional omission. 3. The Draft SREP makes reference to “heritage conservation areas” but does not

define these on maps. Planning comment – The gazetted version of the SREP does not refer to heritage conservation areas. State significant heritage items are identified in Schedule 4 of the SREP and on a heritage map accompanying the SREP. Implications of the SREP for Mosman The SREP contains detailed provisions to guide development decisions in the Foreshores and Waterways Area. These include the establishment of a zoning system for the waterways and the specification of a set of matters for consideration for development occurring in the “Foreshores and Waterways Area”. The zoning system comprises 8 zones tailored to suit the differing environmental characteristics and land uses of the Harbour. The zoning system incorporates a matrix to demonstrate permissible uses with or without consent and prohibited development in each zone. The matters for consideration are aimed at ensuring better and consistent development decisions in the immediate harbour area in relation to matters such as ecological and scenic quality, built form and design, maintenance of views, public access, and recreational and working harbour issues. These matters will need to be considered by Council in the assessment of any development applications on sites that fall within the “Foreshores and Waterways Area”. The SREP lifts the moratorium on large marinas (30 or more berths) introduced by SREP 23. This is achieved through the zoning provisions which allow for marinas in certain locations. The SREP distinguishes between “commercial marinas” and “private marinas”. The intent is to differentiate between marinas which generally support public recreational use of the foreshore and waterways and those that can alienate the foreshore and waterway through private use only (e.g. private marinas which are for the exclusive use of an adjoining residential development). Commercial marinas are allowed in zones W1, W4 and W5 whereas private marinas are only allowed in zone W6 (In Mosman, the only a W6 zone is found along the southern side of Quakers Hat Bay).


The SREP also establishes a set of planning principles that will need to be taken into consideration by Council in the preparation of planning instruments (i.e. Council’s LEP and DCP). These principles consider issues relating to visual amenity, environmental impacts, maintaining a balance between public access and a working Harbour and the conservation of heritage items and places of heritage significance. The SREP retains the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee established under SREP 22. This Committee provides a forum to advise consent authorities on proposals for foreshore and waterways development. The SREP includes provisions relating to land which comprises potential acid sulfate soils. Whilst a map has not been provided to identify potential acid sulfate soils, development consent is required for any works involving the excavation, dredging, filling or contouring of land within Zones No W1 to W8 unless a preliminary assessment of the proposed works, undertaken in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment Guidelines, has been undertaken. Strategic foreshore sites are identified in the SREP and specific controls for development on these sites are detailed including a requirement for the preparation of a master plan. There are 2 strategic foreshore sites identified within the Mosman area; Taronga Zoo and Middle Head. A master plan for Taronga Zoo has been adopted by the Minister for Planning on 16 October 2002. Whilst a comprehensive plan has been adopted for all lands (including Middle Head) under the control of Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (SHFT) in 2003 and a series of Management Plans for specific precincts within Middle Head have been developed, it is unclear whether these documents would satisfy the “Master Plan” requirements under the SREP. However, as Middle Head is under the control of the SHFT, this is a matter that does not arise in practice and will remain the case for the next seven years. The SREP identifies 139 state significant heritage items that are located either within the waterway or at the land-water interface and specifies provisions to be taken into consideration by consent authorities prior to consent being granted for development which may impact on these items. In Mosman, this includes the Spit Bridge and a stone wharf at Bradleys Head. A number of shipwrecks, located in close proximity to the Mosman foreshores, are also identified. The SREP contains provisions to conserve and protect wetland habitats. An associated map identifies the wetland areas, however, the map does not correspond to the wetlands map associated with Mosman LEP 1998. It is understood that the wetlands map associated with the SREP is based on more up to date information and Council may wish to consider amending its wetlands map as part of the LEP review. Anomalies The SREP amends Mosman LEP 1998 by replacing the reference to SREP 23 in Clause 27 – Foreshore scenic protection area, with reference to the new SREP. However, the SREP does not remove reference to SREP 23 in Clause 31B – Wetlands, of Mosman LEP 1998. Another apparent anomaly created by the amendment to Mosman LEP 1998 by the SREP is that Clause 27(2) of the LEP 1998 requires Council to take into consideration the objectives of the SREP prior to granting consent for works within the foreshore scenic protection area (FSPA). The SREP includes objectives for the “Foreshores and Waterways Area” but does not include objectives that would apply to the broader FSPA in Mosman.


To address the anomalies and omissions identified in this report, it would be appropriate for Council to write to the Department of Planning and request that these be corrected. This follows earlier anomalies introduced by the drafting of a SEPP which affects Markham Close. This matter will again be raised with the current issue. Recommendation endorsed by Director – Environment and Planning


EP/295 Road Safety Action Plan 2005-2006 - Progress Report MOSPLAN REF: 11.05.09 REPORT BY: Road Safety Officer, Rebecca Klemke SUMMARY Progress report on implementation of the Road Safety Action Plan for 2005 -2006. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager of Planning and Transport recommends: That the report be received Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The Road Safety Action Plan for 2005-2006 was sent to all Councillors in July 2005 and is currently being implemented with several projects completed. This progress report covers activities up to December 2005. A further progress report and new Road Safety Action Plan for 2006 -2007 will be forwarded in July 2005. Funding The Road Safety Officer successfully made submissions for funding to Council, the RTA, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia and NRMA for program funding. The Road Safety budget for the 2005-2006 financial year has nearly doubled this year to $80,253 (this includes 50% of the Road Safety Officers Salary). This increase in funding ensures that the Road Safety Education Officer will be more able to successfully implement road safety education campaigns. The Road Safety Officer position also went from part time to full time as of the 1st of July 2005, so this will greatly improve the image of road safety within Mosman. Motorcycle Safety Motorcycle crashes represented 11.2% of all road user casualties across the five local government areas of Mosman, North Sydney, Lane Cove, Ku-ring-gai and Willoughby in 2003. To address this, a regional motorcycle safety campaign was successfully implemented to coincide with Motorcycle Awareness Week in October, where advertorials in local papers and banners were put up to make motorists aware of motorcyclists. Also resources were sent to all motorcycle shops within the council areas. One of the campaign’s strategies was to encourage local riders to improve their safety as well as their riding skills by enrolling in rider refresher courses discounted by 50% at the Honda Australia Roadcraft Training Centre (HART) at St. Ives. This initiative was extremely well received among the motorcycling community with around 60 subsidised places being utilised. Driver awareness of motorcycles in the road environment will be targeted again in early 2006.


Workshop for Supervisors of Learner Drivers The Graduated Licensing Workshops (GLS) held two times per year for Supervisors of Learner Drivers have been fully attended and feedback from attendees has been overwhelmingly positive. These workshops target the supervisors of novice drivers and offer strategies for keeping the learner and newly licensed drivers safe and provide on-road practice and how to complete the Learner Driver Logbook. The next workshop will be in February 2006. Speed project The Road Safety Officer was successful in obtaining a grant from the RTA for $4500 and also a $10,000 grant from the NRMA to produce a document and offer additional support that will go to all supervisors of learner drivers. This will also be in conjunction with the parent workshops and the Learner driver log book. Young drivers (17-20 years) appear as one of the vulnerable age groups in Mosman driver casualty statistics in the Road Safety Strategic Plan. They accounted for 20% of the accidents in Mosman in 2004 and are three times more likely to be involved in a serious or fatal crash than drivers aged over 25 years. Safe Seniors Calendar The calendar was developed with the involvement of local senior volunteers who were featured in photographs in the calendar to convey important and relevant messages. These calendars are being distributed in early December to local seniors groups, retirement villages, the seniors centre, council building and library. It has been greatly received in the past and again this year. Ryda U-Turn the Wheel Program Council resolved in December 2003 (Item PF/250) to provide the Rotary Organisation with $1000 per financial year to assist with the running of the young driver education program for Year 11 students. The Rotary Organisation will gratefully receive the funds for the 2005-2006 financial year at the beginning of 2006, when Mosman High School will be attending the program. We are currently trying to involve Queenwood Girls School in the program. Child Restraint Day The major cause of child deaths and injuries in cars is children not wearing properly fitted restraints or seatbelts. The aim of the project is to provide a free service to parents and child care centres with a qualified restraint fitter to check that the car seat is properly fitted. On Saturday the 22nd of October two restraint fitters were available for 3 hours. They checked 14 cars and 28 car seats. All of the car seats had to be adjusted in some way or were inappropriate for the child’s age and size. There will be another child restraint fitting day in March/April 2006. NSW Bike Week The Road Safety Officer won a grant for $1500 to hold a “Bike Fun Day” down at Balmoral Park. The day was held in Bike Week in September. The day included free bike safety checks, prizes, lunch and fun bike activities. Over 70 people turned up on the day and they all had positive things to say about the fun day. The purpose of the day was to encourage people to be safe on their bikes when they ride them along with becoming healthy at the same time. Drink Drive “Home Hosting Safe Party Pack” The Home Hosting ‘Safe Party Pack’ aims to reduce the incidence of drink driving by providing people who are hosting home and workplace parties with practical advice on planning a safe party. Information in the pack includes arranging transport home for guests before the party, providing non alcoholic drink choices and ‘Mocktails’, healthy food ideas,


registering a party with NSW Police and providing alternative transport information for taxis, trains and buses as well as general tips on partying safely. The Road Safety Officer was successful in gaining support from Coles Myer Liquor Group and the Home Hosting Safe Party Packs will be distributed through Coles Myer Liquor outlets, like Liquorland, Theo’s and Vintage Cellars. It will also be distributed through other Council facilities coordinated by Road Safety Officer. Last year, alcohol was a factor in 52 motor vehicle crashes in Mosman, Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, North Sydney and Willoughby local government areas. Pedestrian Safety Pedestrian safety remains a high priority as pedestrian accidents account for 20% of all casualties in Mosman. The LOOK Before You Cross pedestrian safety campaign was implemented in September. This campaign targeted pedestrians using Mosman’s shopping areas and involved additional installation of the LOOK stencils at signalised crossings; replacing information signs at signalised crossings to inform pedestrians of the safest methods for crossing the road; media coverage and information distribution and presence by Council’s Rangers at crossings at peak periods. Blackspot Funding Submission Once again this year like last year, The Road Safety Education Officer made a submission to the RTA under the Blackspot Funding Program to upgrade the Spit Junction intersection between Cowles Road and Clifford Street. The submission was for the extending and upgrading of the pedestrian refuge to include advanced warning signs, anti-skid surfacing treatment along with unmountable kerbing and wider pram ramps. All these measures will address the high incidence of rear end crashes that occur in this location and improve pedestrian safety for road users in the vicinity. The outcome of the submission will be received from the RTA in early 2006 and reported to Council in due course. The suggested improvements to the pedestrian refuge are consistent with the adopted Public Domain Improvement Program (Item T/91). Projects That Are Currently Being Developed Pedestrian Safety “Look Before You Cross” – Will be completed by July 2006 Motorcycles - Driver Awareness – Will be completed by July 2006 Schools Project – Road Safety Audits – Will be completed by July 2006 Rat Runs – Will be completed by July 2006 A number of the completed projects have generated media interest which assisted in the promotion of road safety as an issue in the community. Recommendation endorsed by Director of Environment & Planning.


EP/296 Mosman LEP Review 2005 - Progress Report MOSPLAN REF: 03.02 REPORT BY: Project Coordinators—Strategic Planning

Jacquelyne Jeffery and Kelly Lynch SUMMARY Progress report on (1) the NSW Government’s draft Standard LEP and (2) Mosman Council’s LEP review and plan making project, including a summary report on the Councillor Workshop held 23 November 2005, and draft consultation strategy. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning & Transport recommends: That: A. The report be noted. B. Council endorse the engagement strategy for Mosman Council’s LEP review and plan

making project (attached to Councillor’s business papers). C. Council endorse actions 2, 3 and 4 of the workshop summary report (attached to

Councillor’s business papers) to be undertaken as part of Mosman Council’s LEP review and plan making project, as follows-

2) Identify scenarios for redevelopment of Spit Junction, Mosman Junction, and the Military Road corridor. Scenarios would provide basis for further discussion with Councillors and inform preferred policy direction and more detailed planning, design and public consultation work.

3) Identify opportunities for Councillors to attend workshops and undertake capacity building exercises on urban design and built form.

4) Investigate opportunities for Council to establish a Design Review Panel to advise on design matters associated with certain development applications.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Background Council considered a report on the draft Standard Local Environmental Plan (Standard LEP) at its meeting on 10 October 2005. The Officer’s Recommendation was:

A. The report be noted. B. Council resolve to prepare a local environmental plan under section 54 of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. C. Council seek an extension of time from the Minister to make a submission on the

Standard LEP. Council resolved that the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted.


(1) NSW Government’s draft Standard LEP—a status update Council provided a detailed submission on the draft Standard LEP to the Department in early November. The submission raised a number of in principle and specific concerns in relation to the draft standard LEP, including that insufficient time had been provided to enable consultation with the community and an extension of the submission period should be granted. An extension was not granted by the Department. A copy of this submission was distributed to Councillors on 10 November 2005 and is available on Council’s website. The Department is currently reviewing over 500 submissions made on the draft Standard LEP from individuals, local councils, businesses, government agencies, professional associations and community and environmental groups. The Department has advised it is likely changes will be made to the standard instrument in response to submissions, such as changes to some zones and definitions. It is now anticipated that gazettal of the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2005 will be delayed until February/March 2006. (2) Mosman Council’s LEP review and plan making project—progress report Section 54(4) notice to NSW Department of Planning Council advised the NSW Department of Planning by letter dated 21 November 2005 of its decision to prepare a municipal-wide local environmental plan (LEP). The new LEP will replace Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 gazetted 18 December 1998, and will be prepared consistent with the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2005 (once gazetted). This notice was provided to the Department under section 54(4) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Council also requested that the Department identify Mosman as a local government area required to have a principal LEP within 2 years of gazettal of the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2005. Mosman is currently identified as a local government area required to have a principal LEP within 5 years of gazettal of this legislation, however it is timely that a comprehensive review of Mosman Council’s planning controls be undertaken. The plan making process for the Mosman LEP 1998 commenced in 1995, hence many of the planning studies used as a basis for establishing the LEP’s context and evidence base date back earlier than that. Engagement Strategy Involving key stakeholders in the LEP review and plan making process will facilitate a shared understanding of the issues in Mosman, encourage diverse perspectives and potential solutions—to inform and enhance Council’s decisions, and assist Council in being more responsive to community needs. To help guide and direct this stakeholder involvement, an engagement strategy has been prepared for Council’s endorsement. The strategy, included as an attachment to Councillor’s business papers, sets out Council’s commitment and principles for engaging and the range of engagement techniques that may be used in the Mosman LEP review and plan making process. Outcomes from Councillor Workshop 23 November 2005 A Councillor Visioning Workshop was held on 23 November 2005, facilitated by David Chesterman.


The purpose of the workshop was to draw out Councillors’ visions for Mosman for the future, for example key strategic planning issues and sites or areas of interest, and to inform the review of the Mosman LEP and DCP. The workshop followed, and was informed by, the Future Mosman process undertaken in early 2005. Key outcomes arising from the workshop include-

• agreement with the priorities set out in Future Mosman 2008 in 2020; and • identified need for controls and design criteria for the built form in Mosman,

particularly in relation to- o the design of infill development and maintaining heritage values, and o enhancing the ‘greening’ of the area and the quality of landscape;

• identified the need for workshops or the like to improve Councillors’ understanding of urban design issues and good practice, and to investigate the opportunity for an urban design review panel involving qualified and experienced specialists to advise on design matters associated with certain developments in Mosman; and

• identified the need for redevelopment and improvement of Spit Junction, Mosman Junction and the Military Road corridor (Spofforth Street to Spit Junction) and the need to identify for each area a strategy, objectives, existing and desired character, appropriate bulk and scale, constraints, feasibility, appearance etc.

A summary report on the workshop is provided as an attachment to Councillor’s business papers, and includes the following proposed future actions-

2) Identify scenarios for redevelopment of Spit Junction, Mosman Junction, and the Military Road corridor. Scenarios would provide basis for further discussion with Councillors and inform preferred policy direction and more detailed planning, design and public consultation work.

3) Identify opportunities for Councillors to attend workshops and undertake capacity building exercises on urban design and built form.

4) Investigate opportunities for Council to establish a Design Review Panel to advise on design matters associated with certain development applications.

Council staff will further consider matters raised in the workshop as part of the Mosman LEP review and plan making process, and following Council’s endorsement undertake actions 2, 3 and 4 identified in the workshop summary report (as noted above). Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment & Planning. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • Engagement Strategy • Summary Notes on Councillors Visioning Workshop 23 November 2005


EP/297 36 Bullecourt Avenue DA NUMBER: 8.2005.231.1 PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house REPORTING OFFICER: Maple Lau, Assessment Officer LODGEMENT DATE: 30 June 2005 (Downtime 4 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

20

2

2364

31

1

DP 456056

DP 356028B

PT7

DP 37627D

DP 4

0156

8

BDP 1033167

71

DP

1673

6

4

B

DP 119506

DP 1034779

DP

1301

9419

C18

69

DP

4088

82

1817

1615

20

DP 22694 DP

2269

4

7

13

2

1

DP

3685

98

DP 568373

21

23

24

11

25

22

1

21

1

DP 349740

DP 358788

DP 349740

DP 656319

A

1

1

2

DP 552230

DP

DP

7961

5

221

21

2

DP 1064651

15

2A6

4

9

10

12

86

11

24

27

1416

1820

222

7

18

16

11

34

9

2532

34A

2

3640

38

3331

29

4

108

10

20

37

1414

45

43

14A

49

47

53

51

YRIE

AVE

CO

UR

T

PL

ST

BICKELL

ELL

RYR

IE

BAY

BULLE

CO

UR

T


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house. The main issue relates to loss of views from a neighbour (No. 27 Bullecourt Ave) for the proposed change of roof form and the proposed extension of the roof line by 6.5m towards north. The proposed roof extension will have minor impact to views to neighbour at No. 27 Bullecourt Ave and this part of the proposal complies with the MLEP height standard. The proposal is consistent with the view sharing objectives of Section 4.3 of the RDCP and the proposed changes are compatible with surrounding buildings in terms of building design, height and roof form. Approval is recommended subject to conditions.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the western side of Bullecourt Ave. The site is irregular in shape with an arc frontage of 17.07m to Bullecourt Ave and an arc frontage of 17.27m to Bay Street. The southern boundary of the site adjoins a pedestrian pathway reservation connecting the two streets which is untrafficable for pedestrians. The site falls 13.7m to the west at an average gradient of 36%. The eastern portion of the site has a maximum fall of 2.4m from south to north. The north-eastern corner of the site is approximately 2.6 metres below the Bullecourt Ave footpath level. The site presently contains a two storey dwelling house split over three levels and a swimming pool. Surrounding development consists of two and three storey dwelling houses. 2.0 BACKGROUND Nil. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal involves alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including the following: At the lower ground floor: • Extension of the rear deck by 2035mm to the west; • Removal of the existing glazing and door of the rumpus room on the western elevation,

enlarge the opening and replace with new bifold doors; • Replacement of a door and associated glazing of the guest bedroom on the western

elevation; • Replacement of a window of the bathroom on the northern elevation; • Internal reconfiguration of the bathroom; • Replacement of the external stairs on the northern side of the deck; • New 1200mm high balustrades around the deck; and • New pool fencing to the north and south of the deck. At the ground floor: • Extension of the rear deck by 685mm to the west; • Removal of the existing glazing and door of the living room and dining room on the

western elevation and replace with new bifold doors;


• Internal reconfiguration of floor layout including relocation of the entry point from the southern elevation to the eastern elevation and relocation of the laundry to the south-eastern corner;

• Window changes on the northern elevation for the proposed kitchen area; • Replacement of a door and associated glazing on the eastern elevation for the proposed

entry point; • Enclosure of existing entry porch area; • New portico structure for the proposed entry; • New water feature on the eastern side of the house adjacent to proposed entry; • New bin store area on eastern side of the site; and • New pedestrian pathway between Bullecourt Ave footpath and the entry of the house. At the first floor: • Extension on the north-western side of the first floor to enlarge a bedroom, • New balcony to the west of proposed bedroom extension; • Internal reconfiguration of the floor layout; • Window changes on the northern and western elevations; and • Partial demolition of existing steps and a ramp on the southern side of the existing

garage and extension of the garage to the south with a nil setback from the southern side boundary;

The proposal also includes:

• Addition of a vental horizontal sun shading device on the western elevation; • Minor changes to the roof form from a hipped roof form to a gable roof form to

accommodate the first floor extension and replacement of roofing material from green tiles to light grey custom orb metal roofing; and

• Rendering of the face brickwork of the main building. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 1a. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours • Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2004 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Transport Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space


5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area N/A 632.4m2 N/A

Building Height 8.5m 8.3m Yes

Wall Height 7.2m 8.3m No (SEPP 1)

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys No (SEPP 1)

Gross Floor Area

Existing 270.7m2 N/A

Proposed 20.3m2 N/A

Total 291m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.5 : 1 0.46 : 1 Yes

Landscaped Area Yes No

Existing 214m2 160m2(-25%) N/A

Proposed 230m2 160m2(-30%) No DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks

Lower ground floor (deck only) – north

Lower ground floor (deck only) – south

Ground floor – north

Ground floor – south

First floor – north

Garage – south

0.9m

0.9m

0.9m

0.9m

1.5 - 3m

On merit

4.77m

1.54m

1.5m

1.54m

1.5m

Nil

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Parking

Existing Garage / Carport Width

Proposed Garage / Carport Width

No minimum

6m

6m

2 spaces

5.3m

6.735m

Yes

Yes

No

Solar access to living and main private open space areas

2 hours between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm

>2 hours

Yes *

* The proposal will result in additional shadow to the front yard of No. 34A Bullecourt Ave at 9am in the winter solstice, but the impact is insignificant. 5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards SEPP 1 Objections have been submitted in relation to the non-compliance with clause 13 of the MLEP 1998 – wall height and two storey limits.


The applicant provided the following justifications for compliance with the clause objectives: “(a) To protect public and private views The proposal will not result in any adverse impact on the existing private views available from the adjoining properties in Bullecourt Ave. The proposal will not result in any adverse impact on existing public views available across the site. The proposal will therefore be consistent with the objective of protecting public and private views (b) To minimise the visual impact of buildings when viewed from the harbour and

surrounding foreshores. The site is located approximately 250m from the foreshore of Middle Harbour. The existing house and the proposed additions will not be a prominent built element of the landscape when viewed from the harbour and surrounding foreshores. It will only be partly visible, if at all in the distant view because the building is screened from view by the dense vegetation and bushland within the middle harbour foreshore. The proposed colours and finishes of the house include earthy tones and mid to dark trim colours and a medium coloured, pitched metal roof. These are appropriate materials, colours and finishes in response to the natural setting of the site and will assist the building to blend with the landscape. The proposal will therefore be consistent with this objective that seeks to minimise the visual impact of development when viewed from the harbour and foreshores. (c) To ensure new buildings resulting from new development are compatible with existing

buildings in terms of height and pitched roof form. The proposal will be compatible with the existing development in the area in terms of height and form. It will maintain its present height and scale. There is diversity in terms of the age, size and architectural style of development in the locality. There are a number of dwellings in the area with flat, curved and a variety of pitched roofs. The size, height and pitched roof form of the proposed additions will be very acceptable in terms of compatibility with the existing house and the surrounding development. The proposal will therefore be consistent with the objective of promoting compatibility of new development with the height and form of existing buildings. (d) To minimise the effects of bulk and scale of buildings arising from new developments

in existing residential areas. The proposed additions are contained essentially within the footprint and building envelope of the existing house. The proposal includes better utilisation of the existing basement level to achieve a full level of habitable accommodation in a partly excavated lower ground level. This arrangement maintains the overall height and scale of the existing house.


The house is existing three storeys and maintains the existing ridge line. For the most part of the building presents as a two storey building and complies with the height and wall height standards. There will be no overshadowing of adjoining dwellings habitable rooms or principal areas of private open space. The proposed additions will not be prominent when viewed from the harbour and foreshore areas and the house will maintain a relatively discreet presence of the streetscape because of its elevated position above the road and the existing vegetation at the front of the site that is to be retained and supplemented. For these reasons the proposal will be consistent with the objective of minimising the effects of bulk and scale. Comment: The objectives of the 2(a1) zone require proposals to ensure that development is of a height and scale which complements existing buildings and streetscape and has regard to local amenity and, in particular, public and private views. Due to the topography of the site which falls steeply from east to west, the proposal departs from the maximum 7.2m wall height standard at the western side of the proposed flat roof at RL 47.18. The variation to the height standard is below the highest point of the house at RL48.73. The proposed height departure will not have any detrimental impacts on adjoining properties or the streetscape. A neighbour (No. 27 Bullecourt Ave) on the eastern side of the site raised concerns about loss of water views. The proposal involves changes to the existing roof from a hipped roof to gable roof. This involves extension of the existing roof line at RL48.73 by 3.7m towards south and 6.5m towards north. It is the northern extension of the roof that is subject to the issue of view loss. The most northerly point of the proposed roof extension is 7.6m from the immediate ground level which is well within the height limit of the MLEP. An inspection reveals that the proposed roof extension will have minor impact to views to neighbour at No. 27 Bullecourt Ave and this part of the proposal complies with the height standard. The proposal is consistent with the view sharing objectives of Section 4.3 of the RDCP. The proposal is compatible with surrounding buildings in terms of height and roof form. The surrounding developments are generally two to three storeys in height. The proposal will maintain the appearance of a two-storey dwelling when viewed from Bullecourt Ave. The predominant building design of surrounding development is of pitched roof and hipped roof form. The proposal will maintain the roofscape character of Bullecourt Ave. The proposal is compatible with the existing building design and the bulk is well distributed. Though numerically non-compliant, the proposal is consistent with the clause objectives and is reasonable development of the site. The SEPP 1 Objection is therefore well-founded in this case. 5.2.2 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours The proposal will not have a detrimental impact the amenity of the harbour and is consistent with the aims and objectives of SREP23. 5.2.3 Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2004 The proposal is compatible with surrounding development, will not have a detrimental impact to the natural, cultural or scenic qualities of the catchment area and will not detract from a view to the harbour.


5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height Refer to SEPP 1 under 5.2.1. Floorspace Ratio The proposal complies with Council’s FSR standard and clause objectives. Landscaped Area The proposal slightly exacerbates the existing variation to landscaped area but does not significantly alter the relationship of built to natural forms. Approval is accordingly recommended. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale Section 4.2 of the RDCP requires development to have a scale which is not excessive, have adequate side setbacks for spatial relief between buildings and be of a height and scale which is consistent with the surrounding development. As noted above in Section 5.2.1, the proposal does not comply with the height and number of storey requirements of Council, however its SEPP 1 objections are well founded and the proposed height and scale is compatible with the surrounding development. The proposal does not comply with the setback requirement of the RDCP for the section of wall over 7.2m, however, the existing setbacks for the dwelling are maintained and the perceived bulk is generally consistent with the existing built form and the character of the surrounding development. Sufficient spatial relief has been incorporated in the design for the proposed first floor extension. Also, the proposed first floor extension is located on the western side of the dwelling, its visual bulk is minimised from the streetscape. Views As discussed in Section 5.2.1, the proposed change of the roof form requires extension of the roof line at RL48.73 by 6.5m towards the north. This proposed roof extension complies with Council’s height standard and its impact on neighbour’s view is minor (see photos


attached). The proposal is consistent with the view sharing objectives of Section 4.3 of the RDCP. Streetscape and Building Design Section 5.1 of the RDCP requires development to have a scale and design that is compatible with the neighbourhood character. As noted above the setting of the site is lower than the main street and the proposed first floor extension is located at the rear of the building and below the highest point of the building, therefore the proposal will maintain the appearance of a two storey dwelling when viewed from Bullecourt Ave. The proposed siting and scale, building design and roof form is compatible with the surrounding development and is satisfactory. As noted in 1.0, the eastern side of the site has a moderate fall from south to north. The proposal includes a fence on the eastern side (front) of the site which will act as a gateway from the higher side of the land to the lower side of the land. This fence/gateway is 1.55m high at RL44.68. The fencing is approximately 950mm above the existing retaining wall along the eastern boundary. The height and scale of the fencing will not create a dominant effect to the streetscape; however the materials of the fencing are not indicated on the plans. The plans indicate that the details of fencing will be provided in future. To ensure that the fencing will have a minimal visual impact, a condition is recommended requiring the materials and finishes of the fencing to blend with the surrounding development. Similar fencing is proposed for the bin storage area at a corresponding height/level. As the bin store area is recommended to be deleted, its associated fencing will not be required. Refer to Waste Management below. Landscaping Section 4.4 of the RDCP seeks to ensure the preservation of mature and healthy trees. The proposed garage extension is in proximity of two trees on the reserve adjoining the site. In order to protect these trees, a condition is recommended requiring the eastern side of the proposed garage extension be setback a further 1 metre from the eastern boundary. Car-Parking The proposal involves minor extension of an existing garage towards the southern boundary and conversion from pitched roof to flat roof. The proposed garage will have nil setback from the southern boundary at an overall height of 2.9m. Section 4.2 P7 of the RDCP specifies that garages with nil setbacks should comply with three requirements including 1) that the maximum wall height is 3.5m, 2) the proposal does not result in adverse visual impact for surrounding properties, and 3) the proposal complies with the objectives and planning guidelines of Section 5.8 of RDCP regarding sunlight, daylight and overshadowing. The proposed garage satisfies these guidelines. Section 5.2 of RDCP seeks to ensure that the siting of garages respects the character of the streetscape and that the siting and scale of garages will not become a dominant feature of the site or the streetscape. P10 requires garage width not to exceed 6m or 40% of the block frontage (whichever is the lesser). Although the proposed garage is wider than the requirement, the proposal is generally consistent with the surrounding development on Bullecourt Ave and its scale and design is generally compatible with the existing building design. Furthermore, the location of the pedestrian reservation to the south gives the perception of a setback and helps achieve spatial separation with 34A Bullecourt Avenue. The siting and scale and the building design of the proposed garage is satisfactory.


