Development Control Unit No. 017 - Hunters Hill · 3. Amended plans are to be submitted with...

Development Control Unit

No. 017 5 December 2018 at 10:30 am

Hunter 's H i l l Counc i l

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Attendance, Apologies,

Declarations of Interests

1 Confirmation of Minutes

2 Development Applications

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 5 December 2018

Minutes of the Development Control Unit Meeting held on 28 November 2018. This is page 1

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL UNIT

5 December 2018

INDEX

1 – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1 Confirmation of Minutes of Development Control Unit 016 held 28 November 2018

2 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

2.1 10:30 am - 39-41 Augustine Street, Hunters Hill 1 2.2 10:50 am - 23 Isler Street, Gladesville 10 2.3 11:10 am - 35 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill 26



COMMENCEMENT

The meeting commenced at approximately 10:30 am within the Council Chambers.

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Steve Kourepis Group Manager, Development & Regulatory Control – (Acting Chair)

Shahram Zadgan Development Assessment Officer

Julie Woodley Administration Officer

APOLOGIES

No apologies were received.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairperson called for Declarations of Interest without response.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of Development Control Unit of previous Meeting DCU 015 held on 14 November 2018 were read and accepted.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

2.1 10:30 AM - 6 AVENUE ROAD, HUNTERS HILL

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF

PROPOSAL Demolition of existing structures and construction of attached dual occupancy, swimming pools, cabanas, tree removal, landscaping and strata subdivision. ATTENDEES Mr El-Agha - Owner Andrew Martin - Town Planner (Owner Representative) Raymond Panetta - Architect Vicki McKinnon - Submission Dr Barbara Hungerford - Submission Mr & Mrs Krom - Submission



RECOMMENDATION

A. That a “Deferred Commencement” consent be granted to pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contacted in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council.

Schedule No. 1 1. That the following plans be provided with the following information:

A stormwater management concept plan.

A driveway plan and cross section plan. 2. The Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-

01 G, dated 12.10.2017, date stamped 29 Nov 2017) shall be amended as follows: Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) for retention.

A replacement tree along the western side boundary. The replacement tree should be in the approximate location of Tree 4. Species shall be selected from

- Stenocarpus sinuatus (QLD Firewheel Tree) or,

- Banksia integrifolia (Coast Banksia) or,

- Elaeocarpus eumundi (Eumundi Quandong).

The replacement tree shall be an advanced-sized 200L specimen grown in accordance with Australian Standard 2303 (2015) Tree Stock for Landscape Use.

3. Amended plans are to be submitted with dimensions, elevations, and finishes for the proposed front fence. Also, indicating that the front fence has a maximum height of 1.2 metres from adjacent ground level.

Schedule No. 2 That Development Application No. 2017/1184 for the demolition of the existing dwelling, garage, pool and any ancillary structures and tree, construction of a new attached dual occupancy, new swimming pools and cabanas and strata subdivision at No.6 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill be approved, subject to the following conditions. PCW9 TPZ required for trees

Tree No/ Location Species TPZ (m)

Tree 1 Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) 4.8

Tree 2 Eucalyptus racemosa (Snappy Gum) 15

Tree 5 Macadamia integrifolia (Macadamia) 3

Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) 5.4

Tree 11 Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) 4.6

Tree 15 Lagerstromia indica

(Crepe Myrtle) Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) 3.6



CON50 Tree Removal

Tree No Location

Tree 7 Morus rubra (Mulberry Tree) Rear of site

Tree 9 Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) Rear of site

Tree 10 Ligustrum lucidum (Large-Leafed Privet)

Rear boundary

Tree 13 and Tree 14 Syagrus romanzoffiana

(Cocos Palm) Rear south-eastern corner

Tree 12 Celtis spp. (Hackberry) Rear eastern side boundary

Tree 16 Camellia sasanqua (Camellia) Rear of the site along the eastern side boundary.

CON62 Tree Transplantation

Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle). Prepared by McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 4 May 2018, not date stamped

POC10 Compliance with Arboricultural Report Prepared by Rain Tree Consulting, dated 18.10.2017, not date stamped)

GEN Tree Transplantation

(a) The health of Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) should be reassessed by an AQF Level 5 Arborist 12 months after the date of transplanting. The AQF Level 5 Arborist shall provide a statement outlining that Tree 6 has successfully re-established. The statement must be submitted to the certifying authority for approval.