Privacy Privacy aspects of this proposal are satisfactory. Water Feature The proposed water feature is located centrally on the eastern side of the site at a depth of 500mm. The proposed siting of the water feature will have negligible impacts to the streetscape or the residential amenity of the area. The proposed water feature complies with the general objectives of Section 7.4 of RDCP and is acceptable. However, for safety reasons and to lessen the need for any safety fencing, a condition is recommended limiting the depth to 300mm. Overshadowing Section 5.8 of the RDCP requires “North-facing windows to living areas and main ground level private open space of neighbouring buildings…not have sunlight reduced to less than two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.” The proposal will result in minor additional overshadowing to the front yard of the neighbour (No. 34A Bullecourt Ave), however, will not reduce winter sunlight to less than two hours during the winter solstice for the neighbour. The additional shadow comes from the proposed roof extension which its height complies with the MLEP requirement. The proposal will not result in any significant overshadowing impact to neighbours and meets the objectives of Section 5.8 of the RDCP. Waste Management Section 5.15 of the RDCP requires development to have appropriate waste and recycling storage areas. The proposal includes a bin store area sited centrally on the eastern side of the house with new fencing enclosure. Given the setting of this section of the site which is below the footpath level, the bin store area will not result in a dramatic impact to the streetscape, however it is noted that the proposed garage extension would allow sufficient area for waste storage, therefore the proposed bin area is unnecessary. A condition is recommended to delete the bin store area and the associated fencing. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Middle Harbour/Pearl Bay townscape. The proposal is generally consistent with the desired future character objectives of this townscape in that the form and scale of the proposal relate to the streetscape and topography and will not become dominant feature when viewed from the harbour. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) No minimum or maximum parking provision applies to dwelling house under this plan. The proposal includes two off-street car-parking spaces which will be adequate for a single dwelling. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space As no additional bedrooms are proposed, a section 94 contribution is not required.


5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 11 July 2005 and 26 July 2005. One submission was received from No. 27 Bullecourt Ave who raised concerns about loss of views by the proposed extension of roofline at RL48.73 towards the north. Comment: The proposed roof extension will have a minor impact to views of neighbour at No. 27 Bullecourt Avenue. This part of the proposal complies with the height standard. The proposal is a reasonable development and meets the view sharing objectives of Section 4.3 of the RDCP. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposal is generally compatible with the surrounding development, the proposed building scale and design is in keeping with the streetscape. The proposed extension of the roof line will result in a minor impact to the water views of neighbour at No. 27 Bullecourt Ave, however this component of the proposal complies with the MLEP height limit and reasonable view sharing is still achieved. Approval is recommended subject to conditions. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant and owners are Paul Henderson & Mary O’Gorman. The estimated value of works is $273,390. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objection made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standard relating to the maximum height limit within Clause 13 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 is well founded, and in this case varying the standard to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons: (a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standard;

(b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the

site, and the context of surrounding development;


(c) The areas of non-compliance will not cause significant detrimental impacts on surrounding development; and

(d) Requiring compliance with the standard would unreasonably constrain the development and the design response.

B. That Development Application No. 8.2005.231.1 be approved subject to the following

conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION

1. The development must be carried out in accordance with the following stamped approved plans and documentation, except where amended by later conditions of consent:

Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by DA01 to DA10 (inclusive)

March 2005 Connor and Solomon Architects

survey plan no. 7432

26 October 2004 G.K. Wilson & Associates Consulting Surveyors

PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions must be satisfied prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. Conditions may require the submission of additional information with the Construction Certificate application. Applicants should also familiarise themselves with conditions in subsequent sections and provide plans in accordance with any design requirements contained therein.

Construction Certificate Application Plans

2. Two copies of architectural and Structural Engineer’s plans must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The structural engineering plans must be signed by a qualified practicing Structural Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field.

The plans are to incorporate and note any changes from the approved development application plans as required by conditions of this consent.

For applications involving alterations and additions, one set of plans should be coloured which indicate the extent of new works.

Dilapidation Report – Council Assets

3. To assist with an assessment of claims for the refund of the security deposit over Council’s property, a dilapidation report must be submitted. The report must document and provide photographs that clearly depict any existing damage to the road, kerb, gutter, footpath, driveways, street trees, street signs or any other Council assets in the vicinity of the development. Any damage not shown in this manner will be assumed to have been caused as a result of the site works undertaken and must either be rectified at the applicant’s expense or compensated by deduction from the security deposit.


Dilapidation Report – Private Assets

4. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining property at 38 Bullecourt Ave which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on that property. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.

Excavation, Backfilling and Support for Neighbouring Buildings

5. Excavation works shall not commence prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate or the issue of any relevant notices to adjoining owners, the Principal Certifying Authority or Council as required by other conditions of this consent.

Retaining Walls

6. If soil conditions require it, retaining walls or other approved methods necessary to prevent the movement of soil, together with associated stormwater drainage measures, shall be designed by a civil engineer or other appropriately qualified person. Details of any retaining walls shall accompany plans and specifications submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

Sydney Water

7. The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Service 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. Plans must be appropriately stamped prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. For Quick Check agent details please refer to the website www.sydneywater.com.au, see Building Developing and Plumbing then Quick Check or telephone 13 20 92.

Utility Services

8. The applicant shall consult with the relevant public utility providers and meet any costs imposed by those providers for alterations to mains or services required as a consequence of this approval.

Materials & Finishes

9. Materials and finishes shall be complimentary to the character and streetscape of the area. Highly reflective roofing materials shall not be used. Details of finished external surface materials, including colours and texture, must be to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council or the Accredited Certifier.

Long Service Levy

10. In accordance with Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, the applicant shall pay a long service levy at the prescribed rate of 0.2% of the total cost of the work to either the Long Service Payments Corporation or Mosman Municipal Council for any work costing $25,000 or more.

Security Deposit

11. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $2,500 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/


property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee if Council is not the PCA) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.

Bin Store Area 12. In order to minimise the streetscape and amenity impact, the proposed bin store area

and its associated fencing located on the eastern side of the site must be deleted.

Garage 13. In order to protect an existing tree (Ficus sp) located on the on the southern

boundary, the proposed garage extension must be setback 1000mm further from the eastern boundary.

PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF SITE WORKS

The following measures must be satisfied prior to the commencement of site works, including any works relating to demolition, excavation or vegetation removal.

Notice of Intent to Commence Site Works

14. In accordance with Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, no site works (including building works, demolition, excavation or the removal of vegetation) are to commence until:

(i) the Construction Certificate has been issued; (ii) the person benefiting from the consent has appointed a Principal Certifying

Authority (PCA) by way of completing Form 7A (attached at the end of the consent);

(iii) in instances where Council is not the PCA, the PCA has, no later than 2 days before the building work commences, notified Council of his or her appointment by way of forwarding a completed copy of Form 7A and notified the person benefiting from the consent of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work by way of completing Form 7B (attached at the end of this consent). In instances where Council is the PCA, Council has completed Form 7B if necessary and forwarded it to the person benefiting from the consent.

(iv) the person benefiting from the consent, if not carrying out the work as an owner-builder, has (by way of completing Form 7C): • appointed a principal contractor for the building work who must be the holder

of a contractor licence if any residential building work is involved; and • notified the PCA of any such appointment; and • unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal contractor

of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work; and

(v) the person benefiting from the consent has given Council at least 2 days’ notice of the person’s intention to commence the erection of the building by way of completing Form 7D.

Home Building Act

15. Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which


the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:

(a) in the case of work to be done by the holder of a contractor licence under that Act:

(i) the name and licence number of the contractor; and (ii) the name of the insurer by whom the work is insured under Part 6 of that

Act, (b) in the case of work to be done by the holder of an owner-builder permit under

that Act, the name and permit number of the owner-builder.

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified above becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information.

Protection of Adjoining Areas

16. If site or building works will:

• cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or unsafe; or

• involve the enclosure of a public place; or • have the potential to damage adjoining private land by way of falling objects

then a temporary hoarding, fence or awning must be erected between the work site and the adjoining area. Any such hoarding, fence or awning must be removed when the work has been completed. The fence must be constructed prior to the commencement of works and where adjoining public land shall be covered in cyclone wire mesh to discourage the fixing of posters or graffiti.

Sediment & Erosion Controls

17. Temporary sedimentation and erosion controls shall be constructed prior to commencement of any site works in order to prevent the discharge of sediment from the site. The controls shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Environment and Conservation’s "Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Manual Volume 1, 4th Edition March 2004”.

Note: This document is available from the Department of Planning.

Lapsing of Consent if Site Works Not Commenced

18. In accordance with Section 95(2) of the Act, this consent shall lapse unless work has physically commenced on the land within 2 years from the date of the consent or in instances where no work is required, the use has commenced within 2 years from the date of the consent.

Public Liability Insurance

19. Public liability insurance to the value of $5,000,000 must be taken out by the builder or owner to protect any person, firm or company from injury, loss or damage sustained as a consequence of the carrying out of site works, including all excavation,


demolition and construction works. A copy of the policy must be provided to Council or the Accredited Certifier.

DURING SITE WORKS / CONSTRUCTION

The following conditions must be satisfied during site and construction works.

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

20. All works are to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

Levels 21. The levels at the boundary alignment of the property along the Bullecourt Avenue

frontage shall be defined by the top of the existing concrete retaining wall.

Partial Demolition

22. All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard 2601 – 2001: The Demolition of Structures. Demolition is not to exceed that approved under this consent and as shown on approved plans. If for structural or other reasons additional demolition and then rebuilding works are found to be necessary, consent for such works is to be obtained from Council.

23. Where asbestos material shall be removed or disturbed as a result of any proposed demolition, alteration or addition, all work must be carried out by a person licensed under Chapter 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 and undertaken in accordance with the requirements of clause 29 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996. All asbestos to be removed must be disposed of at a tip recommended by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and under no circumstances shall be re-used or sold.

Signs for Building and Demolition Sites

24. A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any work site on which building work or demolition work is being carried out:

(a) showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work; and

(b) showing their name of the person in charge of the work and a telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside work hours; and

(c) stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

Any such sign shall be maintained while the building work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed.

Where Council is the nominated PCA, these signs may be purchased from Council’s offices for a fee of $25.

This condition does not apply in relation to building work or demolition work that is carried out inside, and does not affect the external walls of, an existing building.


Site Work Hours

25. In order to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties, audible site works shall be restricted to between 7.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturday. Inaudible site works may also take place between 7.00am and 8.00am on Saturdays. No site works shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

Unless otherwise approved within a Construction Traffic Management Plan, construction vehicles, machinery, goods or materials shall not be delivered to the site outside the approved hours of site works.


26. If an excavation extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

• preserve and protect the building from damage; • if necessary, underpin and support the building in an approved manner; and • at least 7 days before excavating, give notice of an intention to excavate to the

adjoining owner and furnish particulars to the owner of the proposed work.

27. All excavations and backfilling must be executed safely and if necessary properly guarded in accordance with appropriate professional standards to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.


28. Sedimentation and erosion controls must be effectively maintained at all times during the course of construction and shall not be removed until the site has been stabilised or landscaped to the Principal Certifying Authority’s satisfaction.

Garage 29. To minimise disturbance to the root systems of the Ficus sp and Eucalyptus sp

located on the Council land adjacent to the works, the structure of the proposed garage extension is to be supported on piers.

30. In order to protect the trees adjacent to the proposed garage extension, the excavation for the piers supporting the garage extension is to be excavated by hand and in the presence of a suitably qualified arborist. No roots are to be cut without prior consent from the arborist. In the event that major feeders roots (>50mm) are present in the excavation the arborist is to suggest a new location for the pier a suitable distance from the root.

Council Property

31. The land and adjoining areas shall be kept in a clean and tidy condition at all times. No construction vehicles, building materials, waste, machinery or related matter shall be stored on the road or footpath for the duration of works unless separate approval has been obtained from Council’s Traffic Committee for the establishment of a Construction Zone. Under no circumstances will any person be allowed to mix or dispose of concrete, mortar or slurry within Council property.


Protection of Landscape Features

32. All natural landscape features including trees and other vegetation, natural rock outcrops, soil and watercourses shall remain undisturbed except where affected by necessary works detailed on approved plans.

Tree Preservation

33. All street trees and trees on private property that are protected under Mosman Council’s Tree Preservation Order 2003, shall be retained except where Council's prior written consent has been obtained, or where after approval of the relevant Construction Certificate, trees stand within the envelope of approved buildings or within the alignment of approved permanent paved vehicular access roads and parking areas.

Water Conservation

34. To minimise domestic water consumption, water conservation devices with an AAA rating must be used, including low flow tap and shower head roses, dual flush toilets and six litre/minute flow regulators in all bathroom basins, kitchen and laundry sinks.

Toilet Facilities

35. To provide reasonable worker amenity, toilet facilities shall be provided at or in the vicinity of the work site for the duration of site work activities.

Water Feature 36. For safety reasons the depth of the water feature shall be limited to 300mm.

Materials & Finishes of Fencing

37. In order to minimise the streetscape impact, the materials and finishes of the fencing on the eastern side of the site shall blend with the surrounding environment and shall be non-reflective.

Local Government Act 1993

38. This consent does not authorise the carrying out of any of the following activities which require the separate approval of Council under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993:

• Place a waste storage container in a public place • Swing or hoist goods across or over any part of a public road by means of a

lift, hoist or tackle projecting over the footway

Note: A person who fails to obtain an approval or who carries out an activity otherwise than in accordance with an approval is guilty of an offence under Sections 626 and 627 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Approved Plans

39. A copy of the stamped approved plans must be kept on site for the duration of site works and be made available upon request to either the Principal Certifying Authority or an officer of the Council.


Critical Stage Inspections

40. To ensure building works are carried out properly and in accordance with the conditions of this consent, with the Building Code of Australia and or with relevant Australian Standards, the following critical stage inspections are to be carried out:

• At the commencement of the building work; • After the excavation for, and prior to the placement of, any footings; • Prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element; • Prior to covering of the framework for any floor, wall, roof or other building

element; • Prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas; • Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections; • Fire separation if the building is within 900mm of the property boundary prior to

any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; • Smoke alarms prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the

building; • Swimming pool fencing; and • Final inspection after the building work has been completed and prior to any

occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building. The critical stage inspections must be carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority PCA, or if the PCA agrees, by another certifying authority excepting the final inspection which must be carries out by the PCA. Notes: Records of the above critical stage inspections will be required to be submitted prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate – see later conditions of consent. If you intend engaging Council to undertake inspections, please telephone the area Building Surveyor to arrange a suitable time.

PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions must be satisfied prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Record of Inspections Carried Out

41. In accordance with clause 162B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the certifying authority responsible for the critical stage inspections must make a record of each inspection as soon as practicable after it has been carried out. Where Council is not the PCA, the PCA is to forward a copy of all records to Council.

The record must include details of:

• The development application and construction certificate number; • The address of the property at which the inspection was carried out; • The type of inspection; • The date on which it was carried out; • The name and accreditation number of the certifying authority by whom the

inspection was carried out; and • Whether or not the inspection was satisfactory in the opinion of the certifying

authority who carried it out.


PRIOR TO OCCUPATION

The following condition must be satisfied prior to occupation of the development.

Compliance Certificates and Inspection Records

42. Where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of any compliance certificates and or records of inspections received by the PCA shall be forwarded to Council prior to occupation or commencement of the use.

Occupation Certificate

43. Occupation or use, either in part or full, shall not take place until an Occupation Certificate has been issued. The Occupation Certificate must not be issued unless the building is suitable for occupation or use in accordance with its classification under the Building Code of Australia and until all preceding conditions of this consent have been complied with.

Where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of the Occupation Certificate together with registration fee must be provided to Council.

ADVICE / NOTES

The following points are issued as advice to the applicant. They do not form conditions of the Notice of Determination.

(i) Headings such as “Prior To The Release Of The Construction Certificate” together with bolded notes that immediately follow, form part of this Notice of Determination. Conditions under the respective headings shall be read in the context of the heading and note.

(ii) Section 82A of the Act provides for an applicant to request Council to review its determination excepting applications made on behalf of the Crown or applications in respect of designated development, integrated development or a complying development certificate. The request for review must be made within 12 months of the date of determination or prior to appeal being heard by the Land and Environment Court. A decision on a review may not be further reviewed under section 82A.

(iii) If you are unsatisfied with this determination, Section 97 of the Act gives you the right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 12 months of the determination date.

(iv) A public inquiry by a Commission of Inquiry was not held under Section 119 of the Act.

(v) Other public authorities may have separate requirements and should be consulted in the following respects:

• Australia Post for the positioning and dimensions of mail boxes in new commercial and residential developments;

• AGL Sydney Limited for any change or alteration to gas line infrastructure; • Energy Australia for any change or alteration to electricity infrastructure or

encroachment within transmission line easements; • Telstra, Optus or other telecommunication carriers for access to their

telecommunications infrastructure.


(vi) This decision does not ensure compliance with the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Applicants may wish to investigate their potential for liability under that Act.

(vii) Failure to comply with the relevant provisions of the Act and/or the conditions of this consent may result in the serving of penalty notices or legal action through the Land and Environment Court.

(viii) In accordance with section 81A of the Act, the person benefiting from this consent is notified that if Council is engaged as the Principal Certifying Authority, critical stage inspections to be carried out will include those listed under the sub-heading “Critical Stage Inspections” in this consent. If additional inspections are required, further notice will be provided.

(ix) All references to “the Act” under this consent relate to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(x) When private certifiers are registering Part 4A Certificates with Council, it is requested that plans be lodged in PDF format.

COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS • A4 Plans • Photos from 27 Bullecourt Ave


EP/298 4 St Elmo Street DA NUMBER: 8.2005.31.1 PROPOSAL: Demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of a

new dwelling, swimming pool and front fence. REPORTING OFFICER: Shaun Garland, Senior Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 7 February 2005 (Downtime 184 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

1

1C

DP 135538

20

19DP

3

DP 934578DP 456198

DP

1

DP 18135

1

14

1

13

12

DP 314165DP 3

828

DP 922541

DP 926742

DP 662864

DP 3828 17

B

1

2

C

D P115354

DP 380177 DP 570190

SP 556 2

1

1

1 DP 963756

DP 926002

BA

1

DP

4073

52

DP 502402

10

1

9

11

A

2

2

1

1

1

1

7

66

4B

810

1B

3

5

7

8

10

1

3

2

5

2A

4

4A

5

18A

16

13

20

18

15

11

1012

14

7

1111111111

46

8

BR

BRAD

LEYS

ST E

LMO

HEAD


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing dwelling and detached garage and the construction of a dwelling house, attached double garage, swimming pool and associated landscape works. The proposal was notified and attracted four submissions of objection. The proposal, inter alia, did not comply with Council’s maximum FSR and minimum landscape area requirements. The applicant amended the proposal to address Council’s concerns. The re-notification of the amended proposal attracted three submissions of objection. The proposal generally complies with Council’s policies or meets their intention where it diverts. The dwelling generally compliments the streetscape in terms of bulk, scale, height and setbacks. The complimentary design is supported by appropriate landscaping of the site. Approval is recommended.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the western side of St Elmo Street. The site is a parallelogram in shape with a frontage of 20.12m to St Elmo Street. The site falls 3.66m to the street front at an average gradient of 8%. The site presently contains a two storey dwelling house and detached single garage. Surrounding development consists of residential dwellings both single and two storeys with a variety of materials. These dwellings vary in age from more contemporary to the more traditional dwelling stock for the Mosman area. Located at the southern end of St Elmo Street is Ashton Park, which consists of native bushland. 2.0 BACKGROUND The application was publicly notified and it attracted 4 submissions of objection. The applicant was informed of these submissions in addition to concerns about the design and proposed landscaping. The applicant amended the design to address objectors and Council’s concerns. The amended plans are the subject of the following assessment. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: • Demolition of existing dwelling; • Removal of 5 trees; • Construction of a new two storey, 5 bedroom dwelling including a double garage; • New front fence; and • New swimming pool. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 1a and 10b.


4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards • State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Transport Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area 700m2 874.7m2 Yes


Wall Height 7.2m 7.32m (+1.7%) No (SEPP 1)

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes

Gross Floor Area 419.9m2 N/A


Landscaped Area 459.1m2 459.1m2 Yes DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks

Ground floor – south First floor – south Ground floor – north First floor – north Swimming Pool – south

0.9m 3.0m 0.9m 1.5m 2.0m

1.52m 2.0m 1.52m 1.52m 2.4m

Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Height Plane 45o from ground level along southern boundary

80 0 No

Parking Garage width

On merit 6m

2 spaces 5.5m

Yes Yes

Fencing Height 1.2m 1.4m – 2.25m No



>2 hours Yes

BASIX Certificate Water – 40%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 25%

Water – 40%

Thermal - pass

Energy – 26%

Yes


5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards The southern wall of bedroom 1 measures 7.32m. A SEPP 1 objection has been lodged. The applicant has also put forward within the Objection that the proposal does not meet the overall building height requirement, placing the height at 9m. The Objection to the overall height is not necessary as the maximum building height is 8.45m. The following is an extract from the applicant’s SEPP 1 submission: “It is considered that the development achieves the objecties of the MLEP 1998 and MRDCP in that the extent of the non compliances are only minor and localized to only a small portion of the overall structure. Whilst the minor non compliances exceed the suggested maximum, the character of development in the vicinity comprises a wide range of development style and scales, which exhibit varying heights and building scale. The sloping terrain of the area is reflected in the height of the buildings and has resulted in the proposed non compliances. The new residence incorporates a relatively low roof pitch generally concealed behind extended side wall parapets reducing bulky roof faces and minimizing shadowing. The offending side walls along the southern elevations that exceed the maximum wall height requirement are well fenestrated at both levels and are satisfactorily articulated by the chimney, first floor terrace and corbelling detailing. Proposed vegetation along the southern side boundary will upon maturity further reduce the impact of the new side walls on the adjoining property. It should be noted that the adjoining residence to the south is located forward of the offending wall portions and will screen considerably the southern side of the new residence from the streetscape. • The development will not remove any significant views from the uphill properties, with

general district vistas over the building being maintained; • The dwelling will present a compatible scale relationship with surrounding development

and the form and roof profile is consistent with similar recent development in the surrounding area;

• The design and location of the new residence in relation to the southern placed adjoining residence ensures that there are no significant overshadowing issues.”

Comment: Concurrence is given to the point that the proposal meets the wall height objectives. Compliance with the stated objectives is discussed throughout this report in that: • There is no significant view loss; • The dwelling will not have a significant visual impacts when viewed from the Harbour

and surrounding foreshore area; • The dwelling will site well within its context, assisted by the development’s compliance

with FSR, maximum building height, minimum landscaped area and roof form; • There are minimal impacts in relation to the bulk and scale of the development,

specifically the proposal is compliant with Council’s sunlight access requirements, there are no loss of views and there are no significant detrimental visual impacts.

Given compliance with the standard’s objectives and the proposal is an orderly and economic use of the site, it is unreasonable and unnecessary to comply with the standard in this instance.


5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004

The proposal meets water, thermal and energy standards as indicated in the numeric controls summary table. If approved, a condition will be imposed to ensure that BASIX commitments are implemented. 5.2.3 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours The proposal will not result in a significant visual impact on the harbour or foreshore area as the works are some distance from the water and are absorbed into the surrounding development. Conditions of consent can protect the waterway from pollution and siltation, there will not be excessive noise impacts because of the residential use, there is no significant loss of views to the waterway and there is not a significant impact on heritage values of the area. 5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1) Residential. The proposed works are defined as demolition and a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The proposed works are consistent with the zone objectives, in particular, it is noted that the built form is compatible with the surrounding development in terms of size, scale, bulk, height and character and there will not be a significant loss of public or private views. Height The proposal complies with the maximum building and two storey height limits. However, the proposal does not comply with the maximum 7.2 metre wall height requirement. This issue is discussed in detail within the SEPP 1 assessment within Section 5.2.1 of this report. Floorspace Ratio The proposal is compliant with Council’s maximum FSR and clause objectives. Landscaped Area The proposal is compliant with Council’s minimum landscaped area requirement and clause objectives. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposal is consistent with the provisions Cl.27 of the MLEP 1998 for those reasons given under the SREP 23 assessment. Excavation The proposed excavation is reasonable and suitable conditions of consent can be imposed to control soil erosion and sedimentation. Subject to conditions, the proposed removal of the trees and drainage is acceptable to Council’s Landscape Designer and Development Engineer respectively.


Heritage The rear of dwellings 2 and 6 Buena Vista Avenue back onto St Elmo Street. These dwellings are listed as heritage items of local significance. The proposed development will not result in a significant detrimental impact on the heritage values of these dwellings, given that the development is to the rear of these sites across St Elmo Street which provides reasonable separation. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The objective of the side boundary setback controls is to provide reasonable visual streetscape amenity and to minimise privacy and overshadowing impacts. The proposal meets Council’s minimum sunlight access requirement, is consistent with the side boundary setbacks of the adjoining development, it provides reasonable visual amenity and does not result in a significant privacy impact. Consequently, the minor variation where the southern wall exceeds 7.2m and requires a 3m setback is acceptable in this instance. The front setback of the dwelling provides continuity between the differential setbacks of the immediately adjoining dwellings. The rear setback of the development is compliant and not inconsistent with Council’s policy. The development is lower in overall height than the immediately adjoining dwellings and is comparable in terms of the overall scale, as discussed throughout the report. The objectives of the 45o height plane seek to preserve privacy and to minimise overshadowing impacts. Although not compliant with the height plane the proposal meets the objectives of this control. Please see the assessment under Privacy and Overshadowing for further discussion on these issues. Views There will not be a significant loss of views because of the general compliance with Council’s building height, the distance and location of views from this location, in addition to the site sitting lower than the properties to the rear. However, a submission states that there will be a public view loss of the bushland (Ashton Park) area when looking south from the northern end of St Elmo Street because of the front building line. Contrary to the statement regarding view loss, the dwelling is set sufficiently back in line with the adjoining development to ensure that there will not be a significant loss of view or outlook along this street. Landscaping The removal of the various trees and landscaping is acceptable to Council’s Landscape Designer. His comments are noted within Section 6 of this report. The applicant intends to plant native species, which is also required under the BASIX commitments. Given this and the fact that the proposal meets the minimum landscaped area requirement the proposed landscaping is acceptable. Streetscape and Building Design The proposal reasonably complements the streetscape. The scale and bulk of the dwelling is compatible with its neighbours and blends satisfactorily with St Elmo Street.


The proposed front fence is to be constructed as a masonry pier and dwarf wall with metal pike infill. The maximum height is 2.25m at its southern end and 1.95m at its northern end. The RDCP requires a maximum 1.2m height limit except where the scale and or heritage value of the property are appropriate for a higher fence or where traffic volumes exceed 6,000 vehicles per day. These scenarios do not apply in this instance. A largely open front fence with a maximum height of 1.8m would be reasonable in the context of St Elmo Street which contains a number of high fences. A condition along these lines is recommended. Privacy There will not be a significant privacy impact as a result of this proposal. The windows located on the first floor northern and southern elevations are to either bedrooms, an en-suite or bathroom. The windows to the bathroom and en-suite will have obscure glazing, which will restrict overlooking. The bedrooms have a suitable setback from the boundaries and adjoining dwellings and the windows are suitably offset to one another. As a result there will be minimal privacy impacts. Overshadowing The proposal is compliant with Council’s sunlight access requirements. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Clifton Gardens townscape. The proposal is consistent with the desired future character objectives in that the proposed development will not result in the significant loss of views, the dwelling is reasonable and comparable to the adjoining development in terms of scale and bulk, the dwelling fits within the established character/ streetscape, the dwelling’s presentation is modulated and articulated so it doesn’t present as a significant bulky building. Swimming Pool The proposed pool is set slightly above natural ground level, approximately 0.5m at its southern end and 0.25m at its northern end. This is reasonable given the difficulty in complying with this requirement because of the sloping nature of the site. There will be minimal amenity impacts (noise/ privacy) because the pool is located some distance from the adjoining dwellings and suitable conditions of consent are to be imposed to ensure minimal noise from associated pool equipment. In addition, setback requirements are more than achieved. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space As the s94 contribution plan does not differentiate between 5+ bedroom dwellings under its occupancy ratio, no contribution is required. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval.


6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer made the following comments: “Permission for the removal of the Liquidamber sp, Plumeria sp and Lagerstroemia sp in the rear yard is granted. Permission for the removal of the Schinus sp and Plumeris sp in the front yard is also granted.” Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 17 February and 4 March 2005 and it attracted 4 submission of objection from the following properties: • 2a St Elmo Street • 4a St Elmo Street; • 1 St Elmo Street; and • 6 Buena Vista Avenue. The application was subject to design changes during the assessment process which led to amended plans being re-advertised from 8 to 22 September 2005. Three submission of objection were received from the following properties: • 2a St Elmo Street; • 4a St Elmo Street; and • 1 St Elmo Street. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

Overshadowing Comment: The proposal meets Council’s minimum 2 hour sunlight access requirement.

The development appears to exceed Council requirements and does not meet a number of objectives of the Mosman Development Control Plan;

Comment: The proposal generally meets Council’s policies where it proposal diverts the applicant has provided suitable justification for the departure as discussed within the report.

Privacy Comment: All living rooms are located at ground floor level. Bedroom and bathroom windows on the upper floor will not give rise to significant privacy impacts having regard to there frequency of daytime use and their siting relative to windows of the adjoining dwellings.

Damage during construction from vibration and impact on the natural ground water flow

Comment: Conditions of consent including the provision of a dilapidation report will be imposed to ensure minimal impacts in this regard. In terms of natural ground water flow a condition for the collection of subsoil flow into the on site detention tank has been included within the recommendation to ensure minimal impacts in this regard.


Excessive scale/bulk Comment: The proposal is compliant with Council’s maximum FSR and minimum landscaped area requirements. The proposal is also compliant with Council’s maximum building height requirement. The variation to the wall height control is reasonable in this instance for the reasons given within the assessment under Section 5.2.1 of this report. The proposal has also reasonable side, rear and front setbacks that reflect the surrounding built form.

Front setback and landscaping of this area Comment: The proposed front building line setback reasonably reflects that along the street and in particular the immediately adjoining development. To minimise the impacts the dwelling (as amended) has been designed with an articulated and modulated façade which also minimises the visual prominence and bulk of the dwelling when viewed from the street. Consequently the proposed front building line setback is reasonable in this instance. The front building line setback has also left reasonable area for landscaping to ensure continuity of streetscape. This is acceptable and supported by Council’s Landscape Designer subject to conditions.

Removal of tree on located on adjoining property (2A St Elmo Street) noted midway along the southern boundary

Comment: This consent does not seek the removal of any trees located on any adjoining properties. The tree referred too which is noted on the site analysis plan for removal is incorrect. An amended plan has been submitted rectifying this mistake. A condition of consent will be imposed to ensure that there are no trees located on adjoining development are removed as part of any approval.

Loss of public view to Ashton Park Comment: There is no significant public view loss along St Elmo Street given that the dwelling has a sufficient front boundary setback generally in line with the immediately adjoining properties. 8.0 CONCLUSION The variation to Council’s maximum wall height control is reasonable in this instance. Other than the height and side boundary setback variation the proposal generally complies with council’s planning controls subject to the reduction in height of the front fence. The development reasonably compliments the streetscape, it will not result in a significant amenity impact and is therefore recommended for approval. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Beecraft Pty Ltd. The owner is AJA Investments Pty Ltd. The estimated value of works is $1,976,927. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected.


MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objection made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standard relating to the maximum 7.2m wall height limit within Clause 13 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 is well founded, and in this case varying the standard to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons:

(a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standard;

(b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the

site, and the context of surrounding development; (c) The areas of non-compliance will not cause significant detrimental impacts on

the adjoining development; (d) Requiring compliance with the standard would unreasonably constrain the

development and the design response.

B. That Development Application No. 8.2005.31.1 be approved subject to the following conditions:

APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION


Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by Drawing 68 Revision B Drawing 68 Revision B Sheet 2

2 December 2003 Beecraft Pty Ltd

Landscape Plan Dwg L1/194 A and L2/194 B

19 December 2003 Environ Design

Survey Plan T -2895/3

18 February 2004 K H Leggelink & Associates Pty Ltd

Document title Date of document Prepared by Statement of Environmental Effects

18 February 2004 Jim Rannard Pty Ltd

Tree Removal 2. Consent is only given for the removal of the five (5) trees noted at 4 St Elmo Street,

Mosman, to be removed. Approval is not given for the removal or trimming of trees located on adjoining properties, except as permitted under Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO).











5. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining property at 2a St Elmo Street which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on that property. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.

Design Changes 6. To ensure minimal streetscape impacts the front fence is to be reduced in height to a

maximum 1.8 metres above the footpath level. Amended plans showing the reduced height of the front fence are to be submitted with the details for the Construction Certificate prior to its release.




Retaining Walls


Soil Drainage 9. Subsoil drainage measures are to be installed behind retaining wall at the rear of the

property to collect sub soil drainage. These drains are to be connected to the On Site Detention tank, Details and location of the subsoil drains are to be supplied by a hydraulic engineer with the application for the Construction Certificate.

Council Property

10. Having regard to hard surface areas proposed, the capacity of the stormwater system and the need to retard the flow of stormwater in peak flow periods, an on-site-detention system shall be provided. Detailed plans shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application and certified as complying with Council’s “Policy For On-Site Stormwater Detention” by a Civil Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field. Where located below a driveway or built structure, the engineer is to certify that the on-site detention system has been designed to withstand all loads likely to be imposed on it.



Sydney Water


BASIX Certificate

13. Where any conditions of this consent affect the commitments specified in the submitted BASIX Certificate, a revised BASIX Certificate is to be prepared to ensure energy efficiency targets are still achieved.

Driveway

14. The internal driveway and parking area shall be designed in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1-2004 and specifications in Council’s “Transport Development Control Plan". Longitudinal sections for both sides of the vehicular crossing and driveway commencing at the centre line of the road carriageway shall be



provided with the Construction Certificate application demonstrating that vehicles will not scrape their undercarriage.

15. To ensure the vehicle crossing is properly completed, the applicant shall complete and pay applicable fees for an application under Mosman Council’s “Construction of Vehicle Crossing By Contract”.

Utility Services


Long Service Levy


Security Deposit

18. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $5,000 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee if Council is not the PCA) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.








(iv) the person benefiting from the consent, if not carrying out the work as an owner-builder, has (by way of completing Form 7C):


• appointed a principal contractor for the building work who must be the holder of a contractor licence if any residential building work is involved; and

• notified the PCA of any such appointment; and • unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal contractor



Home Building Act

20. Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:



Act,

(b) in the case of work to be done by the holder of an owner-builder permit under that Act, the name and permit number of the owner-builder.









22. To limit the potential for damage to the following trees to be retained, the area beneath their canopies must be fenced prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works.

Species Location

Eucapyptus sp Rear boundary Araucaria sp Rear boundary The fencing must extend 2500mm beyond the tree’s trunk, be kept in place until the completion until the completion of building works and be marked by appropriate signage notifying site workers that the tree is to be retained.. The fencing should be a minimum of a 1.8 metres high chainlink or welded mesh fencing. All fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

All areas within the perimeter of the safety fencing shall be covered with woodchip mulch to a depth of 100mm (or where steep grades prevent this, the area shall be protected with suitable material) to facilitate moisture levels. Adequate soil moisture must be maintained during the course of construction works through the implementation of an irrigation program or temporary irrigation system.







25. Public liability insurance to the value of $5,000,000 must be taken out by the builder or owner to protect any person, firm or company from injury, loss or damage sustained as a consequence of the carrying out of site works, including all excavation, demolition and construction works. A copy of the policy must be provided to Council or the Accredited Certifier.






Demolition 27. All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of

Australian Standard 2601-2001: The Demolition of Structures.









Site Work Hours











Council Property


34. Any works carried out to Council owned property or Infrastructure as a result of this consent are to be undertaken in accordance with Council specifications; i.e “Specification For Concrete Kerb & Gutter, Footpaths, Vehicle and Kerb Crossings & Concrete Converters” , “Public Domain Improvement Program”, “Specification For Brick Paving”, “Specification For Stormwater Drainage Construction” or “Specification For Asphalt Pavement Construction”.

Energy Efficiency 35. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with

the commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate.

Drainage

36. Stormwater shall be directed to the street gutter. All drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s “Guidelines For Stormwater Drainage Systems”.

37. Footings adjacent to the drainage easement are either to be founded on bedrock or located below the invert level of Council's stormwater pipeline.

Driveway

38. The levels at the boundary alignment of the property along the St Elmo Street frontage shall be defined by the existing levels.

Swimming Pools & Outdoor Spas

39. For safety reasons, access to the swimming pool must be restricted by fencing or other measures as prescribed by the Swimming Pools Act, 1992. The fencing or measures must be completed before any water is placed in the pool.

40. Any mechanical equipment associated with a pool, spa or water feature shall be located in a sound proof container and positioned so that there is no increase in noise level at any point at the boundary with another property, including a public place.

41. To maintain the visual amenity of the area, devices or structures used for heating swimming pool water must not be placed on the roof of any building where it is visible from a public place.

42. In order to protect night time amenity for surrounding properties, any lighting installed for the pool/spa must avoid glare and light spill onto adjoining recreation spaces, habitable rooms and public places.

43. To ensure the proper disposal of polluted waters and to avoid runoff nuisance for downstream properties, all drainage including any overflow waters associated with the pool, spa or water feature must be pipe drained to the nearest sewer system in


accordance with requirements of Sydney Water. No drainage, including overflow from a pool/spa/feature shall enter Council’s stormwater system.

Fireplaces

44. To minimise air pollution, the solid fuel or wood burning appliance installed shall comply with Australian Standard AS 4013-1999 and Section 128 of the Protection of the Environmental Operations Act 1997. Excepting solid fuel heaters installed in a heritage item, all domestic solid fuel heaters must be equipped with a catalytic reactor.



Tree Preservation


Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans






element; • Prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas; • Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections; • Fire separation if the building is within 900mm of the property boundary prior to

any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; • Smoke alarms prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the

building; • Pool fencing prior to filling the pool with water; and • Final inspection after the building work has been completed and prior to any











52. For safety reasons, a resuscitation chart and warning sign containing information as prescribed by the Swimming Pools Regulation 1998 must be erected within the pool enclosure and shall be maintained in a clearly legible condition.


On-Site Detention

53. A compliance certificate must be submitted to Council which includes work-as-executed details of the on-site detention system prepared by a registered surveyor or Civil Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field, verifying that the required storage and discharge volumes have been constructed in accordance with the design requirements and Council’s “Policy For On-Site Stormwater Detention”. The details must show the invert levels of the on-site detention system as well as the pipe sizes and grades. Any variations to approved plans must be shown in red and supported by calculations.

54. To ensure that future owners are made aware of their responsibilities with respect to the on-site detention system, a positive covenant shall be created on the title of the allotment requiring that the owner(s) maintain and keep in working order the on-site detention system, unless otherwise approved in writing by Mosman Council.

A fee of $110.00 applies (GST-inclusive) for the checking, approval and execution of the Positive Covenant by Council and must accompany the Positive Covenant when lodged with Council. The terms of the positive covenant shall read: i. In this Positive Covenant “detention system” shall mean the detention system

approved by Mosman Municipal Council pursuant to Development Consent No. 8.2005.31.1 or any modification thereof approved by Mosman Municipal Council in writing.

ii. The Registered Proprietors will at their own expense well and sufficiently

maintain and keep in good and substantial repair and working order any detention system which exists from time to time on the land.

iii. The Registered Proprietors shall not remove the detention system without the

prior consent of Mosman Municipal Council. iv. The Registered Proprietors hereby agree to indemnify Mosman Municipal

Council from and against all claims, demands, actions, suits, causes of action, sum or sums of money, compensation damages, costs and expenses which Mosman Municipal Council or any other person may suffer or incur as a result of any malfunction or non-operation of any such detention system arising from any failure of the Registered Proprietors to comply with the terms of this Covenant.

v. The term “Registered Proprietors” shall include the Registered Proprietors of

the land from time to time and all their heirs, executors, assigns and successors in title to the land and where there are two or more registered proprietors of the land the terms of this covenant shall bind all those registered proprietors jointly and severally.

Energy Efficiency

55. To ensure that the development satisfies the NSW Government’s sustainability requirements, a Compliance Certificate/s shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person or persons, certifying that the BASIX commitments selected in the relevant BASIX Certificate have been complied with.


PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







DURING OCCUPATION

The following conditions must be satisfied during occupation or use of the development.

Fireplaces

58. To minimise the propensity for air pollution, solid fuel burnt must only comprise dry, well seasoned, hardwood, excepting kindling in which case softwood may be used. Under no circumstances is the burning of chemically treated fuel to take place.

ADVICE / NOTES
















(x) When private certifiers are registering Part 4A Certificates with Council, it is requested

that plans be lodged in PDF format.

(xi) New and renovated pools greater than 10,000 litres will require a permit from Sydney Water before being filled.

COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS • A4 Plans


EP/299 55A Prince Albert Street DA NUMBER: 8.2005.141.1 PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling house, garage and shed

and the erection of a multiple dwelling development containing 4 units, basement car-parking for nine cars and strata title subdivision.

REPORTING OFFICER: Shaun Garland, Senior Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 6 May 2005 (Downtime 4 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

DP 22238

SP 1962SP 11

SP 10796

B

SP 10495

SP 501

1D DP 397821

DP 510166

SP 1472

SP 2849

SP 2380

23 DP 397821SP 14310

SP 1664

SP 152

SP 46480

12DP 203119 D

P 55

DP

1041

8

DP

723

DP

9179

19

DP 1571

DP 208058

DP 901581

DP

1571

214

1210

11

1

3 27 28

1

2

2

11

1820

1

SP 1

1117DP 1571

8888888888888884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 884 - 8

1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A

1

51

92A92

90909090909090

595959595959595961

635959595959595959595959595959

575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575755

B

7476

78

5555

A

8082

84

88

7 5 3 1

8692

A9

913 11

7

53

8 6 4 2

9

6

QUEEN

HEA

ST

ST PRIN

CE

ALBE

RT

STR

EET

MILNER


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application involves the demolition of an existing single dwelling house, garage and metal shed, construction of a multiple dwelling consisting of 4 units and basement carpark for 9 vehicles and strata subdivision thereof. The development is three storeys plus a basement level. There were 4 submissions of objection received. The proposal exceeds the maximum wall and 2 storey height limits. Originally it exceeded Council’s maximum FSR control, however the proposal was amended to ensure compliance. The variation to the wall and number of storey limits is acceptable as the development meets the control’s stated objectives. The development fits within the context of the locality. Where the proposal varies from the controls, it has been demonstrated that the development meets the underlying objectives. Therefore it is recommended that the application be approved.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the eastern side of Prince Albert Street, between Milner Street to the north and Queen Street to the south. The site is slightly irregular in shape with a frontage of 15.24m to Prince Albert Street. The site falls 8.24m to the street frontage at an average gradient of 13.6%. Located towards the rear of the site is a rock outcrop and wall approximately 2.5m high. The site presently contains a two storey dwelling house, sandstone garage and metal shed. There are a number of trees that litter the site. Surrounding development includes the Warringah Bowling Club to the rear and a mixture of multiple dwellings and single dwelling houses. These developments vary in size, scale, design and age. The immediately adjoining multiple dwelling development is four storeys in height including car parking at the ground floor. 2.0 BACKGROUND A preliminary assessment of the application was undertaken and various issues were raised which related to non compliance with Council’s FSR and discrepancy between Council’s and the applicant’s calculation of landscaped area. Other points raised were crime prevention/ security, provision of residential infrastructure (mail boxes, air conditioning units, etc), overshadowing and disabled access. The applicant has since amended the proposal and reduced the FSR to comply with Council’s maximum requirement, shown that the proposed landscaped area and overshadowing is compliant and provided information in relation to infrastructure. The applicant has also put forward a response to disabled access, which is discussed in detail under Section 5.3.1 of this report.


3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of demolition of the existing dwelling house, garage and metal shed and the construction of a 4 level multiple dwelling development over basement parking for 9 cars. The development contains four (4) apartments, each with three bedrooms and terrace areas. Apartments 2-4 have access via a lift while apartment 1 is level with the basement carpark. Strata title subdivision is also proposed. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 2 and 7. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design of Residential Flat Development • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Transport Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area 700m2 863.3m2 Yes



Number of Storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys + basement No (SEPP 1)

Gross Floor Area 604.2m2 N/A


Landscaped Area 345.3m2 364.4m2 Yes


DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks

Basement/ Lower ground – south Upper Ground floor – south First floor – south Second floor – south Basement – north Ground floor – north First floor – north Second floor – north

2m 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m 2m 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m

0.5m – 2.4m 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m 0.4m – 1.6m 2.0m – 3.0m 3.0m – 4.1m 3.0m - 4.1m

No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Height Plane 45o from ground level along southern boundary

70 0 No

Parking

Resident Visitor Total Car Wash Bay Bicycle

8 spaces 1 space 9 spaces 1 space 1 space

Not specified Not specified 9 spaces 1 space 0 spaces

N/A N/A Yes Yes Capable

Fencing Height 1.2 / 1.8 m 1.5m No



>2 hours Yes

Energy Efficiency 3.5 stars 3.5 stars Yes 5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards There is a variation to cl.13 maximum wall and two (2) storey height limits. The variations are noted within the Compliance Table. A SEPP 1 objection has been lodged for these variations. The following is an extract from the SEPP 1 Objection to these standards: “The departure from the wall height and two storey height standard will not impact on existing public and private views. The site and the proposed development is not visible from the harbour and foreshore areas and the site is not located in a foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed development will be compatible with existing buildings in the locality in terms of its height and roof form, noting that the site is located in an established medium density Residential 2(d) zone. The visible bulk and scale of the building is acceptable and is minimised by limiting the front portion of the building near the street to single storey and containing part of that level in a semi basement, lower ground level. There is diversity in terms of the height, size and form of the roofs of the surrounding development in this locality. They include a variety of pitched tile roofs and flat metal and concrete roofs. When viewed from the street and various vantage points in the area the pitched roofs of the adjacent residential flat buildings are not discernible and these buildings do not have a contributing roof form because of the angle of view from the street and the height and elevated position of the buildings on their respective sites. An example of this is


demonstrated in the photographs on pages 5 and 6 of the Statement of Environmental Effects because both the residential flat buildings at 55 and 53 Prince Albert Street have pitched roofs. A flat roof as proposed is therefore not out of character or inconsistent with the predominant form of the development in the locality. The dwelling houses opposite the site have a different form and scale. This is indicative of their particular context in the 2(a1) Residential zone, the permissible and predominant development type is that of single storey and two storey dwelling houses. The proposed development will be sited in a similar location to the existing dwelling house that is considered to be the appropriate location on the site in consideration of the topography and the relationship to the adjoining dwelling house at 55B Prince Albert Street. The retention of the existing English Oak tree and the Brush Box street trees also assist to minimise the effects of bulk and scale. As shown in the photomontages submitted with the application, the new building will be hardly visible from the street. For the reasons outlined the proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the height standard.” Comment: General concurrence is given to the above. Although there is an increase in the overshadowing to 55 Prince Albert Street, the proposal remains compliant with Council’s minimum solar access requirements. The objectives of the standard are met and the proposal is not inconsistent with the existing and surrounding built form, in particular 53 and 55 Prince Albert Street with each containing four storey multiple dwellings. The proposed development will provide a reasonable transition between the height of the single dwelling house adjoining to the north and the multiple dwelling to the south (55 Prince Albert Street). The proposed dwelling is in fact 1.79m lower in height than 55 Prince Albert Street even though the general fall of the street is to the south and places the subject site higher. The impacts have also been minimised by the proposal’s compliance with Council’s maximum height limit and the increasing front boundary setback between the basement/ lower ground floor and ground and first floor levels of the building. These design features in addition with the established trees that filter views to this site from the street minimise to a satisfactory level the impacts of the bulk of the development. In the circumstances, strict compliance with the standards is unnecessary. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat

Development The applicant has provided a design verification statement in accordance with this policy. As discussed within this submission the proposal is consistent with Part 2 Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65. Concurrence is given to this Statement. The proposal generally complies with Council’s planning policies and where it diverts suitable justification has been offered for the departure. The design is sympathetic, appropriate materials have been chosen for its finish and established vegetation ensures minimal detrimental visual impacts. Consequently, the proposal is supported for these reasons and those given throughout this report.


5.2.3 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(d) Residential. The development is defined as multiple dwellings and is permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies the zone objectives. It provides an additional housing type within a mixed single and multiple dwelling residential area. The proposal exceeds the minimum landscaped area requirement and will maintain some established trees, the development is compliant with the maximum FSR control, is compatible in height, each unit is adaptable and accessible and there will be minimal amenity impacts associated with the development. Subdivision This control primarily relates to the subdivision land and relationship to the overall lot size and not strata subdivision. The lot size although not being altered is compliant with the minimum area required under cl.12 of MLEP 1998. The strata subdivision of the development is reasonable given the nature of the development. Height The development complies with the maximum height control but not the maximum number of storeys or wall height. These issues have been discussed above under Section 5.2.1 of this report. Although varying these standards the development is acceptable given that it meets the underlying objectives to the standards. Floorspace Ratio The proposal is compliant with Council’s maximum FSR requirement. The bulk of the development is comparable to the adjoining development and will have minimal impacts given the front setback of the floor levels, screening from the established surrounding vegetation and because of its compliance with the maximum building height limit. Landscaped Area The proposal is compliant with Council’s minimum landscape area requirement. Four (4) trees are proposed to be removed. Council’s Landscape Advisor has not objected to this subject to conditions which includes the planting of replacement trees. The applicant intends to retain some mature trees that will minimise the visual impact of the development when viewed from the street. There is sufficient ground level open space for recreation, landscaping and for the containment of rainwater runoff. There is significant excavation of the site but this is reasonable for the reasons given below within Section 5.3.1 of this report. Excavation The excavation for the basement will accommodate 9 parking spaces, lift access, garbage and store areas. This level will also provide access into apartment 1. Excavation is only required for the approximately ¾ of the length of this level of the development because of the site’s slope. The owner of 55B Prince Albert Street has raised concern that the proposed excavation could impact on the dwelling. Excavation for the basement is to a depth of approximately 4 metres and reduces towards the street front of the site. The excavation is setback approximately 400mm for a length of 4 metres before increasing to a maximum setback of 1.6 metres along its northern boundary. Along the southern boundary the excavation is


setback approximately 500mm and increases to a maximum of 2.4 metres. The excavation is required to ensure appropriate parking and access within the basement. A geotechnical assessment in relation to this excavation has been forwarded. The report provides some recommendations during excavation, in particular the use of hand held jack hammers where close to the adjoining properties. It is recommended that conditions be imposed including a requirement to provide a dilapidation report for the adjoining property at 55B Prince Albert Street. This along with the other recommended conditions from Council’s Development Engineer will ensure minimal impacts in this regard. The proposed excavation is acceptable in this instance as it is confined for the most part to the building footprint. Providing parking at the natural ground level may lead to unsightly visual impacts. The basement level will also contain the garbage store which also often creates a detrimental visual impact. The objectives of this clause will be met by the implementation of conditions of consent to restrict soil erosion, sedimentation and drainage requirements. Heritage The site is located within the Bradleys Head Road Conservation Area and is within proximity to 74 Prince Albert Street which is a heritage item (dwelling house). The proposal is consistent with the provisions cl.32 and 37 of MLEP 1998. The proposal will maintain the heritage conservation values of the area and will not detract from the significance of the item. Council’s Heritage Advisor has not raised objection to the development proceeding. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The southern side setbacks for the building comply as do the first and second floors on the northern side. Variation to the northern ground floor setback is acceptable in this instance because the development is consistent with the streetscape, there is sufficient spatial relief between the subject site and adjoining, there are minimal overshadowing impacts, the development is of a height and scale that is comparable and compatible to the surrounding development and the privacy of the adjoining properties is preserved. With regard to basement setbacks, the structural stability of 55B Prince Albert Street will be maintained via appropriate conditions of consent. The proposal is not compliant with the 45o height plane. Given that the objectives of this control are to preserve privacy and minimise overshadowing impacts and the proposal is satisfactory in this regard, the non compliance with the height plane is acceptable. Views There will not be significant view loss to existing public or private views. This is supported by the fact that there were no objections in relation to view loss. Landscaping Council’s Landscape Architect is supportive of the proposal subject to conditions of consent.


Streetscape and Building Design The proposal reasonably compliments the streetscape given the increasing front setbacks of the various levels of the building, compliant building height, FSR and minimum landscape area and retention of the established tree located at the front of the site. The street tree also assists in this regard. The front fence is to be maintained and extended with recycled material from the garage. This will compliment the street and development and will reflect the height of adjoining fences along this section of Prince Albert Street. The materials chosen for construction are reasonable and are sympathetic within the site’s context . The lift overrun has been appropriately concealed from view. Privacy The minimal number, size and location of windows along the northern and southern elevations have minimised privacy impacts in addition to their reasonable setbacks from the boundaries. Further, the windows into rooms such as living rooms are highlight windows set approximately 1.8m above the floor level. The balconies and terraces have appropriate screening or they are sufficiently setback from private open space and windows of adjoining development. Overshadowing The proposed development meets Council’s sunlight access requirements. There is an increase of overshadowing to the northern courtyard of 55 Prince Albert Street, however a portion of this area will receive sunlight access throughout the day during the winter solstice. The northern facing windows of this building will receive a minimum of 2 hours sunlight access. Multiple Dwellings: Design The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Section 5.5 of the RDCP. The development respects the context, provides suitable landscaping, has reasonable depth or ventilation to each of the apartments, there is no reasonable alternative to its orientation, it achieves energy efficiency targets, the balconies/ terraces have reasonable depth, suitable storage has been provided, there is reasonable daylight access, the ceiling heights of 2.8m are reasonable and the design is acceptable, as discussed under SEPP 65 assessment. The proposal does not provide a dwelling mix with all the units having 3 bedrooms. This is reasonable given that there is only a small number of units. The main open space area has been allocated to apartment 2, however each of the apartments have a reasonable sized terrace areas which can provide similar and more accessible/ usable ‘open space’ amenity than would the development if access were only provided to the rear of the site. Privacy and Security and Crime Prevention The development has reasonable privacy and security. The orientation of the building has provided reasonable passive surveillance. Security grilling for the entrance gate and intercom systems are to be used including the access into the garage. Lighting is to be provided for the access path and there are no shared walls. The use of the security gates, intercoms and passive surveillance assist in meeting crime prevention objectives. The intention of the applicant is also to provide open grill system for the gates and garage door to also assist in with sight lines for surveillance. The proposal is satisfactory in this regard.


Site Facilities Suitable site facilities are to be provided, letter boxes are to be provided to the front entrance area which can be viewed from a number of the apartments, there is a common drying area, air conditioning units are suitably located within confines of each apartment area and there are suitable internal storage and garbage storage areas. Accessibility and Adaptable Housing Each apartment is accessible from the basement via the lift and has only one level. Consequently all apartments are adaptable and accessible. There is also a parking space that has suitable width for disabled parking. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Raglan Sirius Bradley townscape. The proposal is consistent with the desired future character objectives for the reasons given within this report. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The TDCP prescribes 9 parking spaces to be provided. The proposal is complies with this provision with one space being usable for disabled parking. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space The application involves 4 x 3 bedroom multiple dwellings replacing a 4 bedroom dwelling house, necessitating a section 94 contribution of $20,627.76. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Heritage Advisor made the following comments: “The proposal is sufficiently remote from 74 Prince Albert Street to have no significant heritage impact on the Item. No. 55 has been identified in the post-war housing study as an example of the work of well known architect McGadie and Richardson. The heritage assessment indicates that on a comparative basis the house is an “undistinguished example” and that demolition is acceptable. I tend to agree with this assessment. I recommend full architectural recoding for lodgement in Local Studies as a condition of approval.” Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 24 May 2005 and 8 June 2005. Five submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties:


• 11/59 Prince Albert Street; • 55B Prince Albert Street; • 8/59 Prince Albert Street; • 5/59 Prince Albert Street; and • Illegible details Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

The development exceeds FSR, wall height and number of storeys Comment: The proposal has been modified to comply with the FSR limit. The non compliances with wall height and number of storeys are acceptable for reasons given within this report.

A number of trees are being removed Comment: The removal of the trees is acceptable, given the reasonable nature of the development and replacement planting to be provided. This is supported by Council’s Landscape Designer.

The development is close to the front boundary Comment: It would be unreasonable to require a setback equal or similar to that of 53 Prince Albert Street which is not consistent with the streetscape, particularly its overall design. The landscaping in the front section of the development, the setback of the lower and upper levels of the building also ensures acceptable streetscape impacts. If the development were required to be setback further this would result in further excavation of the site and is likely to result in detrimental overshadowing to 53 Prince Albert Street. In addition the façade of the apartment 1 matches the front setback of 55B Prince Albert Street providing setback continuity.

The 4 level density of apartments is not in keeping with other apartment buildings in the street

Comment: The bulk, scale and height of the development is in keeping with the relevant planning controls as discussed within the assessment. It is also comparable and has less bulk and scale than 53 or 55 Prince Albert Street and 1 Queen Street. The numerical difference between three and four levels of ‘living’ space is inconsequential in this instance given that the objectives of the control seek to provide for comparable bulk and scale of development.

There will be a greater impact on street parking Comment: The proposal meets Council’s minimum parking requirements including visitor spaces. As such, impacts should be reasonable.

Damage from excavation for 55B Prince Albert Street Comment: Protection of adjoining development during the construction process will be via standard conditions of consent including appropriate dilapidation reports. Construction Certificate plans will be certified by a Structural Engineer. In addition, geotechnical analysis is required for the excavation.

Overshadowing for 55 Prince Albert Street and the bowling green


Comment: The proposal meets Council’s sunlight access requirements.

The property has already been subdivided Comment: This is an irrelevant issue for the assessment of the proposed development.

Noise from the units Comment: Noise emanating from the development will be within reasonable expectations for a medium-high residential density. The air conditioning units have been suitably located to minimise impacts to adjoining properties. A condition of consent will be imposed on the development consent to ensure reasonable noise impacts during construction. 8.0 CONCLUSION Although there are some variations to Council’s policies these departures are acceptable for the reasons discussed within the report. The bulk, scale and height of the development is comparable and compatible to the adjoining and surrounding development. There will be minimal streetscape or amenity impacts. Approval is recommended. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Mr David Rahme. Glenndinning Ward Riddell and Karen Lee Riddell are the owners. The estimated value of works is $2.496 million. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objection made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standard relating to the maximum wall height and two storey limit within Clause 13 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 is well founded, and in this case varying the standard to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons: (a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standard; (b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the


the adjoining development; and (d) Requiring compliance with the standard would unreasonably constrain the

development and the design response.





Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by DA01 B, DA02 C,DA03 B, DA04 B, DA05 B, DA06 B,DA07 B

14 September 2005 SDA International Pty Ltd

Landscape Plan L01

20 April 2005 Ray Fuggle & Associates Pty Ltd

Survey Plan Reference 1790DET – B

2 November 2004 Usher & Company Pty Ltd


April 2005 Longitude Planning Pty Ltd

Heritage Assessment

March 2005 Susan O’Neill Architecture and Conservation

Report; Arboricultural Assessment Comprehensive

16 March 2005 Urban Tree Management

Geotechnical Investigation

24 March 2005 Michael Adler & Associates Consulting Geotechnical Engineers











4. The applicant shall supply Council with dilapidation reports for the adjoining properties at 55 and 55B Prince Albert Street which document and photograph the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.