(b) If Tree 6 has not successfully re-established within this period an advanced-sized replacement tree of the same species shall be supplied and planted.

(c) The replacement tree shall be a minimum container size of 400

Litres. (d) The replacement tree shall be planted using healthy and

vigorous stock grown in accordance with Australian Standard 2302 (2015) Tree Stock for Landscape Use.

(e) Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying

authority upon completion of the works. Standard Conditions



Drawing Number Drawn By Plan Dated Council Dated

Site Plan, DA02, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

Ground Floor Plan, DA07, issue Q

Raymond Panetta Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

First Floor Plan, DA08, issue Q


Roof Plan, DA09, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

South & North Elevations, issue Q


East & West Elevations, issue Q


Building 1 – Pool & Cabana, issue Q


Building 2 – Pool & Cabana, issue Q


Landscape Plan, revision I Raymond Panetta

Architect 24.01.18 14.11.2018

Schedules of Colours, DA39, issue Q


GEN0 GEN1 GEN3 GEN5 GEN6 GEN7 GEN8 GEN20 GEN21 PCC0 PCC1($5,645) PCC2($3,000) PCC3($2,600) PCC4($2,750) PCC5($16,128) PCC11 PCC12 PCC13 PCC16 PCC17 PCC18 PCC20 PCC21 PCC40 PCC41 PCC47 PCW0 PCW1 PCW2 PCW3 PCW4 PCW5 PCW14 CSI0 CSI1 CSI2 CSI3 CSI7 DEM0 DEM1 DEM3 DEM4 DEM5 DEM6 DEM7 DEM8 DEM9 DEM10 DEM11 DEM15 CON0 CON1 CON2 CON3 CON5 CON7 CON9 CON10 CON11 CON13 CON18 CON19 CON20 CON21 CON23 CON28 CON41 CON42 CON43 CON44 CON45 CON47 CON51 CON52 CON53 CON54 CON55 CON56 CON57 CON58 CON59 CON60 CON61 POC0 POC1 POC3 POC4 POC8 POC13 POC14 POC20 POC24 POC25 POC75

The meeting closed at 11:06 am.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 5 December 2018

Item 2.1 Page 1

ITEM NO : 2.1

SUBJECT : 39-41 AUGUSTINE STREET, HUNTERS HILL

STRATEGIC OUTCOME : MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER AND AMENITY OF HUNTERS HILL

ACTION : ALL BUILDING WORK COMPLIES WITH COUNCIL REGULATIONS

REPORTING OFFICER : SHAHRAM MEHDIZADGAN

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO

2018-1086

PROPOSAL REMOVAL OF THREE (3) TREES AND PRUNING OF TWO (2) TREES

APPLICANT NSW STRATA PLAN 35122 OWNERS CORP

OWNER NSW STRATA PLAN 35122 OWNERS CORP

DATE LODGED 17 SEPTEMBER 2018

Ref:393800

INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared regarding the proposed removal of three (3) trees and pruning of two (2) trees located within the property of 39-41 Augustine Street, Hunters Hill. One (1) submission has been received relating to the proposed removal of one (1) tree being Tree 5 within the group of trees proposed for removal.

REPORT Observations by Council’s Tree and Landscape Consultant are summarised below:

Trees 1-4 – Melaleuca Bracteata (Black Tea Tree)

Early mature specimens that appear to be in good health and structural condition.

Low landscape significance.

Application proposes:

Removal of Tree 1 due to trunk contact with adjacent building – Approve removal of Tree 1 due to inappropriate location.


Item 2.1 Page 2

Removal of Tree 2 due to tree’s root system lifting adjacent paving – Approve removal of Tree 2 due to potential for ongoing paving damage. Replacement planting required. Tree 2 stump to be removed and replacement tree planted in same location. Installation of root barrier (900mm HDPE type) recommended at time of planting to minimise future paving damage. Root barrier to be set back 0.75m from base of trunk. Top 10mm of root barrier to project above soil surface to prevent overgrowth by roots. Pruning of Tree 3 due to limited building clearance – Approve pruning of Tree 3 to increase building clearance with Conditions to limit the extent of the works. Pruning of Tree 4 due to branches overhanging public footpath – Approve pruning of Tree 4 for footpath and bin storage area clearance with Conditions to limit the extent of the works.

Tree 5 - Corymbia torelliana (Cadaghi)

Mature specimen that appears to be in good health and structural condition with no significant defects observed at the time of the site visit.

Moderate landscape significance.