Photographic Heritage Record

5. An archival recording of the building elements to be demolished must be completed by a Heritage Consultant listed with the NSW Heritage Office. One copy is to be provided to Council and two copies are to be deposited with the Local Studies section of Mosman Municipal Library. The recording must include:

• a site plan at a scale of 1:200 showing all structures and major landscape elements including their relationship to the street and adjoining properties;

• floor plans at a scale of 1:100; • mounted and labelled postcard sized coloured photographs that are cross-

referenced in accordance with recognised archival recording practice for each of the following: - each building elevation; - each structure and landscape feature and significant parts of the property -- as defined in the statement of significance; - views to the property from each adjoining street, laneway or public

space; and - external and internal details as nominated in the report by the heritage

consultant.



7. A report shall be prepared by a practicing Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to Council or the Accredited Certifier detailing the structural condition of adjoining structures / property and their ability to withstand the proposed excavation, backfilling and construction. The report must investigate site and soil conditions and outline any recommended measures to ensure that no damage will occur to the structures / property during or subsequent to the carrying out of works.

Retaining Walls


Drainage

9. To ensure drainage connection/s are properly completed, the applicant shall complete an “Application to Connect to Council’s Stormwater Pipelines or Gully Pits” and or a “Road Opening Permit” and pay the applicable fees prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Both forms are available from Council.


10. To prevent constant flows of water in private property, Council’s street gutters or across Council’s roads, any sub-soil drainage disposal system to be installed on this site must be connected directly to a Council gully pit or pipe. If a suitable gully pit or pipe is not located near the subject property, an alternate method of disposal must be submitted to Council and approved.

Council Property

11. Having regard to hard surface areas proposed, the capacity of the stormwater system and the need to retard the flow of stormwater in peak flow periods, an on-site-detention system shall be provided. Detailed plans shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application and certified as complying with Council’s “Policy For On-Site Stormwater Detention” by a Civil Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field. Where located below a driveway or built structure, the engineer is to certify that the on-site detention system has been designed to withstand all loads likely to be imposed on it.

Sydney Water


Driveway 13. The internal driveway and parking area shall be designed in accordance with

Australian Standard 2890.1 – 2004 and specifications in Council’s “Transport Development Control Plan”. Longitudinal sections for both sides of the vehicular crossing and driveway commencing at the centre line of the road carriageway shall be provided with the Construction Certificate application demonstrating that vehicles will not scrape their undercarriage.


Utility Services


Landscape Maintenance Strategy

16. To ensure the survival of landscaping following works, a landscape maintenance strategy for the owner/occupier to administer over a 12 month establishment period following the issue of the Occupation Certificate shall be prepared and provided to Council’s or the Accredited Certifier’s satisfaction with the Construction Certificate Application. The strategy is to address maintenance issues such as plant survival, irrigation, soil testing, weeding, plant staking, fertilising, pest and disease control, replanting, remedial pruning and the like.



Fire Safety

17. To enable the issuing of a fire safety schedule, information required by clause 168 (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

Long Service Levy


Security Deposit

19. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $5,000 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee if Council is not the PCA) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.

20. To encourage works to be undertaken in an appropriate manner such that significant trees are preserved, a cash deposit or bank guarantee for $15,000 shall be lodged with Council for the following tree:

Species Location

Quercus sp T3 – Front Yard

The security deposit will not be released until Council has inspected the tree upon request (and no earlier than 12 months after the release of the Occupation Certificate) and is satisfied that the tree is in a sound and healthy condition.

Section 94 Contribution

21. Pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, a monetary contribution of $20,627.76 towards the acquisition and embellishment of public open space shall be paid to Council.

This condition is imposed under Mosman Municipal Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan. The Plan may be inspected at Council’s offices within the Civic Centre, Mosman Square, Mosman.

Note: Contribution rates will be indexed by use of the Consumer Price Index and the actual amount to be paid will be determined at the date of payment. You may contact Council on 9978 4111 prior to payment to confirm current figures.













Home Building Act














25. To limit the potential for damage to the following trees to be retained, the area beneath its canopy must be fenced prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works.

Species Location

Quercus sp T3 – Front yard

The fencing must extend 2500mm beyond the tree’s trunk, be kept in place until the completion until the completion of building works and be marked by appropriate signage notifying site workers that the tree is to be retained.. The fencing should be a minimum of a 1.8 metres high chainlink or welded mesh fencing. All fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

All areas within the perimeter of the safety fencing shall be covered with woodchip mulch to a depth of 100mm (or where steep grades prevent this, the area shall be protected with suitable material) to facilitate moisture levels. Adequate soil moisture must be maintained during the course of construction works through the implementation of an irrigation program or temporary irrigation system.

Trunk Protection

26. To limit the potential for damage to trees to be retained, trunk protection measures must be installed for the following tree (s):

Species Location

Lophostemon sp x 2 T1 & T2 – Nature Strip

Trunk protection shall comprise the placement of 2.0 metre lengths of 100mm x 50mm hardwood battens spaced at 150mm centres around the trunk and secured in place by metal strap bindings or 10 gauge fencing wire fixed at 300mm centres. Prior to placing battens, a soft protective padding must be installed to the ends of timbers to prevent damage to bark and conducting tissue. Trunk protection must remain in place for the duration of site works.













Demolition

31. All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard 2601-2001: The Demolition of Structures.










Site Work Hours










Council Property


38. Any works carried out to Council owned property or Infrastructure as a result of this consent are to be undertaken in accordance with Council specifications; i.e “Specification For Concrete Kerb & Gutter, Footpaths, Vehicle and Kerb Crossings & Concrete Converters” , “Public Domain Improvement Program”, “Specification For Brick Paving”, “Specification For Stormwater Drainage Construction” or “Specification For Asphalt Pavement Construction”.


Driveway

39. The redundant driveway shall be reinstated with kerb, footpath and suitably landscaped. Materials must be in accordance with Mosman Council’s “Specification For Concrete Kerb & Gutter, Footpaths, Vehicle and Kerb Crossings & Concrete Converters”.

40. The levels at the boundary alignment of the property along the Prince Albert Street frontage shall be defined by the existing levels.



42. To minimise disturbance to retained trees, no excavation shall take place within the critical root zone, measured as a radius from the trunk of the tree. Excavation may occur between the critical and primary root zones but only by hand under the supervision of an experienced arborist or tree surgeon.

Species Location Critical Root Zone

Primary Root Zone

Lophostemon sp x 2

T1 & T2- Nature Strip

2000mm 4000mm

Quercus sp T3 – Front Yard 2500mm 5000mm Acmena sp T5 – Neighbours

property south side 2000mm 4000mm

In the event that major structural or feeder roots are encountered between the critical and primary root zones, the arborist is to recommend and or implement appropriate measures to ensure the retention of the tree. If these measures involve structural alterations to the building or work, such measures must be certified by a practicing Structural Engineer that the modified plans/details comply with the relevant Building Code of Australia and/or Australian Standards. (Note: Council’s Tree Management Officer may be contacted for advice regarding appropriate tree protection measures).

Arborist Inspections

43. The applicant must engage a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (Australian Qualification Framework level 5 or above) to assess the impact of the proposed works and employ best practices (e.g. minimise compaction, soil build up and or excavation within primary root zones*) to ensure the longevity of trees to be retained. The arborist is to attend on site during critical stages of excavation and construction works within the vicinity of trees to be retained and is to record the following information;

• the methods of excavation or construction used to carry out works; • any damage sustained by the tree/s as a result of the works; • any subsequent remedial works required to be carried out by the arborist as a

result of the damage; and • any future or ongoing remedial work required to be carried out to ensure the long

term viability of the tree/s. *primary root zone = 10 x Trunk diametre 1400mm from ground level (measured as a radius from the trunk)


Tree Preservation


Water Conservation

45. To minimise domestic water consumption, water conservation devices with an AAA rating must be used, including low flow tap and shower head roses, dual flush toilets and six litre/minute flow regulators in all bathroom basins, kitchen and laundry sinks.

Energy Efficiency

46. To promote energy efficiency all hot water system/s installed must have a minimum rating of 3.5 stars.

Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans




• At the commencement of the building work; • After excavation for, and prior to the placement of, any footings; • Prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element; • Prior to covering of framework for any floor, wall, roof or other building element;


• Prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas for a minimum of 20% of the rooms with wet areas within a building;

• Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections; • Sound insulation prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the

building; • Smoke alarms prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the

building; • Mechanical ventilation where mechanical means for ventilating a room is required

prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; • Access and mobility if disabled parking is provided prior to any occupation

certificate being issued in relation to the building; and • Final inspection after the building work has been completed prior to any


PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions must be satisfied prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate.

Subdivision

51. A Subdivision Certificate under Section 109C 1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 must be obtained prior to the registration of plans under the Conveyancing Act 1919. All conditions of the development consent must be completed prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate.

Car Parking

52. Parking spaces shall be line marked and allocated to units. Allocation shall be in accordance with this consent and provision requirements of Council’s “Transport Development Control Plan”. All visitor and disabled parking spaces must be included in common property.










Bicycle Parking

54. To encourage and promote the use of sustainable transport modes, secure bicycle parking/storage must be provided to accommodate one bicycle. The facility must be provided in a suitable location which allows safe and easy access and should be designed and installed in accordance with AS 2890.3-2004 – Parking Facilities – Bicycle Parking Facilities.

Sydney Water

55. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorized Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the website www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under “Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

Following application, a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer infrastructure can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate as applicable or whichever may occur first.

A copy of any Trade Waste Agreement required by Sydney Water shall be submitted to Council prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate.

Fire Safety

56. A final fire safety certificate prepared in accordance with Part 9 Division 4 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 must be issued by the owner. Copies of both the final fire safety certificate and the fire safety schedule must be (1) supplied to Council, (2) forwarded to the Fire Commissioner and (3) prominently displayed in the building.

On-Site Detention

57. A compliance certificate must be submitted to Council which includes work-as-executed details of the on-site detention system prepared by a registered surveyor or Civil Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field, verifying that the required storage and discharge volumes have been constructed in accordance with the design requirements and


Council’s “Policy For On-Site Stormwater Detention”. The details must show the invert levels of the on-site detention system as well as the pipe sizes and grades. Any variations to approved plans must be shown in red and supported by calculations.

58. To ensure that future owners are made aware of their responsibilities with respect to the on-site detention system, a positive covenant shall be created on the title of the allotment requiring that the owner(s) maintain and keep in working order the on-site detention system, unless otherwise approved in writing by Mosman Council.

A fee of $110.00 applies (GST-inclusive) for the checking, approval and execution of the Positive Covenant by Council and must accompany the Positive Covenant when lodged with Council. The terms of the positive covenant shall read: vi. In this Positive Covenant “detention system” shall mean the detention system

approved by Mosman Municipal Council pursuant to Development Consent No. 8.2005.141.1 or any modification thereof approved by Mosman Municipal Council in writing.

vii. The Registered Proprietors will at their own expense well and sufficiently

maintain and keep in good and substantial repair and working order any detention system which exists from time to time on the land.

viii. The Registered Proprietors shall not remove the detention system without the

prior consent of Mosman Municipal Council. ix. The Registered Proprietors hereby agree to indemnify Mosman Municipal

Council from and against all claims, demands, actions, suits, causes of action, sum or sums of money, compensation damages, costs and expenses which Mosman Municipal Council or any other person may suffer or incur as a result of any malfunction or non-operation of any such detention system arising from any failure of the Registered Proprietors to comply with the terms of this Covenant.

x. The term “Registered Proprietors” shall include the Registered Proprietors of

the land from time to time and all their heirs, executors, assigns and successors in title to the land and where there are two or more registered proprietors of the land the terms of this covenant shall bind all those registered proprietors jointly and severally.

Landscape Completion

59. To ensure landscaping works are properly completed, the landscape designer shall provide a compliance certificate to the Principal Certifying Authority certifying that landscaping has been implemented in accordance with the approved landscape plan. Where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of the certificate must be provided for Council’s records.

Follow-up Arborist’s Report

60. As part of the ongoing assessment of the trees to be retained, the arborist engaged by the applicant is to assess their health and any impacts suffered by them as a result of the proposed approved development. Findings are to be compiled in a detailed report to be provided to Council at the completion of construction and prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate which documents the following;


• the methods of excavation or construction used to carry out works; • any damage sustained by the tree/s as a result of the works; • any subsequent remedial works required to be carried out by the arborist as a

result of the damage; and • any future or on-going remedial work required to be carried out to ensure the long

term viability of the tree/s.

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







DURING OCCUPATION


Landscape Maintenance Strategy

63. To ensure the survival of landscaping following work, the owner occupier is to implement the landscape maintenance strategy submitted with the Construction Certificate Application for a 12 month period following the release of the Occupation Certificate.

Noxious Weeds

64. To prevent the spread of undesirable and invasive species and to ensure the preservation of urban bushland, all noxious weeds shall be removed and continually suppressed. A list of noxious weeds may be obtained from Council or viewed on its web site at http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au and then under “Environment” and “Trees and Weeds”.

Fire Safety

65. An annual fire safety statement (and where necessary supplementary fire safety statements) prepared in accordance with Part 9 Division 5 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 must be issued by the owner. Copies of each of the annual final fire safety statement, supplementary fire safety statements and the fire safety schedule must be (1) supplied to Council, (2) forwarded to the Fire Commissioner and (3) prominently displayed in the building.

http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/


66. Fire safety measures provided within the building must be maintained in good working order.

ADVICE / NOTES

















COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS • A4 Plans • Tree Location Plan


EP/300 22 David Street DA NUMBER: 8.2005.215.1 PROPOSAL: Demolition of an existing dwelling and erection of a new

dwelling, swimming pool and front fence REPORTING OFFICER: Shivesh Singh, Assessment Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 21 June 2005 (Downtime 21 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

42

45 44 43

DP 6294

3

11

49

27 26

47

2

B

79

DP 2395

3

1210

1 5

546

8

D

DP

50 DP

46

25 2

48

23 21121 20

A

1

DP 307565

DP 957773

12

3

P 23

95

A

5B

2

1

3

2

DP

3030

929

10

502

4

426

11

12

7

19A

23 2321

16

26 24 22 20 1814

91111

A

29

36 34

27

32

25

35

40

33

38

31

1416

1822

2420

28

1012

9

21 19 17 1513

35

30

42

37

2321A

2628 DAVID

KARDINIA

BUR

RAW

ON

G

AV

E

STREET

ROAD


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application is made for the demolition of all structures on 22 David Street and the erection of a new two storey dwelling with a garage located in the basement level, new front fence/wall, new swimming pool and soft landscaping. The principal issues for consideration are the height of the front fence (conditioned to comply), the proposal for a roof terrace (conditioned to be deleted) and the flat roof design. Despite minor variations to setbacks and landscaped areas, there are no substantial amenity impacts for neighbours that would warrant refusal. Although the flat roof fails to reflect the pitched roof form of its immediate neighbours, there are a number of flat roofs in the wider locality and overall, its contemporary design will fit with the dwelling and does not warrant refusal.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the southern side of David Street, between Burrawong Avenue and Morella Road. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 15.24m to David Street. The site falls 1.65m to the rear at an average gradient of 3.3%. The site presently contains a single storey brick residence with a garage on the rear boundary. Surrounding development consists of single and double storey detached dwellings. 2.0 BACKGROUND Nil. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: • Demolition of the existing front fence and construction of a new front fence. The fence

has a rendered and painted base and like pillars with horizontal timber battens between the pillars. The fence’s height varies from 1.3m to 1.76m.

• Demolition of the existing residence and garage; • Construction of a new two storey residence with a garage located in a basement level

below the building; and • Demolition of paved areas and construction of a new swimming pool and landscaping. Concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993 for connection to a Council drain and the relocation of the driveway crossover of kerb and footpath. Approval of these matters will be deferred for separate consideration as per conditions from Council’s Development Engineer. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 1a.


4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and

Tributaries • State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Transport Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area 700m² 766.4m2 Yes



Number of Storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys No (SEPP 1)

Gross Floor Area 376m2 N/A


Landscaped Area 360.2m2 327.6m2(-9.1%) No DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks

Basement - east

Ground floor - west

First floor - west

Ground floor - east

First floor - east

Swimming Pool – east

2m

1.5m

1.5m

1.5m

1.5m - 3m

2m

1.610m

1.5m

1.5m

1.610m

1.610m

500mm

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Parking

Garage / carport width

Merit

6m

2 spaces

6m

Yes

Yes

Fencing height 1.2m 1.755m No


2 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm

>2 hours Yes


DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

BASIX Certificate Water – 40%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 25%

Water – 44%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 27%

Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection against Clause 13 of the MLEP 1998. The applicant asserts that the building presently exceeds the maximum height requirements and the minimum number of storeys. The objectives of Clause 13 are to: • Protect public and private views; • Minimise the visual impact of buildings when viewed from the harbour and surrounding

foreshores; • To ensure buildings resulting from new development are compatible with existing

buildings in terms of height and pitched roof form; and • To minimize the effects of bulk and scale of buildings arising from new development in

existing residential areas. In support of the SEPP 1 objection, the applicant states that: • The non-compliance with the proposal occurs at the south-eastern corner of the first

floor en-suite area. It is not possible to reduce this height as a result of the applicant attempting to align the horizontal façade elements at the street level with the adjoining properties (20 and 24 David Street). The applicant claims that to lower the wall height would result in a negative impact on the streetscape.

• The proposed underground garage adds quality to the streetscape by being inconspicuously located below ground level. A garage located to the front of the property will have a negative impact on the streetscape.

• The proposed roof contributes to the appearance of the building through the proposed material and the clean strong lines. To comply with the height controls will have a detrimental impact to the amenity of the upper level, roof design and the appearance of the building.

• While there is a small non-compliance in wall height (270mm) on the eastern boundary, the majority of the building’s bulk will be setback from this boundary.

With respect to the two storey height limit the applicant states that: • The non-compliance occurs at the top of the central stairwell where the stairwell

accesses the roof terrace above bedroom two. This upper most landing creates the three storey element.

• The vertical form of the stairwell is an important vertical element in a horizontal configured building and needs to be retained for a successful composition.

• The stairwell provides amenity to the building which is essential to the building’s function. This provides light and ventilation which is essential to the buildings function.

• The subject area is in the centre of the site, well setback from all boundaries and is under the overall 8.5 metre height limit.


In terms of the objectives of the LEP the applicant states that: • The public and private views are not affected by these non-compliances. The non-

compliant areas of the building if possibly viewed from the harbour and foreshore would read as a simple homogenous element of the design. The non-compliances would not adversely affect the visual impact from these surrounding areas.

• The small non-compliances will not have an effect on the buildings compatibility with its neighbours in terms of height and proportional relationships.

• Whilst the new building will be larger than the existing building, it will be of a similar size to that of its neighbours and other houses in the street.

• There will be a minor effect on the shadow cast on adjoining properties as a result of the non-compliances.

The proposal does not comply with Council’s wall height requirement by 270mm. The applicant claims that the non-compliances contribute to the overall form of the building. They meet Council’s objectives and do not adversely affect the neighbouring properties in terms of view loss or over-shadowing. The proposal complies with the objectives of Clause 13. This proposal is compatible with existing buildings in respect of height however not with regard to the pitched roof form objective. There are several flat roofs in the street and the proposed flat roof form will have a low impact on the streetscape. Compliance with this objective is not necessary in this instance. The proposed works will not affect public and private views. There will be no adverse visual impact when viewed from the harbour and surrounding foreshores. Also, the existing residential area will not be adversely affected by the proposed works as the bulk and scale is within the visual scale presentation of the residence to the streetscape. Thus, the variation to Clause 13 is acceptable and the SEPP 1 objection is adequately founded in this regard. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and

Tributaries The proposal generally maintains the appearance from the harbour and is satisfactory as it does not create detrimental impacts to the visual qualities of Middle Harbour, its foreshores and tributaries. The proposal does not alter the existing natural features and vegetation on the foreshore and the immediate surroundings. 5.2.3 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours The site is located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and as such requires consideration under Clause 27 of MLEP 1998 and Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 23. The proposal is not highly visible from the Harbour and its foreshores, is within the existing framework of the building and does not dominate the neighbours or the streetscape. The proposed materials in the form of stone, timber, steel and rendered masonry walls are suitable when compared to building materials used in the area. In this respect, the proposal does not contravene the objectives of SREP 23 and the natural, visual, environmental and heritage qualities of Mosman are protected. 5.2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX

2004 The proposal meets water, thermal and energy standards as indicated in the numeric controls summary table. If approved, a condition will be imposed to ensure that BASIX commitments are implemented.


5.2.6 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned Residential 2(a1). The proposed works are defined as demolition and a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11 for residential zone. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height Refer to SEPP 1 discussion at Section 5.2.1. Floorspace Ratio The proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 14. The proposed bulk and scale of the building is suitable in terms of the surrounding development and housing characteristics of the area. There will be limited excavation to the site with a cut of 1.1m and natural ground levels are to the satisfaction of Council’s Landscaper and Engineer. The bulk and scale of the proposal is suitable to the site with minimal effect to adjacent properties. Landscaped Area The proposal does not comply with the landscaping area requirements however it does comply with the objectives of Clause 15. The applicant proposes landscaping throughout the site which enhances the landscape and townscape character of Mosman. The landscaped area is in harmony with the proposed building and is not dominated by it. No significant vegetation is on the site. Council’s Landscape Architect has approved the removal of the two shrubs and as per Council’s adopted Street Tree Master Plan 2x45 litre Lagerstroemia indica are to be planted in the nature strip. No cut is proposed close to boundaries and a 1.5m setback is maintained. Significant excavation will only occur in the area of the garage with no detrimental effect to the adjoining property. Adequate and useable ground level open space is maintained for recreation, landscaping and containing urban runoff. Thus, the shortfall in landscaped area is not significant enough to warrant a refusal. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposed works have no impact on the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area nor will works be substantially visible from the foreshore. The applicant proposes a suitable dwelling which has no impact on natural, visual, environmental and heritage qualities of the area. This proposal addresses most of Council’s planning controls and addresses the objectives of SREP 23. The proposed building materials are sympathetic to the dwellings in the area. Refer to assessment of SREP 23 in 5.2.2 of this report. Excavation The applicant proposes a 1.1m cut on the western elevation. This cut will not have any impact on adjacent properties since it is 1.6m from the boundary.


Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area but is proximate to the stone kerb in David Street which is a heritage item of local significance. A condition of consent will ensure that the heritage listed sandstone blocks removed to construct the proposed driveway are used to reinstate the kerb in the area of the redundant driveway on David Street. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The proposal is consistent with the siting and scale of adjoining properties. The front and rear setback complement the existing setbacks in the street. Notwithstanding minor variation to the required setbacks at the basement and the bathroom of bedroom 1 on the first floor, the side setbacks are sufficient to provide spatial relief between buildings and to still maintain public and private views. The proposed building is of a height and scale which preserves the privacy for neighbouring residents and public and private views remain unchanged. The proposed height and scale of the development relates to the topography with minimal cut. The scale of the development is not excessive and is consistent with most of the existing and future character objectives of the area apart from the pitched roof and modern design. There are several other new dwellings in the street which are of a similar modern design with flat roofs. Views The proposal does not restrict, impede views of adjoining properties or that from public areas. The applicant seeks to maximise his view outlook to the harbour by creating a small roof terrace. This is to view fireworks taking place on the harbour to the south over a few nights a year. The roof terrace does not comply with Section 5.6, P5 of the MRDCP, which states that due to their potential to affect privacy and views, roof top terraces are not permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there is no loss of privacy and view impact. The roof top terrace will affect the privacy of adjacent neighbours and is therefore deleted from this consent. Landscaping The existing canopied and vegetated landscape character of the Clifton Gardens townscape will be protected and enhanced through the landscaping proposed. There are no mature trees on the site to be protected. The applicant proposes an innovative landscape design which relates to the new dwelling in terms of appearance, amenity and energy efficiency. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed works will have a positive impact on the streetscape. The proposed development is of a scale which is in keeping with the street and neighbourhood character. However, the character does not conform in terms of its modern design to that of its traditional neighbours. The proposed development does not support the desired future character objectives of the townscape where the predominant townscape character and pitched roof is not maintained. The modern design is however consistent with other new and modern designs in the street which contributes to the architectural diversity of the area.


Front Fence The applicant proposes a rendered and painted masonry wall base and piers (ranging from 1.3m to 1.755m in height due to the slope of the land) with stained timber batten screens to the upper part of the fence. The stained timber battens to the upper section of the fence will have openings in-between. The screens are to be supported in vertical steel angles. To maintain the streetscape and to comply with the townscape controls, the proposed height of the front fence is not supported and is to be a maximum height of 1.2m from the ground. Privacy Subject to the deletion of the roof terrace, the proposed development will not unreasonably affect the privacy of adjoining properties. The proposed design has ensured adequate visual and acoustic privacy levels for residents and neighbours. Overshadowing Adjacent properties will not have sunlight reduced to less than two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The northern elevation which faces the street has been designed with large windows to habitable rooms to maximise sunlight to these windows. Swimming pool and water features There are no implications associated with the proposed swimming pool. The proposed swimming pool fence has been adjusted to the satisfaction of Council’s Building Surveyor. The amenity of the adjacent neighbour is protected by the proposed boundary wall, landscaping on the boundary and as a result, compliance with the minimum 2m setback to the northern boundary is not necessary. The applicant has advised Council that the water feature in the front garden will be a simple square 290mm deep pond raised above the ground to 500mm. The feature in the rear garden will be a simple ‘sheet’ fall of water into a trough 290mm deep raised above the ground to 500mm. Water from the trough flows to the swimming pool through a path in the pool surround. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Clifton Gardens townscape. Clifton Gardens is set above the harbour with vistas southward over Taylors Bay. The architectural character is predominantly that of an English Garden suburb with substantial two storey dwelling houses featuring Arts and Crafts elements. Most dwelling houses are orientated to capture water views. Dwellings are setback from the street in an elevated position with sandstone retaining walls. Pitched roofs contribute to the character of this townscape. The desired future character objectives are to maintain and encourage the architectural diversity of the area. Appropriate building forms are required to allow views to the harbour from streets and public walkways. Pitched roofs, low style fences, and spacious, leafy gardens are encouraged. This application addresses some of these controls and those that are not addressed conform to the architectural diversity of the area with the exception of the height of the proposed front fence. A condition of the consent will ensure that the fence is to have a maximum height of 1.2m from the ground. The reason for this is that the high front boundary wall will block views between buildings from the street and will screen front gardens which contribute to the streetscape.


5.3.2 Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space The application involves one additional room capable of use as a bedroom, necessitating a section 94 contribution of $ 3001.17. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer raised no objection subject to a condition. Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Building Surveyor raised no objection. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 4 July 2005 and 21 July 2005. Eight submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: • 20 David Street (objector); • 9 David Street (support); • 24 David Street (support); • 21 David Street (support); • 19 David Street (support); • 17 David Street (support); • 29 Kardinia Road (support); and • 31 Kardinia Road (support). Matters raised within the objection and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

Streetscape value Comment: The streetscape is dominated by pitched roofs however, there is a good percentage of new dwellings which have a modern design with flat roofs in the street. The proposed design will have a positive contribution to the streetscape. This is discussed in detail under Section 5.3.1.

Roof form Comment: The proposed roof does not have an intrusive nature to adjacent properties and it is suitable to the modern design proposed. The flat roof design will have a lesser impact on adjacent properties in terms of views, bulk, overshadowing, and amenity when compared to a pitched roof.

Excavation works/vibration


Comment: The proposed excavation is not excessive and is reasonably setback from the side boundaries.

Garage Comment: The location of the garage is suitable to the streetscape. Having a garage forward of the building line or on the building line is less desirable compared to the relatively inconspicuous garage proposed.

Noise from the swimming pool Comment: A standard condition of consent is provided regarding any noise generated from the pump in the pool room. In any case, the plant room is concealed within the walls of the dwelling which should eliminate any noise generated. The pool is also over 2 metres away from the boundary, with a proposed 2 metre high plant screen on the boundary. Therefore any further noise generated cannot be avoided.

New status quo (objector intends alterations and additions on his property) Comment: Council can only assess current impacts on the objector’s property.

Side boundary fence Comment: Details of the boundary fence have been provided by the applicant in a letter to Council dated 14 November 2005. These details are suitable in terms of the requirements for fencing. The eastern fence is to be a rendered and painted masonry wall. The height is to vary from 1300mm to 1800mm as reflected on Drawing 02. A timber screen is proposed adjacent to the garage of 20 David Street to encourage the growth of climbing plants to screen the garage from the applicant’s property. The masonry wall on the southern boundary is to be kept and refinished in render and paint with openings in the wall bricked up. The applicant proposes a timber paling fence and a rendered and painted masonry wall along the western boundary. This boundary currently has both of these materials and where possible, these existing fences and walls will be retained. The masonry wall will vary in height from 1300mm to 1800mm. The timber paling fence is proposed to be 1800mm high. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed modern design in a traditional street will be easily incorporated to suite the locality. The necessary design changes to the fencing and roof terrace have been incorporated into the conditions of consent which will make the overall design suitable to the environment. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Castlepeake Consulting Architects. The owners are Kerry and Chris Monaghan. The estimated value of works is $2 million. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected.


MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objections made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standard relating to exceeding maximum height limit within Clause 13 of the Mosman Local Environmental Plan1998 are well founded, and in this case varying the standard to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons: (a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standards; (b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the


bulk, privacy, overshadowing and scale; (d) Requiring compliance with the standard would unreasonably constrain the

development and the design response; and




Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by L01 Landscape Plan

10/06/05 Castlepeake Architects

01 to 06 inclusive 15/06/05 Castlepeake Architects 20349 5/10/05 Montek property survey 09 Stormwater Overflow Plan

28/09/05 Castlepeake Architects

CO1 18/06/05 Robert A. Brell & Associates PTY LTD


May 2005 Castlepeake Architects



Fence height 2. To ensure streetscape objectives are achieved, the front fence and side fencing

forward of the building line are to be a maximum of 1.2m from the ground.


Roof terrace deleted 3. No approval is granted for the proposed roof terrace as it does not comply with

Section 5.6 Privacy and Security, Guideline P5 of the MRDCP in that it will allow overlooking onto adjacent properties and result in a loss of privacy.









Retaining Walls


Rainwater Re-use System

8. The rainwater re-use tank is to be connected to the house and at a minimum used for flushing of toilets and washing machine purposes. A detailed design is to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application. Only rainwater from the downpipes and gutters is allowed to enter the tank. The tank is to be fully sealed to prevent any surface run off from entering the tank.


Drainage 9. To ensure drainage connection/s are properly completed, the applicant shall complete

an “Application to Connect to Council’s Stormwater Pipelines or Gully Pits” and or a “Road Opening Permit” and pay the applicable fees prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Both forms are available from Council.

Sydney Water


Driveway

11. The internal driveway and parking area shall be designed in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1-2004 and specifications in Council’s “Transport Development Control Plan". Longitudinal sections for both sides of the vehicular crossing and driveway commencing at the centre line of the road carriageway shall be provided with the Construction Certificate application demonstrating that vehicles will not scrape their undercarriage.


Utility Services




Long Service Levy


Security Deposit

16. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $5,000 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee if



Council is not the PCA) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.


17. Pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, a monetary contribution of $3,001.17 towards the acquisition and embellishment of public open space shall be paid to Council.















Home Building Act




Act,

(b) in the case of work to be done by the holder of an owner-builder permit under that Act, the name and permit number of the owner-builder.



















Demolition

25. All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard 2601-2001: The Demolition of Structures.

26. Where asbestos material shall be removed or disturbed as a result of any proposed demolition, alteration or addition, all work must be carried out by a person licensed under Chapter 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 and undertaken in accordance with the requirements of clause 29 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996. All asbestos to be removed must be disposed of at a tip recommended by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and under no circumstances shall be re-used or sold.










Site Work Hours










Council Property


33. Any works carried out to Council owned property or Infrastructure as a result of this consent are to be undertaken in accordance with Council specifications; i.e “Specification For Concrete Kerb & Gutter, Footpaths, Vehicle and Kerb Crossings & Concrete Converters” , “Public Domain Improvement Program”, “Specification For Brick Paving”, “Specification For Stormwater Drainage Construction” or “Specification For Asphalt Pavement Construction”. This condition does not apply to the extent that it may seek to rule out replacement stone kerbing as required by other conditions of this approval.

Drainage

34. Stormwater shall be directed to the drainage easement. All drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s “Guidelines For Stormwater Drainage Systems”.



35. To ensure proper installation of the rainwater re-use tank, all work is to be undertaken in compliance of Sydney Water’s “Guidelines for Rainwater Tanks in Residential Properties” and “Rainwater Tanks, Information For Plumbers” and the NSW Code of Practice: Plumbing and Drainage. A licensed plumber must supervise all plumbing work.

36. For safety purposes, the tank and the fittings must be labelled ‘RAINWATER, NOT SUITABLE FOR DRINKING”.

37. For health reasons, a first-flush-by-pass device must be installed allowing the first 1mm of initial runoff to bypass the tank.

38. For health reasons, in the occurrence of prolonged periods of rain any overflow from the rainwater tank should be discharged via an existing stormwater drainage system or to a Council approved device such as an on-site detention system. This pipeline must be covered with an insect proof mesh to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes.

39. Any mechanical equipment associated with the rainwater re-use tank and associated reticulation system shall be located in a sound proof container and positioned so that there is no increase in noise level at any point on the boundary with another property, including a public place.

Utility Services

40. To reduce the extent of overhead cabling, cabling for the extent of the frontage must be located underground to the requirements of Energy Australia.

Driveway

41. The redundant driveway shall be reinstated with kerb, footpath and suitably landscaped. The heritage listed sandstone blocks removed to construct the proposed driveway are to be used to reinstate the kerb in the area of the redundant driveway. If it is found that these blocks are damaged during excavation, similar sandstone blocks are to be sourced in approval with Council’s Development Engineer.

42. The levels at the boundary alignment of the property along the David Street frontage shall be defined by the existing levels.


43. The finished external surface materials, including colours and texture of any building and/or hard paved areas, shall blend with the surrounding environment and shall be non-reflective.



Tree Preservation

45. All street trees and trees on private property that are protected under Mosman Council’s Tree Preservation Order 2003, shall be retained except where Council's prior written consent has been obtained, or where after approval of the relevant


Construction Certificate, trees stand within the envelope of approved buildings or within the alignment of approved permanent paved vehicular access roads and parking areas.

Energy Efficiency



47. For safety reasons, access to the swimming pool must be restricted by fencing or other measures as prescribed by the Swimming Pools Act, 1992. The fencing or measures must be completed before any water is placed in the pool.

48. Any mechanical equipment associated with a pool, spa or water feature shall be located in a sound proof container and positioned so that there is no increase in noise level at any point at the boundary with another property, including a public place.

49. To maintain the visual amenity of the area, devices or structures used for heating swimming pool water must not be placed on the roof of any building where it is visible from a public place.

50. In order to protect night time amenity for surrounding properties, any lighting installed for the pool/spa must avoid glare and light spill onto adjoining recreation spaces, habitable rooms and public places.

51. To ensure the proper disposal of polluted waters and to avoid runoff nuisance for downstream properties, all drainage including any overflow waters associated with the pool, spa or water feature must be pipe drained to the nearest sewer system in accordance with requirements of Sydney Water. No drainage, including overflow from a pool/spa/feature shall enter Council’s stormwater system.

Air Conditioning Units

52. To control noise impacts for adjoining properties, no external air conditioning unit shall be installed without prior consent. Applicants may have regard to Council’s complying development controls for external air conditioning units under the Exempt and Complying Development DCP. This condition applies for both during construction works and for the life of the development.

Lighting

53. To maintain amenity for adjoining properties, all external lighting installed shall comply with Australian Standard 4282 – 1997 ‘Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting’.

Toilet Facilities








Approved Plans





element; • Prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas; • Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections; • Smoke alarms prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the

building; • Pool fencing prior to filling the pool with water; and • Final inspection after the building work has been completed and prior to any





Replacement Tree

58. As per Council’s adopted Street Tree Master Plan 2x45 litre Lagerstroemia indica are to be planted in the nature strip.








60. A compliance certificate must be submitted to Council which includes work-as-executed details of the rainwater re-use system prepared by a suitably qualified person with experience and competence in the related field. Any variations to approved plans must be shown in red and supported by calculations.

61. To ensure that future owners are made aware of their responsibilities with respect to the rainwater re-use tank, a positive covenant shall be created on the title of the allotment requiring that the owner(s) maintain and keep in working order the rainwater re-use tank, unless otherwise approved in writing by Mosman Council.

A fee of $110.00 applies (GST-inclusive) for the checking, approval and execution of the Positive Covenant by Council and must accompany the Positive Covenant when lodged with Council. The terms of the positive covenant shall read:

i. In this Positive Covenant “rainwater re-use tank” means the rainwater re-use tank forming part of the proposal the subject of Mosman Municipal Council Development Consent No. 8.2005.215.1 (or any modification of that consent) or any Council approved replacement or substitute rainwater re-use tank.

ii. The Registered Proprietor will at all times and at the Registered Proprietor’s

expense properly maintain and keep in good repair and working order the rainwater re-use tank.


iii. The Registered Proprietor shall not cease using or remove from the land the

rainwater re-use tank without the prior consent of Mosman Municipal Council. iv. The Registered Proprietor shall indemnify Mosman Municipal Council against

all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, demands, losses, damages, costs, fees and expenses whatsoever incurred or arising out of or in connection with or in consequence of any malfunction or non-operation of the rainwater re-use tank.

v. The term “Registered Proprietor” shall include the Registered Proprietor or

Proprietors of the land from time to time and all his/her/their heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in title to the land and where there are two or more registered proprietors of the land the terms of this covenant shall bind those registered proprietors jointly and severally.


62. For safety reasons, a resuscitation chart and warning sign containing information as prescribed by the Swimming Pools Regulation 1998 must be erected within the pool enclosure and shall be maintained in a clearly legible condition.

Energy Efficiency


PRIOR TO OCCUPATION








ADVICE / NOTES















(x) New and renovated pools greater than 10,000 litres will require a permit from Sydney Water before being filled.


(xi) When private certifiers are registering Part 4A Certificates with Council, it is requested that plans be lodged in PDF format.



EP/301 9-11 Shellbank Avenue DA NUMBER: 8.2005.348.1 PROPOSAL: Installation of an air conditioner, conversion of a plant

room to a storeroom REPORTING OFFICER: Colin McFadzean, Manager Development Services LODGEMENT DATE: 29 September 2005 (Downtime 0 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

2

16

DP 86129

ADP 232553

DP 345927

2A

X

B82

DP 348503

4324

4

DP 525782

DP 975

25

325

26

DC

811

DP 343753

DP 570494

171

1A

2

3

4

1

3

4

DP 1

6492

DP

3415

81

DP 8073

DP 8073

7

8

9

6

5

DP 16492

20

24

23

2221

45 DP 16492

DP 856022

DP 8073

14

44

17

1615

10

DP 807328

24

26

42

6

2

5

55

13

55A

7

9

65

63

61

67-69

13

1917

15

9

73

73

71

79

73

73

31

2927

25

23

21

28

RD

SHELLBANK

AVE

ANYONG

LE GAY BRERETON PARK


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application proposes an air conditioner within the foundation areas of an approved and partly constructed dwelling house and the conversion of a previous air conditioning plant room to a storeroom. There are no town planning issues of significance. The application is referred to Council due to the site’s foreshore frontage.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the northern side of Shellbank Avenue with rear water frontage to Reddy Bay. The site is trapezoidal in shape with a frontage of 30.83m to Shellbank Avenue. The site has a fall of 25m towards Reddy Bay. The site contains a dwelling under construction arising from the approval of DA 8.2003.109.1 Surrounding development consists of large dwelling houses. 2.0 BACKGROUND On 9 December 2003 Development Application 8.2003.109.1 was approved for demolition of an existing dwelling house and swimming pool, the erection of a new dwelling house, additions to an existing garage and the installation of a new swimming pool. Modifications to the floor layout were approved pursuant to section 96(2) on 28 June 2004. The approved plans included an air conditioning plant room roughly at the centre of level 1 at the building’s northern side. A duct connected the plant room to a louvred opening towards the north-eastern corner of level 1. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of revision of the north-eastern corner to accommodate the air conditioner and a rainwater tank with adjustment to the louvre opening and conversion of the former plant room to a storeroom. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space




Gross Floor Area

Approved 686.7m2 N/A

Proposed 21.0m2 N/A

Total 707.7m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.446 : 1 0.466 : 1 No

Landscaped Area

Approved 1303.8m2 740m2 N/A

Proposed 1343.7m2 740m2 No

Foreshore Building Line (FBL) Works behind FBL Yes 5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 The change to the building as viewed from the harbour will be minimal and insignificant. The works do not affect any views to the harbour. The development satisfies the aims and objectives of the REP. 5.2.2 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned Residential 2(a2). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height No change. Floorspace Ratio The conversion of the former air conditioning plant to a storeroom results in it being counted as floor area. The change does not increase the perceived bulk of the building nor any impacts from bulk. The development will continue to meet clause objectives. Landscaped Area An increased landscaped area is required as a consequence of the additional floor area. As before, the additional floor area does not add to bulk and therefore the site’s relationship of built form to natural form remains the same.


Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Satisfactory. Foreshore Building Line The proposed works are behind the FBL. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting, Scale and Building Design The proposal remains essentially the same as that approved with the only change relating to the opening. No objection is raised to that aspect. Amenity Impacts The air conditioner is within the approved building footprint and will not have any adverse amenity impacts for neighbours viz privacy, overshadowing or views. Conditions will ensure acoustic impacts are satisfactory. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Middle Harbour townscape. The proposal continues to satisfy townscape objectives. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space As no additional bedrooms are proposed, a section 94 contribution is not required. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Nil. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 11 and 26 October 2005. No submissions were received.


8.0 CONCLUSION The proposal is satisfactory. Conditional approval is recommended. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Osmond Air Conditioning. The owners are C & R Hoffmann. The estimated value of works is $51,000. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING’S RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2005.348.1 be approved subject to the following conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION


Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by A01H, A02H, A03H, A07H, A08H

23 September 2005 Corben Architects

27264 Issue C 2 July 2004 Higgins Norton Partners

Document title Date of document Prepared by Statement of Environment Effects

29 September 2005 Osmond Air Conditioning

Acoustic Report 05106 A

19 August 2005 Wilkinson Murray












Retaining Walls


Security Deposit

6. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $1000.00 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee if Council is not the PCA) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.







(iii) in instances where Council is not the PCA, the PCA has, no later than 2 days before the building work commences, notified Council of his or her appointment by way of forwarding a completed copy of Form 7A and notified the person benefiting from the consent of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work by way of completing


Form 7B (attached at the end of this consent). In instances where Council is the PCA, Council has completed Form 7B if necessary and forwarded it to the person benefiting from the consent.





Home Building Act





























Site Work Hours









Council Property




Tree Preservation


Toilet Facilities








Approved Plans




• At the commencement of the building work; • After the excavation for, and prior to the placement of, any footings; • Prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element; • Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections; and • Final inspection after the building work has been completed and prior to any











PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







DURING OCCUPATION


Acoustic

27. To ensure reasonable acoustic amenity for surrounding properties is maintained, the level of noise emanating from the premises (LA10 measured for at least 15 minutes) shall not exceed the background level (LA90) by more than 5dB(A) when measured at all property boundaries in the absence of that noise source. This condition does not apply to noise generated during demolition and construction activities.

ADVICE / NOTES












(vi) Failure to comply with the relevant provisions of the Act and/or the conditions of this consent may result in the serving of penalty notices or legal action through the Land and Environment Court.

(vii) In accordance with section 81A of the Act, the person benefiting from this consent is notified that if Council is engaged as the Principal Certifying Authority, critical stage inspections to be carried out will include those listed under the sub-heading “Critical Stage Inspections” in this consent. If additional inspections are required, further notice will be provided.

(viii) All references to “the Act” under this consent relate to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(ix) When private certifiers are registering Part 4A Certificates with Council, it is requested that plans be lodged in PDF format.



EP/302 10 Little Street DA NUMBER: 8.2002.400.3 PROPOSAL: Alterations to approved dwelling additions REPORTING OFFICER: Mooki Consulting Pty Ltd, Consultant. LODGEMENT DATE: 14 October 2005 (no downtime) RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.

LOCALITY MAP

2

SP 57002

11 DP 112050

DP 115777

DP 1055658

DP 72

DP 724145

1211

1

78

A

1

A

DP

6648

DP 962512DP 965205

DP 518405

DP 62896

19

1

21D

P 62

896

DP 959983

BA

12

?

1

1 C1

SP 1809

SP 252

B1

2

58316

11228

P 3232

DP

6289

6

2321

DP 318648

DP 3

DP 329738

DP 350646

DP 112516

DP 167877

DP 199467

DP 384

DP

1 12

A

DP 311227

ADP 936085

D

DP 1048389

1

DP

9360

82

DP 62896

DP 1061017

SP 74356

4

DP 104044

DP 1087741

7

DP 105280

DP

1091

40D

P 96

2685

20

039

9810

7A

11

11A

11A12 11A

14A

151

2A

37

42

6

5777

444

012

9

13

57

21

2426

20 -

22

68

1012

1416

18

1313131313131315

119

111111111111

1719

STAN

LEY

LOWER

ST

STPUNCH

MO

RU

BEN

ST

T

LITT

LE


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks consent for minor modifications to approved alterations and additions to the dwelling house. The modifications relate to minor internal reconfiguration; relocation of the approved stairwell and associated skylight; and alterations to existing and approved windows. No objections were received. The application has been determined to have no adverse visual, environmental or residential amenity impacts and remains consistent with the standards in the Mosman LEP and relevant controls in the Mosman Residential DCP. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the western side of Little Street, between Mandalong Road and Lower Punch Street. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 13.41m to Little Street. The site falls 3.6m to the front. The site presently contains a single storey dwelling. Surrounding development consists of one and two storey dwelling houses. 2.0 BACKGROUND Development Application 8.2002.400.1 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including a first floor addition, was approved by Council on 19 May 2003. This consent was subsequently modified via a section 96 application (8.2002.400.2) that involved rewording condition 1.1 and deleting condition 1.2. This application was approved on 9 December 2003. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The section 96 (1A) application seeks to modify the Development Consent by: • Relocating of stairwell and associated skylight to the west in the southern elevation of the

proposed first floor addition; • Deletion of an approved WC window on the first floor southern elevation; • Changing window fenestration to the first floor on the building’s eastern (street front)

elevation to match windows on the ground floor; • Retaining and altering the sill height of the ground floor bathroom window (which was

approved to be removed) in the building’s southern elevation; • Retaining the current dimensions of bedroom 3’s window which was approved to be

enlarged; • Raising the bottom sill height of the kitchen window; • Bricking up the northern family room window; and • Internal floor layout changes within the same footprint to largely retain the existing ground

floor in its current form as well as minor changes to the upper floor. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 1a.


4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 96 (1A) and 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notification Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE The modifications proposed as part of this application do not vary the numerical circumstances of the current approval. Reference to the report prepared for development application 2.2002.400.1 should be made to view the numeric controls summary table. 5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1) Residential. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The works are also permitted pursuant to section 96(1A) of the Act, it being noted that: (a) the modification is of minimal environmental impact; (b) the development remains substantially the same as that for which consent was

originally granted; (c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP; and (d) no submissions were received. Height, Floorspace Ratio and Landscaped Area The height, FSR and landscaped area of the proposal remains unchanged as a result of the works proposed as part of this modification of consent application. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposed modifications will not be readily viewed from the harbour foreshore areas and hence, there will be no adverse visual amenity impacts as a result. The proposed modifications satisfy the objectives of clause 27 of the Mosman LEP. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area.


5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The only change proposed to the building envelope as part of this application is the relocation of the stairwell and associated skylight window in the roof one metre to the west. The building height, wall height and building setbacks will remain unchanged and are satisfactory. Views The proposed minor modifications to the approved built form will have no additional impacts upon scenic views from adjoining or properties within the vicinity of the site. Streetscape and Building Design The minor modifications proposed as part of this application are either internal or located on the buildings side elevations. The appearance of the originally approved development from the street and the overall building design will remain relatively unchanged as a result of works proposed in this modification application. The proposal will therefore maintain the current approvals complementary built form and visual consistency with the streetscape. Car Parking and Access The proposal does not alter the approved car parking arrangement on the site nor necessitate additional parking. Privacy The proposed modifications include altering and retaining some of the existing windows that were to be removed in the ground floor northern and southern side elevations of the dwelling. The window arrangements originally approved in the southern elevation were to be associated with the location of a new kitchen. The modifications proposed as part of this application includes retaining a bathroom and bedroom that were to be replaced by the kitchen. The window associated with the bathroom was approved to be bricked up under the current consent however, will now be retained with the bottom of the sill to be raised 300mm in height. There will be no adverse privacy impacts on the adjoining property as a result of retaining this window and the associated use of the adjoining room. Another window (G11) in the southern elevation was to be the primary light and ventilation source to the approved kitchen location. The current consent also allows for increase in the width of this window. This modification application however, proposes to retain the existing window in its current form and the associated bedroom use it serves. These modifications will have no adverse privacy impacts upon the adjoining property. At the ground floor in the northern elevation of the dwelling, the current consent provides for removal of one window (G5) toward the rear of the site and retaining another (G4). The window to be retained was to serve a dining room however, as a result of the modifications will now serve the proposed relocation of the kitchen. This window will also be slightly


modified such that the bottom sill height will be raised 1 metre. The changes above mentioned will have no adverse privacy impacts upon the adjoining property. Given the above reasons, the proposal satisfies the general design criteria and the objectives of part 5.6 in the MRDCP. Overshadowing The minor change proposed to the external building footprint in the form of the one metre movement of the stairwell to the west, will not increase the overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Balmoral townscape. The modification proposed as part of this application will not significantly alter the original approval and therefore remain consistent with the locality’s desired future character. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space The changes involve an additional bedroom, necessitating a Section 94 contribution of $3,127.98. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The proposed modification does not necessitate change to any of these matters. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Nil. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 28 October 2005 and 14 November 2005. No submissions were received. 8.0 CONCLUSION Pursuant to section 96 (1A) of the Act, the proposal represents substantially the same development as was originally approved. The modifications proposed to the original development consent are minor and have no adverse visual, environmental or residential amenity impacts and therefore have been determined as satisfactory. The proposal is consequently recommended for approval. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant and owner is Mrs. Vicki Jackson. The estimated value of works is $350, 000. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected.


MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2002.400.3 be approved pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following:

A1. Amending conditions Nos. 1.1 to read as follows:

“1.1 That approval relates to Drawing No2002/14 Sheets 1 & 2 dated October 05 by Max Lanser Architect Pty Ltd”.

A2. Addition of the following condition:


2.8 Pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, a monetary contribution of $3,127.98 towards the acquisition and embellishment of public open space shall be paid to Council.



A3. Addition of the following advisory notes: (i) Section 82A of the Act provides for an applicant to request Council to review its

determination excepting applications made on behalf of the Crown or applications in respect of designated development, integrated development or a complying development certificate. The request for review must be made within 12 months of the date of determination or prior to appeal being heard by the Land and Environment Court. A decision on a review may not be further reviewed under section 82A.

(ii) If you are unsatisfied with this determination, Part 17 Rule 1 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 1996 gives you the right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 60 days of the determination date.

(iii) A public inquiry by a Commission of Inquiry was not held under Section 119 of the Act.

(iv) Failure to comply with the relevant provisions of the Act and/or the conditions of this consent may result in the serving of penalty notices or legal action through the Land and Environment Court.

(v) If a Construction Certificate has been issued for the original development application, an amending Construction Certificate will be required for the modifications approved under the Section 96 application. If a Construction Certificate application has been lodged but not finalised, amended plans must be provided to Council or the Accredited Certifier reflecting changes approved under the Section 96 amendment.

COUNCILLORS’ ATTACHMENTS • A4 plans


EP/303 43 Wolseley Road DA NUMBER: 8.2001.220.2 PROPOSAL: Modification to approved dwelling additions including

increasing the ridgeline, retaining lower ground floor windows and doorway, changes to windows and the floor layout.

REPORTING OFFICER: Renee Walmsley, Student Assessment Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 21 July 2005 (Downtime 37 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

D

D P106808

D P204905

D P441079

BA

B

DP 1008

DP 1398

1

1

A

DP 445339 A2

D P584393

DP

1398C

DP

9333

211

1

1

DP 177606D

P 43

9848

DP

9328

71

AB

4

111

21

DP 2127

D P609376

DP 2464

32

1

1

DP

4424

32

D P550493

D P550600

DP

2464

144

4243

7

78

DP

3030

33

DP 1398

SP 1

4599

A

SP 3

9898

1

B

A

DP 131383

DP 317147

DP 3221

02

SP 1

0891

SP 5

8167

89

1 DP 961227

DP 48371

PT2

1

A

1

1

1

B

DP 167329

DP

5648

24

A

DP

9245

09

AB

8

5

2898

D P442622

DP 1398B

DP

1042

491

61

1516

17D

C

262

1

A

DP 1398

D

P

1407

1

D

P07

328

D P605351

DP

1398

A

DP 1398

4256

5

P07

202

9439

14D

P 13

98

DP

3128

11

P94

3912

10

3444

1

22A

4

1A3

57

23

40

44

1439 46

4442

3721

1618

2022

19A

21A

15

45

43

41

50

1012

911

1317

19

24

7

51

4947

1

5452

35

9

8 - 1

2

58

56 68

56

46

53

WOLSELEY

RDDUGALD

GO

RD

ON

MU

LBR

ING

WEN

BAN

L

N

CEDRIC LN

WOLSELEY


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The site contains a part one and part two storey detached dwelling on triangular shaped site. Development Application 8.2001.220.1 approved an additional level to the dwelling. The current Section 96 application seeks to modify the ridge height of the approved additional level, retain the lower ground floor windows and doorway, change window placements and alter the internal floor layout. The principal issue for consideration is whether there is significant loss of privacy. Subject to conditions for obscure glazed windows it is concluded that there in not.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the north-western side of Wolseley Road, near the intersection with Gordon Street. The site is triangular in shape with a frontage of 36.17m to Wolseley Road. The site steeply slopes to the north-western rear corner. The site presently contains a part one and part two storey detached dwelling house. Surrounding development consists of a multiple dwelling development to the west and a two storey detached dwelling to the north. Works in relation to DA 8.2001.220.1 (see section 2) have not yet commenced. 2.0 BACKGROUND On 16 July 2001 Development Application 8.2001.220.1 was lodged for alterations to a dwelling house including an additional floor. One submission was received concerning the impact of overshadowing, privacy and acoustic privacy impacts. Discussions were held between Council’s Assessment Officer and the objecting party and an agreement was reached (and enforced via condition 1.2) to have to west facing bathroom window removed and the study window have a sill height of 1.6m or greater. The application was approved on 1 February 2002. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: • Internal alterations to the approved additional level including conversion of a dressing

room to a bedroom; • Change of use from a home office to a bedroom on the ground floor level; • Change to the roof shape and an increase in the maximum ridge level of 250mm; • Retain lower ground level windows and doorway (previously approved for removal to

create an undercroft); and • Changes to window placement. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 1a.


4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 92(2) and 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE


Building Height 8.5m 8.75m No

Gross Floor Area

Pre 8.2001.220.1 146.2m2 N/A

DA 8.2001.220.1 189.58m2 N/A

Proposed 8.2001.220.2 206.38m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.50 : 1 0.65 : 1 No

Landscaped Area

Approved 113.8 m2 91 m2 (-20%) No

Proposed 123.8 m2 91 m2 (-26%) No 5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours The proposal is in keeping with the requirements of SREP 23. 5.2.2 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1) residential. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. The works are also permitted pursuant to section 96(2) of the Act, it being noted that: (a) the development remains substantially the same as that for which consent was

originally granted; (b) there were no previous approval bodies or concurrence authorities; (c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP; and (d) three submissions received have been addressed at section 7.0 of this report.


Height The objectives of clause 13 are to protect public and private views, to minimise the visual impact of buildings when viewed from the harbour and surrounding foreshores, to ensure buildings resulting from new development are compatible with existing buildings in terms of height and pitched roof form and to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of buildings from new development in the existing residential area. The amendment to the approved additional level involves a 250mm ridge height increase. This will be reduced to 200mm by virtue of existing condition 1.4 which requires a ceiling height for the new level of not more than 2.4m (2.45m is proposed). The resultant building height of 8.7m exceeds that permitted in 2(a1) Residential Zone. A SEPP 1 is not required as it is a section 96 application. An increase of 200mm is relatively minor and will not affect the proposal’s compliance with clause objectives. In this regard it is noted that: • There will not be a significant increase to overshadowing or visual bulk for the

adjoining property at 45 Wolseley Road. The multiple dwellings on that site will continue to receive more than 2 hours of sunlight per day.

• The bulk, scale and pitched roof from remains compatible with surrounding

development. • The property can not be viewed from the harbour and does not impact on public or

private views. Floorspace Ratio The objectives of clause 14 are to control the scale of development so that it is compatible with housing characteristics of the locality, to limit excavation of sites and retain natural ground levels for the purpose of landscaping and containing urban run-off, and to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of new development. The numerical changes in the floorspace ratio are due to the reinstatement of the lower ground undercroft area which exists at present but was approved to be opened up. The area’s retention has no impact on the visual bulk and scale of the dwelling as viewed from adjoining properties or the public domain. The bulk and scale of the new upper floor remains commensurate with that approved. The proposal is in keeping with the outlined objectives of clause 14 of the Mosman LEP 1998. Landscaped Area The landscaped area is under the required minimum landscaped area. The built form in relation to soft landscaping is not significantly altered by this proposal. The retention of the lower ground area as an enclosed space (existing) is an addition to the gross floor area however there are no works proposed that vary the overall visual mass of to building to any significant degree or its relationship to landscaping. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The application is in keeping with the objectives of clause 27 of the Mosman LEP 1998.


Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The increase to the ridge height of the approved additional level will not cause any undue impact on the adjoining properties. There will be minimal increase to the bulk and scale of the dwelling. The amendment to the height of the dwelling is in context to the bulk and scale of the adjoining dwellings. The minimal increase in height will not significantly alter the dwelling ensuring it is in keeping with the context of the surrounding area. Streetscape and Building Design There are changes to the materials used and the configuration of external walls. They will improve the visual amenity of the dwelling and successfully integrate the design into the existing dwelling. There will be minimal visual impact on the streetscape. Privacy Amendments have been made to the western facade through window deletions and additions including a new bathroom window. Existing Condition 1.2 requires removal of the bathroom window in order to minimise the impact on the privacy of the adjoining dwelling at 45 Wolseley Road. The condition is to be amended to keep the window but have obscure glazing. The window is small in size, has a raised sill height and will not have any significant impact on privacy. It is also proposed that the study/library window be replaced with new study and staircase windows. As the setback of the study window is increased from 1.5m to 2.2m and subject to the staircase window having obscure glazing, privacy impacts for neighbouring dwelling are satisfactory. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Balmoral townscape. The proposal is in keeping with the desired future character objectives for the townscape area. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space The application involves two additional rooms capable of use as a bedroom, necessitating a section 94 contribution of $ 6298.23. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The proposed modification does not necessitate change to any of these matters.


6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 9 and 23 August 2005. Three submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: • 1/45 Wolseley Road; • 4/45 Wolseley Road; and • 6/45 Wolseley Road. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

On behalf of the Executive of the Body Corporate I wish to submit that there will be a marked loss of privacy to the properties at No 45 Wolseley Road with the addition of the first storey balcony at No 43 and an impact caused by the windows on the western side of this property. 1/45 and 4/45 Wolseley Road have raised concerns as to loss of privacy caused by the windows to the bathroom, stairwell and study/living area

Comment: The bathroom and staircase windows are to have obscure glazing. The setback to the study window has increased and the balcony remains comparable to that previously approved. In the circumstances privacy impacts will not be any greater if the Section 96 application is approved.

There will also be considerable shading and loss of morning light to the properties of 45 Wolseley Road. Express concerns have been raised by 1/45 and 4/45 Wolseley Road.

Comment: The only noted change to have an impact on overshadowing is the proposed increase to the ridgeline of 200mm. The increase will have a minor impact on overshadowing for the properties at 45 Wolseley Road which will continue to receive greater than 2 hours of sunlight per day.

There is concern as to the proposed internal changes to the bathroom and a new large bathroom window being constructed approximately 2m from the living area of 1/45 Wolseley Road causing an increase of noise coming from bathroom and balcony.

Comment: The window is minimal in size and has a high sill height. Noise generation from a bathroom is minimal. Noise impacts will be consistent with that expected for a low density residential environment.

Building to land ratio-existing building is huge compared to land/garden Comment: There are no significant alterations proposed which would alter the ratio of building bulk to landscaped area.


8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed modifications to approved plans will have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. Conditions are recommended to limit overlooking by having obscure glazing for the bathroom and staircase. The proposal is recommend for approval subject to conditions of consent. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Addbuild Master Builders Pty Ltd. The owners are Mr A Porritt and Mrs P Maogeonge. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2001.220.2 be approved pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following:

A1. Amending condition No. 1.1 and 1.2 to read as follows:



Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by Drawing Number 989

10 May 2005 Addbuild

990724194 13/08/99 Mervyn Baxter & Associates


30.06.2005 Addbuild

1.2 In order to afford reasonable privacy to 45 Wolseley Road, the staircase and

bathroom windows on the western elevation are to have obscure glazing.

A2. Addition of the following conditions: Utility Services

2.8 The applicant shall consult with the relevant public utility providers and meet any costs imposed by those providers for alterations to mains or services required as a consequence of this approval.


2.9 Pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, a monetary contribution of $6,298.23 towards the acquisition and embellishment of public open space shall be paid to Council.




Council Property

4.21 The land and adjoining areas shall be kept in a clean and tidy condition at all times. No construction vehicles, building materials, waste, machinery or related matter shall be stored on the road or footpath for the duration of works unless separate approval has been obtained from Council’s Traffic Committee for the establishment of a Construction Zone. Under no circumstances will any person be allowed to mix or dispose of concrete, mortar or slurry within Council property.

4.22 Any works carried out to Council owned property or Infrastructure as a result of this consent are to be undertaken in accordance with Council specifications; i.e “Specification For Concrete Kerb & Gutter, Footpaths, Vehicle and Kerb Crossings & Concrete Converters” , “Public Domain Improvement Program”, “Specification For Brick Paving”, “Specification For Stormwater Drainage Construction” or “Specification For Asphalt Pavement Construction”.

Drainage

4.23 Stormwater shall be directed to the street gutter. All drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s “Guidelines For Stormwater Drainage Systems”.

ADVICE / NOTES


(i) If a Construction Certificate has been issued for the original development application, an amending Construction Certificate will be required for the modifications approved under the Section 96 application. If a Construction Certificate application has been lodged but not finalised, amended plans must be provided to Council or the Accredited Certifier reflecting changes approved under the Section 96 amendment.

(ii) If you are unsatisfied with this determination, Part 17 Rule 1 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 1996 gives you the right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 60 days of the determination date.



EP/304 26 Rosebery Street DA NUMBER: 8.2004.180.4 PROPOSAL: Modification to approved dwelling additions including

reconfiguration of rear section of roof, a new balcony at first floor level, timber picket fence and an additional car space in front setback area.

REPORTING OFFICER: George Youhanna, Team Leader (South) LODGEMENT DATE: 28/7/05 (Downtime 9 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed modification seeks to reconfigure the rear roof section of the dwelling and include a first floor balcony adjoining a bedroom. It is also proposed to create an additional car space in the front setback area. As a result of privacy objections to the proposed balcony, the applicant has amended the balcony design from a 1m high balustrade to a 1.6m high balustrade with a depth of 400mm. The applicant has agreed to erect a frame in the location of the proposed balcony, in order to allow the extent of privacy impact to be assessed on-site. The amended balcony design is satisfactory with regard to privacy. Subject to deletion of the proposed additional car space (due to second driveway and on street parking issues) and landscape screening of the rear boundary, the proposal is satisfactory and recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the western side of Rosebery Street, between Earl Street and Ourimbah Road. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 12.19m to Rosebery Street. The site falls approximately 0.5m to the rear at an average gradient of 1%. The site presently contains a dwelling house undergoing alterations and additions following previous approvals, as detailed below in Section 2. Surrounding development predominantly consists of dwelling houses. 2.0 BACKGROUND DA 8.2004.180.1 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling was approved on 27 January 2005. DA 8.2004.180.2, being a S96 modification for internal and external reconfiguration of the approved building form was approved on 18 May 2005. Condition 1A was added which required louvre screens off bedroom 5’s western window. DA 8.2004.180.3, being a S96 modification for the deletion of the required on-site detention, was approved on 29 June 2005. In response to objections from surrounding residents, and following an on-site meeting with the applicant and residents, amended plans were submitted which form the basis for this assessment. The original balcony included a 1m high balustrade. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The amended proposal consists of: • Timber picket fence and sliding gate providing access to an additional car space within

the front setback area; • Reconfigured roof form at the rear of the building, including a balcony at first floor level

adjoining Bedroom 5; and


• The balcony has internal dimensions of 2.46m x 4.82m, and is enclosed by an effective 1.6m high balustrade with a depth of 0.4m, inset into the amended rear roof form (refer to architectural sections through balcony)

The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 1A. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 96(2) and 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Transport Development Control Plan 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP Controls Control Proposed Compliance

Site Area 300m2 515.57m2 NA

Building Height

• Approved

• Proposed

8.5m

8.5m

4.58m

5.3m

Yes

Yes 5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours The proposed modification is consistent with the objectives of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours. 5.2.2 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(d) Residential. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. The works are also permitted pursuant to section 96(2) of the Act, it being noted that: (a) the development remains substantially the same as that for which consent was

originally granted; (b) there were no previous approval bodies or concurrence authorities; (c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP; and (d) submissions received have been addressed at section 7.0 of this report.


Height The proposed reconfigured roof element at the rear of the dwelling results in an increase of approximately 0.72m in height, to 5.3m. There is no increase in the maximum height of the building. The proposed 5.3m height is well below the permissible height of 8.5m, and is satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposed development is satisfactory with regard to the foreshore scenic protection area, as discussed in relation to Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Views The proposed upper level balcony would provide limited distant views of the harbour, but is consistent with the objectives contained in Section 4.3 of Mosman Residential Development Control Plan with regard to view sharing. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed picket fence is satisfactory with regard to Section 5.1 of Mosman Residential Development Control Plan, being 1.2m - 1.4m in height, with an open appearance. As discussed further in this report, the proposed additional car space is unsatisfactory, and the proposed timber picket sliding gate will be required to be substituted with a timber picket fence. Privacy The proposed balcony would replace an approved window, which was required by way of condition of consent to be screened with fixed louvres (in response to concerns from objectors, and as agreed to by the applicant). The balcony originally proposed in this Section 96 application was modified (as previously discussed) in order to address privacy concerns from surrounding properties, and now includes a 1.6m high balustrade with a depth of 0.4m. The proposed 1.6m balustrade height is consistent with the minimum height required for window sills in order to provide adequate privacy, under Section 5.6 of Mosman Residential Development Control Plan. The combination of the 1.6m high balustrade enclosure and the 0.4m depth of the balustrade will restrict overlooking into the rear yards of adjoining properties to an acceptable degree, while allowing distant views including some water views. It should also be noted that the proposed balcony is approximately 19m from the rear (western) boundary of the site, and that the dwelling at No. 15 Countess Street, which is immediately to the rear (west) of the subject site, is approximately a further 16m from the western boundary, being a total of 35m. The landscape plan approved under DA 8.2004.180.1 includes landscaping adjacent to the rear boundary, however there is currently


no landscape screening at the rear of No. 15 Countess Street. The proposed 1.6m balustrade height would also effectively restrict views into other adjoining and adjacent properties, including those at Nos. 24 & 28 Rosebery Street. The proposed balcony is satisfactory with regard to privacy impact on surrounding properties, with particular regard to the proposed 1.6m high and 0.4m deep balustrade, the spatial separation from the properties to the west, the approved landscape screening, and with regard to the balcony adjoining a bedroom. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Ourimbah Townscape. The desire future character objectives for the Ourimbah Townscape are:

Maintain; • The architectural integrity of buildings; • The heritage significance of the conservation areas.

Encourage;

• Ground level single storey additions to the rear of buildings which respect the scale, form and proportion of the host building;

• “Street addresses” by minimising garage widths and developments which present a house front character to the street;

• Articulation of the external finishes of new developments though the use of a range of traditional materials and colours and not single colour rendered finishes;

• The location of garages and carports behind the building line where possible; • Low front fence design, mostly of unpainted brick, timber, stone or wire so as

not to obstruct views of buildings and views between buildings; • Extensive street tree planting.

Excepting the second car space (as discussed at 5.3.2), the proposed modification is satisfactory with regard to the desire future character objectives. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The proposed second car space and associated second driveway crossing do not comply with Section 3.4 of the Mosman Transport Development Control Plan which limits driveway crossings to one (1) per dwelling in order to maintain on-street car parking. A suitable condition of consent will be applied requiring deletion of the proposed parking space and driveway crossing, and modification of the sliding picket gate to a fixed picket fence. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space As no additional bedrooms are proposed, a section 94 contribution is not required. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The proposed modification does not necessitate change to any of these matters.


6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection, subject to the additional driveway crossing being deleted. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 11 and 26 August 2005. Amended plans were notified between 7 and 22 September 2005. Two (2) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties in response to the notification of the amended plans: • 28 Rosebery Street • 17 Countess Street One (1) submission was received from the following property, also representing Nos. 13A and 15A Countess Street, in response to the notification of the amended plans: • 15 Countess Street Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

Accurate site line diagrams have not been provided / 180cm average Australian male has not been used; plans are misleading and inaccurate; separation between dwellings is actually close to 33m

Comment: The submitted section plans all specify the proposed 1.6m high balustrade and the 1:100 section also specifies the 0.4m depth of the balustrade. As previously discussed in detail, this would provide an adequate degree of privacy to surrounding properties. It is agreed that the south section drawing which includes the property at No. 15 Countess Street incorrectly depicts the dwelling being approximately 9m from the rear boundary, when it is actually approximately 16m from the rear boundary, and it is agreed that the accuracy of the level of the adjoining property at No. 15 Countess Street has not been confirmed by survey, and may be incorrect. However, the proposed 1.6m high screening around the entire balcony satisfactorily addresses the issue of potential loss of privacy. In addition, the previously required landscape plan will be required to be amended to include screen planting to the rear boundary.

There has been no inclusion of a permanent setback structure on the balcony Comment: The submitted plans clearly indicate a 400mm deep balustrade (“setback structure”), which would substantially restrict close proximity overlooking while allowing distant views.

Privacy will be adversely affected by changing the small window to a large viewing deck, which is more than an amendment

Comment: The proposed amended will not adversely affect privacy, as previously discussed in detail, and the amendments proposed are consistent with the provisions of S96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, also as previously discussed.


8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed modification is satisfactory with regard to privacy impacts, and is recommended for approval. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicants and owners are Michael Flude and Geoff Pidgeon. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2004.180.4 be approved pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following: A1. Deletion of condition No. 1A

A2. Amending conditions Nos. 1 and 1B to read as follows:

29. The development must be carried out in accordance with the following stamped

approved plans and documentation, except where amended by later conditions of consent:

Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by 5483 GKW (Survey Plan) 08/10/03 G.K. Wilson & Associates Architectural Plans:

• 05A • 06F • 07F • 08F • 09D • 10F • 11F • 13F • 14A • 15A

• 14/3/05 • 31/8/05 • 31/8/05 • 31/8/05 • undated • 31/8/05 • 31/8/05 • 31/8/05 • 1/9/05 • 31/8/05

Architect Prineas Architect Prineas Architect Prineas Architect Prineas Architect Prineas Architect Prineas Architect Prineas Architect Prineas Architect Prineas Architect Prineas Architect Prineas

Document title Date of

document Prepared by

Statement of Environmental Effects

Undated The Superstudio Chartered Architects

As modified by Statement of Environmental Effects – Section 96

Undated Architect Prineas

1B. An amended landscape plan is to be submitted with the Construction

Certificate, to Council’s satisfaction. The amended landscape plan is to include screen planting adjoining the western boundary of the site, with a mature height of approximately 5m – details of the proposed species are to be provided.


A3. Addition of the following conditions and advisory notes 1C. The proposed second car space and associated driveway crossing are not

approved, and are to be deleted from the Construction Certificate plans. The paving in the location of the proposed car space is to be replaced with soft landscaping, and the sliding timber picket gate is to be replaced with a fixed timber picket fence.

(i) If you are unsatisfied with this determination, Part 17 Rule 1 of the Land and

Environment Court Rules 1996 gives you the right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 60 days of the determination date.

(ii) A public inquiry by a Commission of Inquiry was not held under Section 119 of the Act.

(iii) Failure to comply with the relevant provisions of the Act and/or the conditions of this consent may result in the serving of penalty notices or legal action through the Land and Environment Court.

(iv) If a Construction Certificate has been issued for the original development application, an amending Construction Certificate will be required for the modifications approved under the Section 96 application. If a Construction Certificate application has been lodged but not finalised, amended plans must be provided to Council or the Accredited Certifier reflecting changes approved under the Section 96 amendment.



EP/305 73-77 Shadforth Street DA NUMBER: 8.2004.395.2 PROPOSAL: Modification to approved school building alterations and

additions by deleting conditions 23 and 51. REPORTING OFFICER: Danielle Dunford, Executive Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 16 September (Downtime 0 days) RECOMMENDATION: Approval

LOCALITY MAP

10

123

DP 101878

A

17

1

1211

B1

B2

42

2625

47

1

1

27

1

2

44

34

1

2

DP 97498214571

SP 10853

SP 1948

1

39

18 SP 20

1

DP 1002838

SP 67125A DP 974982

D P

308954

DP 70103

DP 76778

DP 928094

DP 974982

DP 974982

SP 2443

SP 307

DP 62161

DP 902133

DP 719452

DP 82164

DP 85066

DP 97498218503

6613

D P

217495

D P

325767

P

45598

SP 14681

DP 4173

14

6

4

30

D P

11

2

28

SP 732

3

98

DP 2298DP

DP 78052

SP 642

DP 4173

DP 77435SP 400

DP 974982

5

A

18

DP 1058463

2

DP 73435DP 77928

1

DP 1033272

DP 1033272

DP 9

DP 76749

68

6049

984

1

9393939393

83100

83A

8587

89

11611

91

104106

108 108A110

112114

283026 2

156158

71

144

117

119144

115

146148

121123

125

152

150

154

8196

98

7375

7779

90

841

6971

8688

9294

MIL

LN

SHADFORTH

RAGLANST

STREET

STREET


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council approved alterations and additions to three existing school buildings including first floor additions, a connecting rear walkway and five car parking spaces subject to conditions including a solid rear balustrade and a covenant for the school not to buy other properties. The application seeks deletion of these two conditions. The proposed change in balustrade material will have a negligible impact in terms of privacy and noise. The condition purporting to restrict the purchase of other properties by way of covenant is ultra vires. Accordingly, it is recommended that both conditions be deleted.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the south-eastern side of Shadforth Street, between Canrobert Street and Avenue Road. The site forms part of the Mosman Preparatory School campus. It comprises of three separate allotments and is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 40.23m to Shadforth Street. The site falls 3.8m from south to north, with an average gradient of 9.3%. The site presently contains three buildings; two x 2 storey buildings and one x single storey building. These buildings are currently being utilised by the school for classrooms, offices and staff facilities. The school also operates from the buildings located on No.71 Shadforth Street which owned by St Clement’s Church of England. Surrounding development consists of school and church buildings to the south-west, detached and semi detached dwelling houses opposite and to the north-east, and multiple dwellings to the rear. 2.0 BACKGROUND A report recommending conditional approval of Development Application 8.2004.395.1 for alterations and additions to the three school buildings including first floor additions, a connecting rear walkway and five car parking spaces was presented to Council’s 15 August 2005 meeting. Council resolved that the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted subject to:

A. Air conditioning be installed to prevent opening of doors and windows with the intention of containing noise within all classrooms the subject of the application.

B. The rear balconies of the buildings to have solid masonry balustrades to prevent overlooking of neighbours and alleviate noise.

C. School agree to enter into a covenant to not purchase any further properties in Shadforth Street or Raglan Street.

D. That a hand rail on No. 79 Shadforth Street’s south west boundary with the school be placed on Mr Carone’s property with his permission.”


Consequently, the Notice of Determination was sent to the applicant with, inter alia, the following conditions of consent.

“Balustrades

23. The rear balconies of the buildings to have solid masonry balustrades to prevent overlooking of neighbours and alleviate noise.”

“Covenant

51 The School is to enter into a covenant to not purchase any further properties in Shadforth Street or Raglan Street.”

On 23 August 2005, Council received correspondence from the school enclosing legal advice with regard to condition 51. This advice submits that condition 51 is beyond Council’s power and accordingly is unlawful and unenforceable. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of the deletion of condition Nos 23 and 51. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 9b. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 96(1A) assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1.1 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 23 The development remains consistent with the objectives of SREP 23 despite the modifications. 5.1.2 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(c) Residential. The works are ancillary to the use of the site for an educational establishment and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The works are also permitted pursuant to section 96(1A) of the Act, it being noted that: (a) the modification is of minimal environmental impact; (b) the development remains substantially the same as that for which consent was

originally granted; (c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP; and


(d) the two submissions received have been addressed at section 7.0 of this report. Height, Floorspace Ratio and Landscaped Area No change Heritage While the site itself does not contain a heritage item, it is located adjacent to a heritage item at No.71 Shadforth Street, is in the vicinity of other items and is within the Shadforth Street Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed modification to the balustrading will have a beneficial impact on the heritage significance of the conservation area. As will be discussed below, the design intent of the proposal maintaining the appearance of three separate buildings is in accordance with pre-DA advice given by Council’s heritage consultant 5.2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.2.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Building Design and Privacy The balustrades as originally proposed (and as shown on the plans) are 1m above the balcony floor and are constructed of metal with laminated safety glass panels (in the sections between the buildings) and of timber railings (in the remaining sections). The rear balconies and their balustrades were designed to be “transparent” between the buildings in order to maintain the appearance of the three buildings as being “free standing”. A solid balustrade would detract from this design element. Although not specified, the intent of condition 23 is understood to relate to protecting the aural and visual privacy of the residents located to the rear (west) of the site. The proposed first floor balconies are more than 10m from the common boundary with these properties and approximately 20m from the buildings themselves. Given the approved height of the balustrades, a change in material will not result in any significant change to privacy or noise levels experienced by the properties to the rear. The majority of students stand well above the balustrade height and therefore will be able to see over the balustrade no matter what material it is constructed from. The rooms along the back wall of the three buildings at the upper level comprise one classroom with 1.1m sill height windows, small tutor rooms, an office and a toilet. In each scenario a child in a seated position would not have a view through the window and balustrade to neighbouring properties that would result in undue privacy levels. Consequently, condition 23 provides little benefit for the neighbours. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Raglan Sirius Bradleys townscape. The proposal satisfies the desired future character objectives for this area, particularly in relation to the Shadforth Street Conservation Area, in that the siting and design of the proposed works respects the local context and conservation significance of the area. 5.3 LAWFULNESS OF CONDITION 51. Condition 51 requires the School enter into a covenant to not purchase any further properties in Shadforth Street or Raglan Street.


The use of a covenant is inappropriate in the circumstances. Contrary to the function of a covenant to place a positive obligation on the applicant, the condition purports to restrict the activity of the school. An attempt to impose a restriction as to user on the use of land would also be inappropriate as Council can only impose conditions on land to which the application relates, which does not extend to neighbouring properties. To impose a caveat on the title of other properties, the School must have a caveatable interest. As outlined in the attached memorandum to Councillors from the Manager Development Services dated 22 September 2005 a caveatable interest arises when you have a legal property interest (for example you are the first mortgagee or you hold a lease with a period of less than 3 years) or where you have an interest that would be recognised by a Court of equity (for example once you have exchanged contracts to buy land but before settlement or if you are a beneficiary under a trust or if you are a 2nd, 3rd mortgagee etc). Theoretically therefore, the School contract to buy a site (thereby creating a caveatable interest), place a caveat not to buy the land and then forfeit their deposit for not proceeding with the contract. Doing so though would be a commercial absurdity and in reality would never happen. Condition 51 in its current form also fails Newberry test criteria and section 80A(4) of the Act in that the condition does not relate to the subject application and is not reasonable. In the circumstances, it is concluded that the condition is ultra vires and accordingly must be deleted. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The proposed modification does not necessitate change to any of these matters. 6.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 29 September 2005 and 14 October 2005. Two submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: • 84B Shadforth St; and • 79 Shadforth St. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

The modifications will reduce privacy levels to adjoining properties Comment: As discussed above, condition 23 will have negligible impact on the privacy levels of adjoining properties.

The modifications will result in further property acquisitions by the school and the consequent destruction of the heritage conservation area and its streetscape.

Comment: As discussed above, condition 51 is ultra vires. Council cannot prevent the school purchasing other sites. If it does purchase other sites and seeks to expand the school, a full planning assessment including heritage and streetscape impacts would be undertaken at that time. If the streetscape and heritage of the area were “to be destroyed” then the proposal would not be approved by Council.


Wasn’t the requirement for a solid masonry verandah to protect the privacy of No.79 Shadforth Street?

Comment: Condition 23 would have negligible impact on this property. The privacy of the property will be protected by the 6.5m high timber privacy screen located adjacent the stairwell leading from the balcony to the ground floor. The stairwell is located 4.7m from the common boundary. While there is a 1m length of balcony protruding beyond the privacy screen, this is setback some 10.8m from the common boundary and, for the same reasons as discussed above, a change from glass to masonry, will have a negligible impact on the privacy level of No.79 Shadforth Street.

Is a copy of the schools submission regarding the covenant not to purchase in Shadforth Street or Raglan Streets available to us?

Comment: Yes, the document can be viewed through Council’s normal records process. 8.0 CONCLUSION Given that the proposed change in balustrade material will have a negligible impact in terms of privacy and noise and that condition 51 is unlawful, the proposed modifications are recommended for approval. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Gardner Wetherill & Associates. The owner is Mosman Church of England Preparatory School. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2004.395.2 be approved pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by deleting of condition Nos 23 and 51. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS • Memo from Manager Development Services dated 22 September 2005


EP/306 18 Hopetoun Avenue DA NUMBER: 8.2002.285.6 PROPOSAL: Modification of consent to the floor layout, fenestration and

windows REPORTING OFFICER: Bertha Gunawan, Student Assessment Officer LODGEMENT DATE: 13 September 2005 (Downtime 0 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

100DP 3793

9

1214

DP 3793

DP 828228

34

5B

1214

13

DP

3459

94

DP 583730

1 A

10A

DP

3379

72

DP

3793

100

23101

DP

B

2

DP 212953D

P 39

4089

302

7 8

301

A

3128

DP 3793

APT17 18

DP

3390

15

DP

3474

29

DP 804423

DP

1679

02

A

850 B

B

739

DP 375335

DP

7520

67

RE

SE

RV

E

1 - 3

2

4

12 108

6

2

2

14

30

8

20

1C1

26

1B

22

1A

18 16

2321

192224

55A

3A 3

2624A

24

2

1

28

2

1

ERVI

LLE

AVE

RD

AVE

NE

HOPETOUN

KIRKOSWALD

RO

SHER

VILL

E


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal involves reconfiguration to the windows, doors and the internal wall layout of the dwelling to reflect works as built. The modifications also include enclosing the covered rear terrace on the first floor and extension of the ensuite on the third floor. Works proposed in this Section 96 are behind the foreshore building line, however are visible from the harbour. The proposal is satisfactory in its current form, but shall not include modifications proposed to the basement area as that relates to a separate and refused application. A penalty infringement notice for works carried out without consent is also recommended.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the northern side of Hopetoun Avenue, west of Kirkoswald Avenue. The site is ”L” shaped with a frontage of 28.655m to Hopetoun Avenue. The site falls 31m to the rear at an average gradient of 38.5% where the site enjoys frontage to Middle Harbour. The site contains a three storey dwelling house and a basement grotto located towards the waterfront. The subject property also contains an existing pavilion and a tennis court with a 3 car garage underneath, to the front (south) of the main dwelling. Surrounding development consists of large detached dwelling houses of two and three storeys. A drainage channel is located immediately to the west of the site. 2.0 BACKGROUND Numerous applications have been lodged with and approved by Council for works on this site. In brief: • On 6 February 2003 Development Consent 8.2002.285.1 was issued for the demolition of

an existing internal swimming pool, major internal alterations to the existing dwelling house and an infill addition between the two existing wings of the dwelling house with a part flat and part pitched roof. A number of Section 96 Modification applications have since been approved by Council to modify the building design.

• On 16 March 2004 Development Consent 8.2003.465.1 was issued for the construction

of grotto and terrace area to the rear of the site. On 7 May 2004, a section 96 application was lodged to modify this consent to provide for a new kitchen, bathroom and storage room within the grotto, however, the application was later withdrawn as it was determined that the works were not substantially in accordance with the original consent. On 8 June 2004, Development Application 8.2004.197.1 was lodged for these works and was refused by Council at its meeting on 21 February 2005, due to the works having already been constructed and as retrospective approval could not be given. Notwithstanding this, due to the acceptable environmental impacts, it was resolved that no further action be taken beyond the issuing of a $600 fine. On 26 April 2005, development consent was issued for the second Section 96 application for change to rear terrace, grotto, landscaping and water feature. On 9 November 2005, the third modification to the consent was lodged to Council to re-shape of the water feature and landscaping works.

• On 24 June 2005 Development Consent 8.2005.58.1 was issued for a terrace, retaining

wall, stair and landscape works to the harbour front of the dwelling. On 9 November 2005, an application to modify the consent was lodged to Council for further changes to the landscaping works and retaining walls.


• On 22 September 2005 Development Application No. 8.2005.213.1 was approved for

alterations and additions to the existing tennis court pavilion including new windows, doors, internal layout changes, an awning, cladding, balcony and change to garden beds.

• On 13 September the fifth modification to the DA consent 8.2002.285.1 was lodged for

works proposed as stated in Section 3 of the report. It is noted during the site inspection that there is an additional window to the ensuite at the third floor on the eastern elevation, however it was not shown on the elevation plan (DA9D dated 7 September 2005 prepared by Savin J. Couelle). The consultant submitted a revised east elevation plan (DA13 dated November 2005 prepared by Savin J.Couelle) including the additional window.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: • Changes to the location and size of windows, doors and an arch; • Changes to the approved floor and stairs layout and internal walls throughout the

dwelling (including the basement floor); • The enlargement of ensuite and new walk in robe to the third floor; • Additional floor space area including stairs accessing the basement at first floor level; and • A new lift motor room. All works proposed have been constructed. This was confirmed on an on-site inspection on 29 November 2005. Retrospective approval under Section 96 is sought and can be approved. The basement area was refused under DA 8.2004.197.1 as the proposed works had been constructed without development consent and retrospective approval could not be granted under a development application (as distinct from a section 96). However, noting the acceptable environmental impacts of the works, Council resolved to take no further action on the matter beyond the issuing of a penalty infringement notice for the works having been carried out without consent. In this circumstance, further modifications to the basement area cannot form part of this Section 96. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 1a. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 96(2) and 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and

Tributaries • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours • Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2004 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space



Site Area N/A 1986m2 N/A

Building and wall height, number of storeys

8.5m, 7.2m, 2 storeys

No change N/A

Gross Floor Area

Approved 1221.4m2 N/A

Permitted in basement

Proposed

70.9 m2

24.5m2

N/A

N/A

Total 1316.8m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.44 : 1 0.66: 1 (+ 52%) No

Landscaped Area

Existing 3205m2 527.5m2 N/A

Proposed 3269m2 527.5m2 No

Foreshore Building Line (FBL) Applies Works behind FBL Yes DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks

Basement – east & west

Ground floor - east & west

First floor - east & west

Second Floor - east & west

Third floor - east & west

1.5m

3m

3m

3m

4m

1.5m

1.5m

1.5m (existing)

1.5m (existing)

1.5m (existing)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No



>2 hours Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and

Tributaries The proposed works are visible from Middle Harbour. Enclosure of the first floor stairs leading to the basement floor will create additional bulk, but is not detrimental to the general building design and hence to the visual qualities of Middle Harbour, its foreshores or tributaries. Reconfiguration of windows and doors fronting the harbour is acceptable. The proposal does not alter the existing natural features and vegetation on the foreshore and the immediate surroundings. In these circumstances, the provisions of SEPP 56 are met. 5.2.2 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours The proposal does not create detrimental visual impacts when viewed from the harbour. The proposal is generally in keeping with the character of the area and no significant natural features within the property and the surrounding are affected.


5.2.3 Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2004 The proposal is satisfactory as per SREP 23. In addition, it is noted the changes have no significant effect on views to the harbour. 5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned Residential 2(a2). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. The works (with exception to the basement area) are also permitted pursuant to section 96(2) of the Act, it being noted that: (a) the development remains substantially the same as that for which consent was

originally granted; (b) aspects of the proposed modification do not relate to conditions imposed by

Department Land and Water Conservation or the Waterways Authority in their capacity as an approval body;

(c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP; and (d) the one submission received (a letter of support) has been addressed at section 7.0 of

this report. Height No change to building height, wall height or the number of storeys is proposed. Floorspace Ratio The basement floor previously allowed to remain, the enclosure of the covered terrace on the first floor to create stairs accessing the basement and the extension of ensuite and another walk-in-robe result in additional gross floor area, and an increase in the FSR from 0.615:1 to 0.66:1 (difference: 0.045:1). Enclosure of the terrace area is not detrimental and excessive when seen from the harbour and the surrounding properties. Further, the extension of ensuite and a new walk-in-robe towards the southern elevation is acceptable and not overly excessive in scale. The basement area is not visible from the street, western or eastern elevations. The basement area, as seen from the harbour, is constructed having similar materials as the internal walls of the grotto and hence does not appear as such an additional storey. Overall the additional bulk and scale as the result of the modifications is satisfactory. The house character is compatible with the surrounding locality, and no excavation is proposed. In the circumstances, floor space ratio objectives as stated in Clause 14(1) of Mosman LEP 1998 are met and non-compliance with the maximum allowable floorspace is acceptable. Landscaped Area The required landscaped area is unachievable noting that it is greater than the site area. The modifications do not result in the loss of any landscaped area nor greatly change the relationship of built form to natural form. Accordingly, the proposal reasonably satisfies clause 15.


Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposal generally is in keeping with the natural, visual, and environmental qualities of Mosman and is in accordance with the planning controls and objectives as stated in SREP23. Foreshore Building Line The modifications are all located behind the foreshore building line. The proposal will not detrimentally affect the visual, natural, and heritage qualities of Mosman. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The proposed works visible externally include the reconfiguration of windows and doors to all sides of the existing house levels, and the lowering of an arch on the second floor balcony. Further, there is additional floor area resulting from the approved enclosed terrace area on the first floor, and the extension of an ensuite and a new walk-in-robe on the third floor. Also, it is noted that the flat roof is 300mm lower than previously approved, except for a small square space for the lift over-run. Setbacks to the second and third floors (1.5m) do not comply with the minimum provision of 3m and 4m respectively. However, non-compliance to the second floor had been previously approved, and extension to the third floor is continuing the approved setback. Overall, the siting and scale of the proposal is not unacceptable as per previous assessments and is generally comparable with other housing in the locality. Spatial relief between buildings is generally as existing, and amenity to the surrounding neighbours is generally maintained. The proposed setback non-compliances are satisfactory based in these circumstances. Views Public and private views to the harbour are maintained. There are no detrimental impacts caused by this proposal. Landscaping The existing provision of landscaping is maintained. The proposal will not alter the existing natural features of the area. Streetscape and Building Design The main dwelling is setback 32.6m from the front boundary and due to the topography its roof ridge is below the street level. The proposed modifications complement the existing building design and will have minimal streetscape implications. Privacy The proposal will not create detrimental privacy impacts for the adjoining neighbours.


Overshadowing There is no additional overshadowing resulting from the proposed modifications. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Rosherville/Wyargine townscape. The proposal is generally in accordance with the desired characteristics of the locality. The proposal is acceptable in its building form and does not obstruct any existing public and private views. Although the proposal does not comply with the minimum provision of second and third floor setbacks, views between buildings are retained. Based on these circumstances, the proposal is satisfactory. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Open Space As no additional bedrooms are proposed, a section 94 contribution is not required. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The proposed modification does not necessitate change to any of these matters. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES There are no comments from other Council Departments or State Authorities. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 19 October 2005 and 3 November 2005. No objections are raised. One letter of support from 14A-16 Hopetoun Avenue was received accompanying the DA. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed modifications basically involve reconfiguration of windows, doors and the lowering of arch on the second floor rear balcony and also the reconfiguration of internal walls and the floor and stairs layout of the dwelling. There is additional gross floor area due to the enclosure of the covered terrace area fronting the harbour and the extension of the ensuite and a new walk-in-robe. The changes are all relatively innocuous and do not raise any significant planning issues. The proposal also includes modifications to internal walls within the basement area, which cannot be considered as they relate to a different (and refused) application. The changes have no real impact and accordingly no further action on the matter is recommended. Finally, the process of building differently to approved plans and applying for the changes later is to be condemned. A penalty infringement notice is recommended for the prescribed statutory amount. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Smyth Planning. The owner is Rosalind Joan Lambert.


10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That Development Application No. 8.2002.285.6 be approved pursuant to Section

96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by:

A1. Amending condition No 1.1 to read as follows: 1.1 This approval relates to the following Plan Nos. (except where amended by

the following conditions)

Plan Nos Date of Plan Prepared by DA0B, A4B and A6B 9 September 2005 Savin J Couelle

A2C 12 September 2005 “ DA9D* 7 September 2005 “ DA13 November 2005 “

*except in relation to the east elevation, which is superseded by DA13

A2. Addition of the following advisory notes:

(i) Section 82A of the Act provides for an applicant to request Council to review its determination excepting applications made on behalf of the Crown or applications in respect of designated development, integrated development or a complying development certificate. The request for review must be made within 12 months of the date of determination or prior to appeal being heard by the Land and Environment Court. A decision on a review may not be further reviewed under section 82A.

(ii) A public inquiry by a Commission of Inquiry was not held under Section 119 of the Act.

(iii) Failure to comply with the relevant provisions of the Act and/or the conditions of this consent may result in the serving of penalty notices or legal action through the Land and Environment Court.

B. That no further action be taken in relation to the additional wall changes to the basement area.

C. That a $600 penalty infringement notice be issued for works not having been carried

out in accordance with the consent. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS • A4 Plans


EP/307 TPO Appeal – 2 D (aka1096) Middle Head Road MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: Team Leader Open Space, John Grady SUMMARY Report on Tree Preservation Order Appeal - 2D Middle Head Road. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That the report be received and noted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: No

REPORT Council has received an appeal to a TPO assessment on a tree at 2D (aka1096) Middle Head Road. The property is a former Defence Housing Authority property which was transferred to Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (SHFT) which, in turn, has sold the site to a private owner. The site is currently subject to a develop application (DA) which was lodged before recent changes to the State Environmental Planning Policy which previously affected the site. The Minister for Planning therefore is the consent authority. Staff will investigate the situation further over the coming days and will distribute a memo and a recommendation to Councillors with late correspondence on Friday 9 December 2005. Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment and Planning


EP/308 Development Applications MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: Manager Development Services SUMMARY Development Applications that have been received and dealt with by Council’s Director Environment and Planning under the provisions of Section 378 (Delegated Authority) of the Local Government Act 1993. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Development Services recommends that the report be received. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes DIRECTOR'S REPORT No. DCA No. Address/Description Applicant 1. 8.2005.127.1 98 Awaba Street

Alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwelling including internal reconfiguration to the ground floor and first floor attic addition accommodating a bedroom and bathroom

Archicentre Architects Pty Ltd

2. 8.2005.145.1 18 Bapaume Road Alterations and additions to existing dwelling house

Mr M R McInnes

3. 8.2005.171.1 179 Ourimbah Road Alterations and additions to existing semi-detached house, new garage with terrace/balcony over

Mr M Koraiem

4. 8.2005.206.1 20 Delecta Avenue Alterations and additions to existing dwelling house, demolition of existing inclinator and erection of lift shaft, swimming pool and landscaping works

EA Planning

5. 8.2005.225.1 107 Belmont Road Demolition of existing garage and construction of a studio

Mr T C & Mrs J M Taylor

6. 8.2005.234.1 18A Kirkoswald Avenue (Lot C) Alterations and additions to existing dwelling house including study/ensuite at first floor level, new deck and pool

Mrs C Croker

7. 8.2005.289.1 26 Wyong Road Alterations to existing front fence

Mr N & Mrs J Drabsch


No. DCA No. Address/Description Applicant 8. 8.2005.297.1 3/8 Spit Road

Change of use as a recreational facility Pilates studio and erection of an advertising sign

Exact Fulfilment Services P/L

9. 8.2005.308.1 26 Bray Street Conversion of sunroom to open verandah

Mr David Kenny

10. 8.2005.311.1 1 Countess Street Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house to reinstate the original verandah and upgrade the handrail to balcony upstairs

Mr Bruce Hart

11. 8.2005.315.1 Lot 65 – Unit 17/6-8 Wyargine Street Alterations to the common laundry and additions of a new study and kitchen to Unit 17 of the multiple dwelling

Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners

12. 8.2005.325.1 7 Middle Head Road Installation of an in-ground spa and associated landscaping works

Boddham Whetham Dorta

13. 8.2005.326.1 47 Prince Albert Street Construction of a pergola at the rear of the premises and new side timber boundary fence

Home Environment Design Group

14. 8.2005.328.1 20 Pindari Avenue Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including internal works to the existing kitchen and laundry and the relocation of an external staircase and new awning

Mr G Cooper & Mrs M Schmidt

15. 8.2005.349.1 14 Congewoi Road Construction of a wooden deck at the front of the existing dwelling and altering two existing windows and doors

Mr L J Creek & Ms H M Barrett

16. 8.2005.358.1 23 Awaba Street Installation of a new window at premises

Ian & Helen Kennedy


EP/309 Land and Environment Court Legal Expenses MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: Colin McFadzean, Manager Development Services SUMMARY To update Council on litigation costs and the distribution of work to Council’s legal panel for development application related matters. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Development Services recommends that the report be received. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The purpose of this report is to keep Council up to date with development application related litigation costs incurred for the financial year and to inform Council which legal firm has been allocated work. The report also provides a brief synopsis on the outcome of litigation matters. Costs include fees for Council’s solicitors and any expert witnesses engaged but do not account for time spent by Council staff either engaged in defending the appeal or in undertaking administrative tasks associated with the carriage of the appeal. In some cases, work has been carried out but Council has not yet been billed or not billed to the full extent. 2005-2006 Budget Summary Budget allocation 2005-2006 $200,000.00

Costs incurred up to 30 November 2005 $ 79,824.07

Projected expenditure for 2005-2006 calculated on costs incurred to date $191,577.77

Projected budget surplus $ 8,422.23 Costs Trend Legal expenditure this time last year $163,841.22

Costs trend from last year Down 51%

Reports to Ordinary Meeting of Council - 12 December 2005 Page 192

Pike Pike and Fenwick

Address File Number Proposal Recommendation Council Decision Outcome / Court Decision 04-05 Appeal Costs ($)

05-06 Appeal Costs ($)

Note

15 Cyprian Street 8.2004.186.1 Front and side

fence Approve with conditions to lower fence height Delegated approval One high fence allowed, one disallowed

- 10,493.66 1

200 Spit Road 8.2003.195.1 Dwelling

additions Refuse Delegated refusal Concessions granted satisfying landscape concerns resulting in approval. Awaiting judgement on costs to Council

13,696.10 Nil to date 1, 3

27 Iluka Road

8.2003.36.1 Garage and inclinator Refuse Delegated refusal Appeal upheld. - 25,305.68 1

3 Hopetoun Avenue 8.2000.174.1 Dwelling

additions Approve Delegated approval See separate report and solicitors' advice. 35,661.97 1,100.01 1, 2

30-32 Julian Street

8.2004.515.1 Demo boatshed and dwelling

Pending Pending Discontinued following reconsideration of position and owners consent issues - 1,278.16 CR 1, 4

507 Military Road 8.2004.239.2 (KFC) Tree

preservation Fine Advice on prosecution N/A - Nil to date 1

76 Middle Head Road 8.2003.284.2 Hotel

alterations Conditional approval

Conditional approval with time condition to close windows for noise

Pending, contested hearing re time condition to close windows. Further noise testing in October-November

- 16,350.00 1

14 Wolseley Road

8.2004.514.1 Plunge pool Refuse Delegated refusal Hearing adjourned for further amended plans, notification and further acoustic evidence

- 3,745.01

20-22 Moruben Road

8.2004.206.3

Landscaping change to multiple dwelling

Refuse Delegated refusal Discontinued - 710.91

200 Spit Road - Chalkboard

sign Fine issued Fine Offence proved but fine waived - 2,766.29

28A Warringah Road

8.2005.274.1 Multiple dwellings Pending Approved Pending (likely discontinuance) - Nil to date

361 Military Road 8.2005.20.1

Demolish nursery, 16 multiple dwellings

Pending Refused Pending - Nil to date

18 Pretoria Avenue 8.2004.247.1 Dwelling

additions Refuse Refused Pending - Nil to date

TOTAL COSTS THIS FINANCIAL YEAR UP TO 30 NOVEMBER 2005 63,902.99

Reports to Ordinary Meeting of Council - 12 December 2005 Page 193

Home Wilkinson Lowry

Address File Number Proposal Recommendation Council Decision Outcome / Court Decision 04-05 Appeal Costs ($)

05-06 Appeal Costs ($)

Note

1A Avenue Road 8.2005.144.1

Multiple dwelling additions

Pending Pending Various sets of amended plans lodged. Deferred to enable assessment

- 5,164.72

3 Park Avenue 5.1993.226.3

Modify multiple dwelling

Refuse Delegated refusal Pending - 2,140.02

3 Park Avenue 8.2004.145.1 Strata

subdivision Refuse Delegated refusal Pending - 2,140.01

16-18 Musgrave Street

8.2004.50.1 7 multiple dwellings in 3 buildings

Refuse Refused Pending - 2,754.51

18A Kirkoswald Avenue

8.2005.234.1 Dwelling house Pending Pending Pending - 1,983.01

5 Curraghbeena Avenue

8.2004.497.1 Dwelling additions Refuse Approved Pending (likely discontinue) - 1,738.81

TOTAL COSTS THIS FINANCIAL YEAR UP TO 30 NOVEMBER 2005 15,921.08

Notes: 1 Appeal commenced prior to 1 July 2005 and the appointment of Home Wilkinson Lowry to Council’s legal panel 2 Court of Appeal matter following Council’s success in defending a Class 4 action of the validity of DA & CC for the site. 3 Court Order that the applicant pay $8,063.59 to Council. Money not yet received. 4 Includes settlement where the applicant paid $1500.00 costs to Council.


EP/310: 8 Central Avenue DA NUMBER: 8.2005.130.1 PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing childcare

centre including the erection of an acoustic fence REPORTING OFFICER: Danielle Dunford, Executive Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 19 April 2005 (Downtime 142 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

P

DP 323241

PT1

PT1

PT1

DP 656344

D

DP 324761

1

3

SP 41501

64

1

65

DP

3163

58

DP 342148

SP 22519

DP 1

3019

1

11

1110

PT2

DP 577436

DP

5

58

DP 4000

16

17

15

61

1820

DP 4000

SP 646

DP 656346

DP

7961

1413

DP 82

PT1

PT3

PT5

23

59 60

1213

5857

10

6

6362

74

3

11

6

SP 1

0936

DP

7961

2219

21

00

187

189

204

200

2

202

210

2121

021

021

0

1519 17

13

69

196

190

194

198

171

171

173

175

177

6

7

10 8

5 3

4

1

2A

11

14

11111111

12

9

2723

2529

31

1820

16

24

820

2226

28

2

AVE

SPIT

ST

RD

CENTRAL

QUAKERS

RYRIE


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application has been made for the construction of an acoustic fence, removal of a tree and a change to hours and number of children at outdoor playtime. The outdoor playtime hours and numbers are controlled by two existing conditions of consent. These conditions can only be varied by way of a formal modification of consent application and consequently cannot be dealt with under this application. In any event, sufficient acoustic information has not been submitted to justify the change. The proposed acoustic fence and tree remove are satisfactory subject to conditions. Sundry recommendations are made concerning orders for acoustic fencing and penalties for condition breaches.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the southern side of Central Avenue, between Spit Road and Bullecourt Avenue. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 15.24m to both Central Avenue and Quakers Road. The site is relatively flat. The site presently contains single storey building operating as a childcare centre. Surrounding development consists of detached dwellings and multiple dwelling developments. A new dwelling house is currently under construction at No.6 Central Avenue. 2.0 BACKGROUND On 8 February 1996, the Land and Environment Court approved an application for a child care centre on the site (Appeal No.10575 of 1995). Condition Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of this consent read as follows: “10. The open space at the rear of the site is to be limited to the use of children aged 2-

6 with no more than 9 children at any time, i.e. minimum of two sessions. The open space area on the eastern side is to be limited to the use of children aged 0-2 only.

11. The outdoor play areas shall not be used by children for a period greater than 2

hours per day. Such outdoor use shall occur only between the hours of 9.00am-11am and 3.00pm-5.00pm.

12. Where not currently in existence, a noise shielding fence to a height in accordance

with the approved plans shall be constructed on the boundary between the premises and 6 and 10 Central Avenue from impervious material with a south transmission loss of at least Sound Transmission Class 25. The fence is to be maintained at the cost of the applicant for the duration of the proposed activities.


13. The LA10 noise level emanating from the child care activities as measured over any 15 minute period at a position 1m outside of any window to any adjacent premises shall not exceed 54 dB(A) for a ground floor window or 58 dB(A) for a first floor window.”

On 25 November 1997, a Section 102 (modification) was approved, in part, by the Land and Environment Court. The Court permitted rear gates and fences along the Quaker’s Road frontage. The Court refused the application to delete a fence separating the 0 to 2 year old and 2 – 6 year old play areas. On 3 August 1998, a further Section 102 (modification) application was approved by the Court. The amendment related to the material and height of the fence separating fence the 0 to 2 year old and 2 – 6 year old play areas. Building Application No.165/96 was approved by Council on 29 May 1996. An amendment to this approval was issued on 27 September 1996. Following several complaints regarding non-compliance with consent conditions and noise in general, Council commissioned PKA Acoustic Consultants to undertake testing of the site. The report found non-compliance with conditions 11 and 13 and indicated that conditions 10 and 12 may also not be complied with. The report along with suggested measures to assist compliance was forwarded to the child care centre operators. Consideration of the report and subsequent discussions culminated in the lodgement of the current application which attempts to resolve acoustic issues. The application has been subject of several requests for additional information resulting in delays in the assessment process. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Development application 8.2005.130.1 seeks the following: 1. Construction of a new acoustic fence adjacent to the common boundary with No.10

Central Avenue. The fence has a length of 6.3m and a height of 2.715m comprising of a 1.8m vertical section and an approximate 1.3m angled return section splaying at 45 degrees. It is proposed to be located adjacent the existing fence.

It should be noted that no fencing is proposed on the boundary with No. 6 Central Avenue. As later disclosed within acoustic comments, fencing along both boundaries presently fails to comply with condition 12.

2. Removal of an existing Jacaranda Tree located on the side boundary. 3. A change to the outdoor playtimes for the 2-6 year olds to the following:

Two sessions of 18 children:

Session 1: 9.30am-10.45am Session 2: 3.30pm-4.45pm The cumulative outdoor play is not to exceed 2 hours per day.


These sessions would be in addition to 9 x 0-2 year olds as per condition 10. The third element cannot be dealt with under the subject application as it first involves modifying Condition 10 and 11 of the current consent. The conditions can only be varied by lodging an application under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and have therefore not been considered as part of this subject application (however, Council’s Environmental Health Officer has made comments regarding this issue at Section 6.0). No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 10b. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area N/A 613m2 N/A DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks

0.9m

0.2m

No

Fencing Height 1.8m 2.175m No 5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours The proposal will not be visible from the harbour or foreshore and thereby satisfies the provisions of SREP 23.


5.2.2 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned Residential 2(a1). The works are defined as ancillary to the use of the premises as a child care centre. Child care centres are a prohibited use in the 2(a1) Residential zone pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development is permitted if existing use rights are established under section 106 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The onus of establishing existing use rights lies with the applicant. Prima facie, there are three elements to an “existing use”: 1. The use is prohibited under an environmental planning instrument. 2. Consent for the use was granted before the commencement of the environmental

planning instrument referred to in 1, and 3. The non conforming use has been carried out continuously since the prohibiting

instrument without a 12 month gap at any point. As above, the use is prohibited in the zone, thereby satisfying criterion (1). Consent for a child care centre was issued in 1996 pursuant to the provisions of Mosman Local Environmental Plan No. 1 under which child care centres were permissible with consent. Therefore, as consent for the use as child care centre was granted before the commencement of Mosman LEP 1998, criterion (2) is satisfied. The use became prohibited when Mosman LEP 1998 was gazetted. The applicant submits that the current use has been operating from the premises from this time and it is evident from numerous Council inspections of the site that the use of the premises as a child care centre is continuing to the current day. Therefore, criterion (3) is satisfied and consequently, existing use rights have been established. Section 108 of the Act enables the rebuilding and expansion of an existing use. The relevant objectives of the 2(a1) Residential zone applicable to the subject site are:

• Retain the single dwelling character of the environmentally sensitive residential areas of Mosman

• Maintain the general dominance of landscape over built form, particularly on harbour foreshores

• Maintain the existing subdivision pattern

• Ensure that sites are of sufficient size to provide for buildings, vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping and retention of natural topographical features

• Ensure that development is of a height and scale which complements existing buildings and streetscapes


• Allow for some non-residential uses that would not adversely affect the living environment of the area

• Encourage residential development which has regard to local amenity and, in particular, public and private views

• Maintain the natural character of the harbour foreshore by ensuring that landscape dominates over built form.

The 6th and 7th objectives concerning the living environment and local amenity are of direct relevance to the application and are discussed in later sections of this report, particularly with regard to acoustic impacts. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposal will not be visible from the harbour or foreshore and thereby satisfies clause 27. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Landscaping It is proposed to remove the existing Jacaranda tree located on the side boundary. An arborist report has been submitted with the application supporting the removal of the tree. Council’s Landscape Designer has raised no objection to its removal. Streetscape and Building Design The height and design of the proposed fence is satisfactory. While the overall height is greater than the usual 1.8m, the additional height will comprise of angled perspex which will have minimal visual impact, allowing sunlight to penetrate while also providing noise attenuation. The fence will not be visible from Central Avenue and will not be prominent from Quakers Road. Privacy The objective of clause 5.6 is to have adequate visual and acoustic privacy levels for residents and neighbours. Planning Guideline P12 states “that where buildings adjoin major external noise sources proper consideration must be given to following design issues”. The proposed fence addresses these requirements by providing attenuation between the outdoor play areas and the adjoining residential property.


Townscape Controls The site is located within the Middle Harbour/ Pearl Bay townscape. The proposal is generally consistent with the desired future character objectives for this area, other than the objective of encouraging ‘low open style front and side fences’. This non-compliance is acceptable as the acoustic benefits of the fence far outweigh any visual impacts. In any case, the fence will not be visible from the street. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE

AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer raised no objection subject to conditions. The removal of the Jacaranda sp is approved. On 6 July 2005, Council’s Environmental Health Officer made the following comments regarding the acoustic aspects of the proposal.

“The two aspects of the application, the erection of an acoustic fence between 10 and 8 Central Avenue, and an increase to the numbers of children allowed to play in the yard simultaneously have arisen from the conditions of consent imposed by the Land and Environment Court (appeal 10575 of 1995) and neighbourhood complaints relating to non-compliance with those conditions. The noise emission from the number of children outside simultaneously, the noise barriers between 6 and 8 and 8 and 10 Central Ave and the duration and time of play appear to be paramount in the approval of the activity despite the childcare centre operating more than 5dB above the background noise level. The objections to the proposal, relating to acoustic issues, centre on the ability of the applicant to achieve the noise limits prescribed in the conditions. A summary of objections received and comments have been provided at the end of this memo. Given the intent of the conditions, if a solution can be devised for erection of an acoustic barrier that is capable of achieving the same noise level (given the increased children numbers) at all neighbouring residences as set out in Condition 13, and the duration of play is not extended, then the number of children playing simultaneously can reasonably be increased. There is no change to the proposed duration of outdoor play (2 hours) or extension of the times at which play occurs (the changes restrict play times within the existing L&E court conditions).


To enable assessment of the proposal, further acoustic information will be required to be provided. This information has been listed on the following page. Additionally, it should be noted that the acoustic report submitted by the acoustic consultant will be based on projected noise levels. A validation report will be required to be provided upon commencement of this proposal confirming that the acoustic barriers have been successful in achieving the noise limits prescribed in Condition 13. In this regard consideration will need to be given as to what action can be taken by Council in relation to the numbers of children playing if it is realised that the acoustic measures are unsuccessful in mitigating noise from the increased numbers. Acoustic fencing to comply with Land and Environment Court conditions The following information is deficient/is required to be provided:

• Noise measurements incorporating the recently installed play equipment (described as a 1m high plastic platform).

• Noise measurements taken of a play session that has measured the noise emitted by both the 2-6 age group and the 0-2 age group playing simultaneously. If the applicant does not propose to have both groups playing simultaneously then further detail is to be provided on when the 0-2 age group play time is scheduled. The noise measurements should be taken with all 18 children present (9 x 0-2 and 9 x 2-6).

• Noise measurements to determine the noise impact on both the east (6 Central Avenue) and west (10 Central Avenue) properties, incorporating the above requirements. The predicted values, both with and without acoustic screening are to be specified. Both the first floor and ground floor are to be considered.

• Details of an acoustic fence to the boundary with 6 Central Avenue, as required in Condition 12 of the consent.

• Details of the sound transmission of the acoustic fences (on the eastern and western boundaries) with reference to Condition 12 of the consent.

• Further detail on the proposed fence between 8 and 10 Central Avenue with specific reference to whether the fence will extend towards the building to prevent sound transmission through the passageway to the west of the main building. If this is not proposed details should be provided on the expected noise transmission via this path.

• An analysis of the predicted noise levels at the ground floor and first floor of 10 and 6 Central Avenue with reference to background noise levels (the predicted levels for the ground floor at 10 Central Avenue were below background).

Additionally, the recommendations of the Acoustic Logic report 2005137/0228A/R1/MC include an option for the use of plexiglass in the angled return of the acoustic fencing for light transmission if required. This will be required to be provided. Acoustic information relating to increased child numbers playing simultaneously


The following information is deficient/is required to be provided (in addition to that requested above):

• Predicted noise levels incorporating all children playing simultaneously ie 27 children. If the applicant does not propose to have both 0-2 and 2-6 groups playing simultaneously then further detail is to be provided on when the 0-2 age group play time is scheduled.

• Details of the predicted noise levels at 31 Ryrie Street and 5 Central Avenue and details of proposed acoustic treatment should the predicted levels exceed the noise requirements of Condition 13.

On 11 November 2005, Council’s Environmental Health Officer made the following detailed comments regarding the additional acoustic report submitted by the applicant.

“An assessment has been conducted of the additional information submitted by the applicant in support of the above application for

1. the provision of an acoustical fence between 8 and 10 Central Ave 2. the increase in the number of children allowed to play simultaneously in the

rear yard and 3. a change to the allowable hours for outdoor play

1. The provision of an acoustical fence between 8 and 10 Central Ave

The proposed fence has been designed with the objective of complying with two L&E court conditions, 12 and 13: Condition 12 “Where not currently in existence, a noise shielding fence to a height in accordance with the approved plans shall be constructed on the boundary between the premises and 6 and 10 Central Avenue from impervious material with a sound transmission loss of at least Sound Transmission Class 25. The fence is to be maintained at the cost of the applicant for the duration of the proposed activities.” Condition 13 “The LA10 noise level emanating from the child care centre activities as measured over any 15 minute period at a position 1m outside any window to any adjacent premises shall not exceed 54dB(A) for a ground floor window or 58dB(A) for a first floor window” In order to determine whether the proposed fence would gain compliance with the conditions the following information was requested on 11 July 2005:

i. Noise measurements incorporating the recently installed play equipment (described as a 1m high plastic platform).

ii. Noise measurements taken of a play session that has measured the noise emitted by both the 2-6 age group and the 0-2 age group playing simultaneously. If the applicant does not propose to have both groups playing


simultaneously then further detail is to be provided on when the 0-2 age group play time is scheduled. The noise measurements should be taken with all 18 children present (9 x 0-2 and 9 x 2-6).

iii. Noise measurements to determine the noise impact on both the east (6 Central Avenue) and west (10 Central Avenue) properties, incorporating the above requirements. The predicted values, both with and without acoustic screening are to be specified. Both the first floor and ground floor are to be considered.

iv. Details of an acoustic fence to the boundary with 6 Central Avenue, as required in Condition 12 of the consent.

v. Details of the sound transmission of the acoustic fences (on the eastern and western boundaries) with reference to Condition 12 of the consent.

vi. Further detail on the proposed fence between 8 and 10 Central Avenue with specific reference to whether the fence will extend towards the building to prevent sound transmission through the passageway to the west of the main building. If this is not proposed details should be provided on the expected noise transmission via this path.

vii. An analysis of the predicted noise levels at the ground floor and first floor of 10 and 6 Central Avenue with reference to background noise levels (the predicted levels for the ground floor at 10 Central Avenue were below background).

viii. Additionally, the recommendations of the Acoustic Logic report 2005137/0228A/R1/MC include an option for the use of plexiglass in the angled return of the acoustic fencing for light transmission if required. This will be required to be provided.

Not all the information was provided as can be seen below: Item Number Information provided

y/n Comments

i y ii n It is unclear when the 0-2 year olds were

playing. Although it was demonstrated that this has no impact upon 10 Central Avenue, it should be taken into account for the other surrounding properties. This should be addressed when the fence between 6 and 8 Central Avenue is proposed.

iii n The impact upon 6 Central Avenue was not considered because the fence to 6 Central Avenue is proposed to be deleted until the construction at 6 Central Avenue is complete.

iv n The acoustic fence between 6 and 8 Central Avenue is to be postponed until the construction of the dwelling at 6 Central Avenue is complete.

v n The STC of the proposed fence has not been provided

vi Y vii n Whilst the predicted noise level at 10 Central


Avenue is still below the measured background, this is a technical mistake and simply served to demonstrate that the noise experienced at 10 Central Avenue will be below background. Because the L&E limits are specific levels rather than a certain number above the background level this is not something that requires pursuing further.

viii Y Should be conditioned by planning staff Concerns were raised by the owner of 10 Central Avenue during the readings by Acoustic Logic on 30 August 2005 that the situation being measured (the play time) was not representative of typical noise generated by the childcare centre. I attended the premises on 2 September 2005 to view the operation of the centre and determined that this concern may be valid and that there was a need to return to take noise readings to determine if there was indeed a measurable difference. These readings were conducted on 9 September 2005. The difference in the readings (at ground level) taken by myself on 9 September 2005 and the readings obtained by Acoustic Logic on 30 August 2005 was 4-5dB. The difference appeared mainly to be attributed to the different activities conducted on the two days (the use of the elevated climbing equipment appears to be prone to more noise being generated by the children) and the different styles adopted by the carers on the two days, with the children being more quickly hushed and the carers running more activities on the on the 30/8. I do not believe that the situation as measured by Acoustic Logic on 30 August 2005 is representative of the normal operation of the centre using the maximum noise generating activities/equipment. As such, I would need to see that the proposed fence would be capable of attenuating an additional 5dB. Whilst this appears to be the case for the ground floor at 10 Central Avenue, the predicted noise levels given on page 6 of the Acoustic Logic report show that a level of 58dB(A) would be expected to be achieved at the first floor at 10 Central Avenue. An examination of the measured readings on page 8 reveals that levels of 58dB were recorded at the first floor of 10 Central Avenue, and as such the acoustic barrier will provide no attenuation to the first floor. The Land & Environment conditions will be breached if any levels are generated that are higher than those measured on 30 August by Acoustic Logic. Thus if the levels that I recorded on 9 September are achieved then the acoustic barrier will not provide compliance with the Land & Environment Court conditions. Additionally, although a difference of approx 5dB was obtained between my readings on 9 September 2005 and the Acoustic Logic readings on 30 August 2005, it appears through my discussions with the owner of 10 Central Avenue that she understood the L&E Condition 13 to mean that no noise was to be emitted from the premises above the specified levels. The actual condition uses the LA10 descriptor, which is based on the level of noise which is exceeded for 10% of the measurement time period. Thus if spikes in noise such as is generated by shouts and screams is less than that time (as was observed on 9 September), it is the general noise level that will be recorded and hence will be attenuated, not the spikes which will continue


to be heard. I believe that it is this misunderstanding that has been one of the reasons that the childcare centre and the owner of No. 10 have been in conflict as to whether or to what extent the L&E court limits are being exceeded.

2. The increase in the number of children allowed to play simultaneously in the rear yard

In order to determine whether the increase in the numbers of children would still meet the limits in Condition 13, the following information was requested on 11 July 2005:

i. Predicted noise levels incorporating all children playing simultaneously ie 27 children. If the applicant does not propose to have both 0-2 and 2-6 groups playing simultaneously then further detail is to be provided on when the 0-2 age group play time is scheduled.

ii. Details of the predicted noise levels at 31 Ryrie Street and 5 Central Avenue and details of proposed acoustic treatment should the predicted levels exceed the noise requirements of Condition 13.

Not all the information was provided as can be seen below: Item Number Information provided

y/n Comments

i n The consultant was unable to determine when the 0-2 year olds were playing. As such, the impact of the 0-2 year olds is unknown. There was a maximum of 16 2-6 year old children at the centre on the day of measurement (not 18) and there was a flow of children in and out of the yard through the measurement period.

ii n Whilst the consultant notes that the noise from the children at 5 Central Avenue and in the rear laneway were barely audible, there is no comment made as to whether this was with or without the 0-2 year olds and whether with a full compliment of children this would change. There is also a difference in the noise level experienced between the am and pm sessions when the children noise went from not audible to barely audible and there is no comment as to whether this is due to the children or not.

In addition to the above comments it is noted that a transmission path of noise to 5 Central Avenue and the houses in the rear laneway is through 6 Central Avenue. The acoustic barrier proposed for 6 Central Avenue is proposed to be delayed until the conclusion of the construction of the building at 6 Central Avenue. It is also uncertain whether the acoustic fence proposed to 10 Central Avenue would be sufficient for an increase in children numbers given the question of whether the measurements taken on 30 August were reflective of a typical playtime and the issue


of how many children were actually in the yard during the measurement period on 30 August.

3. A change to the allowable hours for outdoor play The proposal requests a change to the allowable play time from the existing times of 9am to 11am and 3pm to 5pm for a period no greater than 2 hours per day to 9:30am to 10:45am and 3:30pm and 4:45pm for a period no greater than 2 hours per day. This proposal is acceptable as it is a reduction in the variation to times of play and maintains the total cumulative time per day.

4. Additional information a. There is no proposal for the erection of an acoustic fence between 6 and 8

Central Avenue, as is required in the L&E court Condition 12. It is noted in the acoustic report that this will be provided following the completion of the dwelling at 6 Central (currently under construction). This appears to be reasonable, given the requirements for measurements to be taken at the windows of the adjacent dwellings.

b. In relation to the concerns of the owner of No. 10 as to the childcare centre

exceeding the cumulative 2 hour play time I can confirm the following:

• The noise measurements taken by Acoustic Logic on 30 August 2005 demonstrate that the 2 hour period was exceeded by 10 minutes (morning play time)

• The morning play time on 2 September 2005 went for 1hour 15 minutes (which would have exceeded the cumulative play time by 15 minutes if the afternoon play time went for the usual 1 hour)

• The morning play time on 9 September 2005 went for 1hour 20 minutes (which would have exceeded the cumulative play time by 20 minutes if the afternoon play time went for the usual 1 hour). During my observations on this day it was noted that although one of the carers noticed after 40 minutes that the 30 minute morning playtime had expired she allowed the group to continue to play for another 10 minutes.

Recommendations

1. The provision of an acoustical fence between 8 and 10 Central Ave The concern with the proposed acoustical fence is that the report seems to indicate that the fence will provide no attenuation to the first floor of 10 Central Avenue. This is of concern because whilst the readings of 30 August show that the noise generated at the centre did not exceed 58dB at the first floor (the limit set by the L&E court Condition 13) the noise readings I conducted on 9 September indicate that the noise generated may be 5dB higher and thus be in contravention of the L&E limits.


As such it is recommended that additional information be obtained from Acoustic Logic to ensure that the fence is capable of meeting the criteria in Conditions 12 and 13. That being to demonstrate:

• That the fence provides acoustic attenuation to the first floor; • The fence is capable of achieving the limits on Condition 13 if the noise

generated is 5dB higher than that recorded on 30 August 2005. • The fence complies with condition 12 in that it has a STC 25.

If the Council readings are challenged by the applicant who believes that the situation was representative when the readings were obtained on 30 August 2005 they may proceed to build the fence, however my concern is that if the fence is constructed and found during validation not to be able to gain compliance with the limits in Condition 13, then it will be expensive and difficult to upgrade and expose the owners of 10 Central Avenue to an additional time period of noise which exceeds the limits.

2. The increase in the number of children allowed to play simultaneously in the rear yard

The information provided by Acoustic Logic is deficient in that

• The measurements were not taken with 27 children in the yard • There is no comment on the correlation of an increase in noise levels at 5

Central Avenue and the rear laneway once the children became audible • There is no comment on the impact of 27 children on 5 Central Avenue and

the rear laneway given that there was an increase in audibility from 9 children to 16.

Given this lack of information, the delay in providing the acoustic barrier to 6 Central Avenue and the concern over whether the levels taken on 30 August are typical of the noise generated at the centre, I am unable to determine that the impact of an increase in child numbers would still see the centre complying with the limits in Condition 13. Additionally, my observations of the child care centre, which exceeded the cumulative time cap on the play time duration at 3 of 3 site visits, gives concern to the impact of an increase in child numbers being granted if the acoustic barriers are not effective and during the delay in constructing the barrier at 6 Central Avenue.

3. A change to the allowable hours for outdoor play This proposal is acceptable as it is a reduction in the variation to times of play, does not change the time periods established by the L&E court and maintains the total cumulative time per day.

On 2 December 2005, Council’s Environmental Health Officer made the following additional comments:


“An assessment has been conducted of the additional information submitted in support of the application for the erection of an acoustic fence between 8 and 10 Central Avenue, Mosman. My assessment of the acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Logic dated 7 September 2005 was provided in a previous memo dated 11 November 2005. In that assessment I noted a number of issues which were required to be addressed in relation to the erection of the fence:

1. That the fence provides acoustic attenuation to the first floor of 10 Central Avenue; 2. The fence is capable of achieving the limits on Condition 13 if the noise generated

is 5dB higher than that recorded on 30 August 2005. 3. The fence complies with condition 12 in that it has a STC 25.

Noise emission The acoustical assessment provided by Acoustic Logic on 7 September 2005 indicates that there is no attenuation provided to the first floor of 10 Central Avenue by the proposed acoustic fence. Their measurements taken on 30 August 2005 demonstrated that the noise level at the first floor was at the maximum permitted level (58dB). Further measurements were taken by Council on 9 September 2005, which were 4-5dB higher than those achieved on 30 August 2005. If these levels are representative of the typical noise levels emitted by the centre, then the limits set in the existing conditions will be breached at the first floor of 10 Central Avenue, even once the fence is constructed. It was this concern that prompted the above requests for further information. The current design of the childcare centre includes a plastic elevated platform on the western side of the property. The platform is currently used for loud adventurous play, with children using it to call out to other children in the premises. It is one of the most noise generating activities observed at the centre and given the height and location of the equipment it appears that it may not be affected by the proposed acoustic fence. Given the concern that the noise emitted by the premises may currently exceed the criteria and that the acoustic fence may not attenuate noise from the platform to the first floor, it is recommended that the platform equipment be removed unless further information can be provided by the applicant that demonstrates that:

• The fence provides acoustic attenuation to the first floor, including attenuation of noise generated by the raised platform equipment;

• The fence is capable of achieving the limits on Condition 13 if the noise generated is 5dB higher than that recorded on 30 August 2005.

As discussed, if the platform is removed this will remove a significant noise source along the western side of the premises and will subject a greater proportion of the noise generated by the children to the attenuating properties of the proposed fence. If this equipment is removed there is sufficient information provided to allow the erection of the fence. Sound Transmission Class


The information supplied by Acoustic Logic on 30 November 2005 in relation to the construction of the fence out of fibrous cement satisfies the requirement for an STC of 25. It is still unclear what the STC of the other two options proposed in the acoustic report are. As this is the only option that we can be confident of meeting the STC 25 criteria, a condition has been recommended that requires the fence to be constructed using the fibrous cement option as described in the Acoustic Logic letter of 30 November. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 26 April 2005 and 11 May 2005. Eleven submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: • 10 Central Avenue; • 6 Central Avenue; • 31 Ryrie Street; • 5 Central Avenue; • 1 Central Avenue; and • 4 Central Avenue (letter of support). The submissions generally did not object to the construction of the fence or the removal of the tree but, rather raised concerns about peripheral matters and matters relating to the change in playtime numbers and hours. Specific matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below.

Concerns over the doubling in the number of children playing outside (from 9 to 18) will double the noise level.

Comment: As previously discussed, the proposed changes to playtime hours and numbers cannot be considered as part of this application. Furthermore, additional acoustic information would be required to justify the increase.

Concerns regarding existing noise emitted from the front of the house (open windows). There should be a sound barrier at the front of the premises.

Comment: Given the existing consent, Council can not impose conditions retrospectively regarding these windows.

A new piece of play equipment has resulted in excessive noise. It is made of hollow plastic and allows children to stand 1m above ground level.

Comment: Council’s Environmental Health Officer concurs that this piece of equipment results in unacceptable noise impacts and for this reason a recommended condition of consent will require its removal.

A similar acoustic fence should be erected along the boundary with 6 Central Avenue as required by condition 12 of the existing consent.


Comment: Agreed. The commencement of order proceedings are recommended in this regard.

The centre continually breaches the existing conditions of consent regarding restrictions on noise, hours and the number of children. This has been acknowledged by various council officers in the past and action should be taken.

Comment: Instances of non-compliance have been noted. The issuance of penalty infringement notices forms part of the recommendation. 8.0 CONCLUSION Conclusions for the three aspects of the application are as follows: (1) Acoustic fencing and impacts – approval of the fencing with number 10 is

recommended subject to the use of fibrous cement sheeting. The fencing will provide compliant acoustic attenuation for the ground floor of No. 10 and subject to the removal of the plastic climbing equipment (which raises the sound source of children) impacts for the first floor should be satisfactory. Given adverse amenity impacts for No. 10, time is of the essence for completion. If works are not done within 90 days, it is recommended that order proceedings be initiated. Regarding the fence with No. 6, it is recommended that order proceedings be initiated requiring a compliant fence be built. Consideration in the timing for the draft order will have regard to anticipated construction times for the dwelling being built at No. 6.

(2) Removal of the jacaranda – no objection raised, approval is recommended. (3) Changing the number and times for outdoor play for the 2-6 year olds – sufficient

evidence has not been provided to justify this part of the proposal. Furthermore, from a procedural sense, the applicant would first need to vary relevant conditions in the existing consent via section 96 of the Act.

Finally, noting that the applicant has not complied with certain aspects of the consent, it is recommended that penalty infringements for the statutory prescribed amount be issued. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant and owner is Mr H. and Mrs T. Kermani. The estimated value of works is $3000. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION


A. That Development Application No. 8.2005.130.1 be approved subject to the

following conditions.



Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by PJB 4-10 DA-01 & DA-02 1 November 2004 Paris John Spana

Document title Date of

document Prepared by

Statement of Environmental Effects

1 April 2005 B.T Goldsmith Planning Services

Environmental Noise Assessment

28 February 2005 Acoustic Logic Consultancy

Tree Assessment 1 November 2005 Stuart Pittendrigh Supplementary noise measurements and revised acoustic assessment

1 September 2005

Acoustic Logic Consultancy

2. No approval is granted for changes to outdoor play times or the number of 2-6

year olds allowed to play outside.












Sydney Water


Long Service Levy


Security Deposit

8. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $500 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee if Council is not the PCA) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.









(iv) the person benefiting from the consent, if not carrying out the work as an owner-builder, has (by way of completing Form 7C):

• appointed a principal contractor for the building work who must be the holder of a contractor licence if any residential building work is involved; and

• notified the PCA of any such appointment; and • unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal

contractor of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work; and






then a temporary hoarding, fence or awning must be erected between the work site and the adjoining area. Any such hoarding, fence or awning must be removed when the work has been completed. The fence must be constructed


prior to the commencement of works and where adjoining public land shall be covered in cyclone wire mesh to discourage the fixing of posters or graffiti.







Fencing

13. The fence is to be constructed from colorbond sheetmetal, 12mm thick plywood, 9mm Fibrous Cement sheet or equivalent extending from the ground up to 1.8m. Joints between sheets must be overlapped or have butt joints with a Fibrous Cement backing strip so that continuity is maintained. This method can be used for horizontal and vertical joints. Alternatively for the vertical joints only at the posts they can be sealed butt joints with the post as a backing. The angled return is to be constructed from 6mm thick plexiglass.

14. In order to provide further noise attenuation to the adjoining residence at No.10 Central Avenue, the northern end of the fence is to be extended, at a 90 degree angle, to meet the child care centre building.












Site Work Hours





• preserve and protect the building from damage; • if necessary, underpin and support the building in an approved manner; and • at least 7 days before excavating, give notice of an intention to excavate to

the adjoining owner and furnish particulars to the owner of the proposed work.


Council Property




21. All natural landscape features including trees and other vegetation, natural rock outcrops, soil and watercourses shall remain undisturbed except where affected by necessary works detailed on approved plans. This condition does not apply to the jacaranda approved to be removed.

Tree Preservation


Toilet Facilities




• Place a waste storage container in a public place • Swing or hoist goods across or over any part of a public road by means of

a lift, hoist or tackle projecting over the footway


Approved Plans




• At the commencement of the building work; • After the excavation for, and prior to the placement of, any footings; • Final inspection after the building work has been completed and prior to

any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building.


The critical stage inspections must be carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority PCA, or if the PCA agrees, by another certifying authority excepting the final inspection which must be carries out by the PCA. Notes: Records of the above critical stage inspections will be required to be submitted prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate – see later conditions of consent. If you intend engaging Council to undertake inspections, please telephone the area Building Surveyor to arrange a suitable time.



Acoustic

27. Within 1 month of the completion of the acoustic fence a validation report of the noise emission levels at 10 Central Avenue and the acoustic properties of the fence must be submitted to the Accredited Certifier. A person suitably qualified and experienced in acoustical engineering (e.g. a member of the Australian Acoustical Society, the Institution of Engineers, the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants or a person with other appropriate professional qualifications) must prepare the Validation Report. The validation assessment is to include a minimum period of one week’s worth of valid data covering the morning and afternoon play sessions on the days of operation of the centre. The report is to include but not be limited to certifying that all treatment measures, including construction specifications and sound transmission class, and noise emission limits were complied with.




• The development application and construction certificate number; • The address of the property at which the inspection was carried out; • The type of inspection; • The date on which it was carried out; • The name and accreditation number of the certifying authority by whom

the inspection was carried out; and


• Whether or not the inspection was satisfactory in the opinion of the certifying authority who carried it out.

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







DURING OCCUPATION


Acoustics

31. The acoustic fence between 8 and 10 Central Avenue is to be maintained so that there are no visible gaps and it achieves a minimum sound transmission class (STC) 25 at all times.

Outdoor play equipment

32. To minimise acoustic impacts for neighbours, no play equipment of a temporary or permanent nature is to be placed in the outdoor area which would enable children to climb to an elevated level and facilitate sound transmission to adjoining properties that would be contrary to Development Consent 5.1994.367.1.

ADVICE / NOTES


(i) Headings such as “Prior To The Release Of The Construction Certificate” together with bolded notes that immediately follow, form part of this Notice of


Determination. Conditions under the respective headings shall be read in the context of the heading and note.















B. That if the approved acoustic wall is not completed within 90 days from the date of the consent, Council initiate order proceedings requiring completion.

C. That Council issue a Notice of Intention to Give an Order under the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act concerning the construction of an acoustic fence along the common boundary with No.6 Central Avenue as per condition 12

D. That $600 penalty infringement notices be issued for (1) non compliance with

condition 11 on 30 August 2005 and (2) non compliance with condition 12 concerning fencing not having the required sound transmission class.

E. That the applicant be advised that the proposed variation to change to hours and

number of children at outdoor playtime cannot be dealt with under this application. It involves the modification of two existing conditions of consent and therefore requires a section 96 application to modify condition 10 and 11 of consent DA No.5.1994.367.1. Furthermore, additional acoustic information would be required to justify the proposal.

COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS • A4 Plans • Photographs

EP/311: Sydney Metropolitan Strategy Plan: City of Cities – A Plan for Sydney’s Future - Review

MOSPLAN REF: 03.02 REPORT BY: Project Coordinators—Strategic Planning

Jacquelyne Jeffery and Kelly Lynch SUMMARY This report provides an overview of City of Cities - A Plan for Sydney's Future, the NSW Government's 25 year plan for Sydney, and identifies potential key implications for the Mosman local government area and its plan making project. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Planning & Transport recommends: That: A. The report be noted. B. For the purpose of the Metropolitan Strategy subregional planning process—Mosman

Council make continued representations to the Minister for Planning seeking Mosman’s inclusion in the North East Subregion group of local councils (consistent with existing regional planning groupings under the umbrella of SHOROC) and the subsequent removal from the Inner North Subregion which comprises of Lane Cove, North Sydney, Ryde, Willoughby and Hunters Hill local councils.

C. Council note that a detailed cross departmental report on the City of Cities Plan will

be considered by Council in February 2006. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Overview On 4 December 2005, the NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, released a document titled City of Cities - A Plan for Sydney's Future. The City of Cities Plan is a broad framework to facilitate and manage growth and development in Metropolitan Sydney over the next 25 years. The State Government has published two versions of this document:

City of Cities - A Plan for Sydney's Future (64 pages) which is an overview of the Strategy; and City of Cities - A Plan for Sydney's Future Supporting Information (316 pages) which contains supporting information.

This report provides an overview of the key elements in the City of Cities Plan. The City of Cities Plan (overview) is circulated to Councillors separately. The City of Cities Plan (supporting information) is available to Councillors on request and/or can be viewed at www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au .

http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/

The City of Cities Plan outlines the NSW Government’s vision for Sydney for the next 25 years, and strategies to achieve this vision and manage growth. The Plan is based on a growth scenario which anticipates that Sydney’s population will increase by 1.1 million people between 2004 and 2031 (i.e. from 4.2 million to 5.3 million) and as a result an additional 640,000 dwellings, 500,000 jobs, 7,500 hectares of industrial land, 6.8 million square metres of commercial floor space, and 3.7 million square metres of retail space will be required. City of Cities Plan—Aims, Vision and Strategies The City of Cities Plan’s five aims are to—enhance liveability, strengthen economic competitiveness, ensure fairness/access to jobs and services, protect the environment and improve governance. The aims seek to achieve a more sustainable city. The Plan also identifies eight key elements of the NSW Government’s vision for Sydney in 2031, summarised as follows - 1. Stronger cities within the metropolitan area

Sydney City and North Sydney at the heart of Global Sydney will be the focus for international business, tourism, cultural, health, education and entertainment activities. Parramatta, Liverpool and Penrith will be the focus for innovative business environments and more lifestyle and work opportunities closer to growing parts of Sydney.

2. Strong global economic corridor

The corridor of concentrated jobs, enterprise and activity, from North Sydney to Macquarie Park and the City to Airport and Port Botany, will be enhanced.

3. More jobs in Western Sydney

More jobs will be concentrated in regional cities and specialised centres in Western Sydney, including high value health, education activities, manufacturing, warehousing and transport activities with access to the orbital motorway network (M4/M7).

4. Contain Sydney’s urban footprint

Land extending to the Nepean–Hawkesbury and foothills of the Southern Highlands will be protected. New land will not be released for urban development unless it meets the Government’s sustainability criteria.

5. Major centres will emerge as jobs, service and residential locations

Major centres such as Bankstown, Blacktown, Bondi Junction, Brookvale/Dee Why, Burwood, Campbelltown, Castle Hill, Chatswood, Hornsby, Hurstville and Kogarah will be a focus for shopping, health, tertiary education and medium/high density housing.

6. Fair access to housing, jobs, services and open space

Improved suburban centres and neighbourhoods will provide healthier environments and access to housing, jobs, transport and open space. A mix of housing types, parks and public places will be available. Development will be limited in suburban neighbourhoods to protect local character.

7. Connected centres The transport network will be expanded and improved to provide access to jobs and services in the global economic corridor, and faster and direct public transport linking suburban centres and areas where jobs are concentrated.

8. Better connected and stronger regions

Housing growth, jobs, improved communications and transport connections will occur in the Central Coast, Illawarra and the Lower Hunter. Newcastle, Wollongong and Gosford will provide environments for specialisation and innovation, such as freight and port related activities.

The eight key elements of the vision for the shape of Sydney are further reflected and developed in the Plan’s seven strategies or subject areas. These seven key areas are—economy and employment, centres and corridors, housing, transport, environment and resources, parks and public places, and implementation and governance. The strategies for each of these areas include key objectives and detailed actions for how the aims and vision elements of the Plan will be achieved. Role of Subregional Planning in implementing the Metropolitan Strategy To implement the City of Cities Plan’s strategies, Metropolitan Sydney is arranged into ten subregions identified as having similar issues and challenges when it comes to planning for growth and managing change. These subregions also relate to particular transport routes, patterns of employment and retail activity, and natural features. Subregional planning is the next step in implementing the Metropolitan Strategy and is seen by the State Government as an intermediate step in translating the Metropolitan Strategy into strategies for each group of councils in a subregion. Subregional strategies will be prepared for each subregion in partnership with local government and State agencies. Subregional plans will also be exhibited to allow for community comment. The strategies will provide a vision for the future role of the subregion and set the framework for achieving the vision, particularly in relation to business centres, housing targets and employment capacity. The State Government anticipates that each subregion will have a completed strategy by 2006/07. Mosman part of the ‘Inner North Subregion’ Under the Metropolitan Strategy the Mosman local government area is identified as part of the Inner North Subregion, which also includes Lane Cove, North Sydney, Ryde, Willoughby and Hunters Hill local government areas. Our Shore Regional Organisation of Councils (SHOROC) partners, Warringah, Pittwater and Manly, have been included in the North East Subregion. Council’s inclusion in the Inner North Subregion is not supported. Work has been underway for a number of months on the preparation of a subregional plan for SHOROC. Planners from all SHOROC councils have invested considerable time into this process. Participation in the North East Subregion is preferred and consistent with existing regional planning groupings under the umbrella of SHOROC. The Mayor has made representations to the Minister for Planning in this regard and Council will continue to lobby for this change through other networks, as appropriate.

Targets for the ‘Inner North Subregion’ and implications for Mosman The Plan identifies a target of 30,000 new dwellings and 54,000 new jobs for the Inner North Subregion by 2031. The implications for Mosman will become more apparent once the subregional strategy is prepared, however it is likely any opportunities for new housing and employment growth in the Mosman council area can be accommodated along main transport routes (Spit and Military Roads) and centres (Spit Junction) consistent with State Government policy and strategies identified in Future Mosman 2088 in 2020. It may also be that Mosman’s contribution to achieving the targets, particularly the employment targets, will be relatively marginal compared to the anticipated role of other council areas within the Inner North Subregion. For example, other council areas within the subregion—specifically North Sydney, Macquarie Park, St Leonards-Artarmon and Chatswood—are identified as strategic centres for employment and/or housing, and will tend to play a greater role in achieving the Metropolitan Strategy aims across the subregion. External factors arising from other subregions Given the recent influence of development within council areas to the north of Mosman, it is worth noting that the City of Cities Plan identifies a target of 17,300 new dwellings and 16,000 new jobs for the North East Subregion (comprising Manly, Warringah and Pittwater local government areas) by 2031. It is likely that growth in the North East Subregion will have external impacts on Mosman, particularly in relation to cross boundary subregional traffic and transport corridor matters. The State Government will need to provide for appropriate mechanisms to consider and consult in relation to such cross boundary subregional matters. Timing of subregional and local planning Subregional plans will inform the direction of land use and spatial policy at the local level. Local environmental plans (LEPs) will remain a primary tool for implementing the aims of the Metropolitan Strategy, but must demonstrate consistency with subregional plans and reflect the spatial structure and housing and employment targets for the subregion. The State Government’s 2006/07 timeframe for completing the subregional plan coincides with Mosman Council’s 2007 timeframe for completing a new LEP. There are many benefits to working on these plans in parallel, such as reduced duplication and more informed and coordinated policy development across local and subregional issues. It is not anticipated the subregional plan will result in any major policy changes for Mosman or that the proposed timeframe for completing the new LEP for Mosman will be delayed, notwithstanding, the Department of Planning (DoP) may delay gazettal of the new LEP until completion of the subregional plan to ensure consistency between the two. In addition, Council in its section 54(4) notification letter—to the DoP advising of its resolution to make a new LEP to replace the Mosman LEP 1998—specifically advised the DoP of its timeframe for completing a new LEP and requested that the DoP identify Mosman as a local government area required to have a principal LEP within 2 years of gazettal of the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2005.

Implications for Mosman arising from the City of Cities Plan Key possible implications for Mosman include - • New council alignments—Mosman, identified as part of the Inner North Subregion, may

need to establish new links with Lane Cove, North Sydney, Ryde, Willoughby and Hunters Hill Councils. Notwithstanding, Mosman must also continue associations with SHOROC comprising Manly, Pittwater and Warringah councils.

• New LEP—Mosman’s new LEP must be consistent with the subregional plan (and including housing and employment targets) prepared for the Inner North Subregion. The timing of Council’s new LEP may be reviewed to better align with the subregional planning process, pending further discussion with the DoP.

• Council resources—Council engagement in subregional planning groups and meetings will be ongoing to 2006/07. The State Government will fund a component of NSW councils’ engagement using the Planning Reform Fund.

• Achieving housing targets—It is likely opportunities for new housing and employment growth in Mosman can be accommodated along main transport routes (Spit and Military Roads) and centres (Spit Junction) consistent with Future Mosman 2088 in 2020, and that the character of existing low density residential areas will be protected. This broad planning direction reflects the City of Cities Plan (which identifies that development will be limited in suburban neighbourhoods to protect local character) and statements made by the Minister for Planning that “80% of suburban streets will be quarantined from increased density” (SMH, Dec 2005).

• Traffic and transport—The Plan does not identify proposed improvements to Spit Bridge, or Spit and Military Roads, other than to state that major arterial roads in existing urban areas throughout Sydney will be upgraded. This lack of detail regarding the identification and implementation of key infrastructure projects is a widespread criticism of the City of Cities Plan. The Plan does, however, refer to an improved bus network on the ‘strategic’ bus corridors of Spit and Military Roads—identified by the 2004 Review of Bus Services in NSW (the ‘Unsworth Report’)—which will be progressively implemented from 2006. The implications of such proposals also will require ongoing scrutiny to ensure local access, amenity and services are retained.

Additional potential implications for Mosman arising from the City of Cities Plan will be identified in a report to be prepared for Council’s consideration in February 2006. The February 2006 report will be broader in scope and include opportunity for contributions from work areas across all Council’s departments, that is, to address issues beyond broad strategic planning and operational matters relevant only to Council’s LEP review and plan making project. Recommendation endorsed by Director Environment & Planning. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Circulations • City of Cities – A Plan for Sydney’s Future (overview)

Agenda Template CouncilResume Ordinary Meeting ... Cr Patricia Harvey Balmoral Ward Cr Shirley...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda Template CouncilResume Ordinary Meeting ... Cr Patricia Harvey Balmoral Ward Cr Shirley...