Application proposes removing Tree 5 as the tree has apparently dropped large branches.

At the time of the site visit Council’s Tree and Landscape Consultant noted one (1) broken branch stub (80mm approx.) in the upper crown.

It is not known if this branch was live at the time of failure or the weather conditions .

The removal of deadwood to maintain the tree in a safe condition is the tree owner’s responsibility and does not require Council approval.

Tree removal may be considered if a predisposition to live branch failures can be established.

Records of any future live branch failures should be kept noting the time and weather conditions at the time of the failure and dimensions of the failed branch including clear photographs.

Council should be notified and the tree reassessed.

Application to remove Tree 5 is refused, pruning is approved with Conditions to limit the extent of the works.

SUBMISSIONS The proposed tree removal works were notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for a period of ten (10) days on the 2 October 2018. Within the specified time period three submissions were received. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report.


Item 2.1 Page 3

NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES

NUMBER NOTIFIED 11

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

Eric & Elaine Teoh 68 Mary Street Hunters Hill

Opposes removal of Tree 5 Corymbia torelliana (Cadaghi) as the tree provides screening and amenity to their property.

Comment: The Teoh submission opposes the removal of Tree 5 as the tree provides screening and amenity to their property. This opinion is supported by Council’s Tree and Landscape Consultant and it is recommended that the tree be retained with minor pruning works undertaken to provide additional clearance from adjacent buildings. CONCLUSION That Development Application No. DA 2018-1086 for the removal of three (3) trees and pruning of two (2) trees located within the property of 39-41 Augustine Street, Hunters Hill be approved in part only.

Removal of two (2) trees is approved. Pruning of three (3) trees is approved with Conditions imposed to limit the pruning works.

The planting on one (1) replacement tree is required to maintain the canopy cover within the suburb.

The removal of Tree 5 is refused. FINANCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct environmental impact on Council arising from Council consideration of this matter.

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct social impact on Council arising from Council consideration of this matter.

RISK ASSESSMENT There are no direct or indirect risks impacting on Council arising from consideration of this matter. HUNTERS HILL 2028 This matter relates to ensuring that heritage and conservation of the area is respected, preserved and enhanced including the preservation of the character, views to and from the Municipality, and the preservation of the tree canopy.

RECOMMENDATION

That Development Application No. DA 2018-1086 for the removal of three (3) trees and pruning of two (2) trees located within the property of 39-41 Augustine Street, Hunters Hill be approved in part only. The removal of two (2) trees, pruning of three (3) trees and planting of one (1) replacement tree are approved in accordance with the conditions outlined below.


Item 2.1 Page 4

The removal of Tree 5 is refused. TREE1 TREE2 TREE3 TREE4 TREE5 TREE 6 TREE7 TREE 8 The following trees may be removed:

Tree Location Comments

Tree 1 Melaleuca bracteata (Black Tea Tree)

Unit 5 Trunk contact with Unit 5 garage wall


Parking area to west of Unit 8

Roots lifting adjacent paving

The following replacement planting is required:

Location

Minimum container

size at purchase

No. of replacement

plants required

Replacement tree Species

Within same location as Tree 2

45L

1

(900mm root barrier installation recommended 0.75m from base of new tree)

Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’ (fastigiate Magnolia cultivar) or Banksia serrata (Old Man Banksia) or Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani)

Note 1: Please contact Council’s Tree & Landscape Consultant if you would like to nominate an alternate replacement species

The following trees may be pruned:

Trees Location Comments


Front of Unit 3

Crown Lift, Reduction Prune, branches no greater than 75mm diameter for additional building clearance

The branches pruned shall represent no greater than 10% of the tree’s total crown volume


Bin storage area at front of site

Crown Lift, Reduction Prune, branches no greater than 50mm diameter for additional footpath and bin storage clearance

The branches pruned shall represent no greater than 10% of the tree’s total crown volume


Item 2.1 Page 5

Tree 5 Corymbia torelliana (Cadaghi)

Rear lawn area adjacent to eastern boundary

Crown Lift, Reduction Prune, branches no greater than 75mm diameter for additional clearance from units no.7 and no.10

Note: The removal of deadwood does not require Council approval

ATTACHMENTS

1. Plan 2. Map 3. Submission


Item 2.1 Attachment 1 Page 6


Item 2.2 Page 10

ITEM NO : 2.2

SUBJECT : 23 ISLER STREET, GLADESVILLE

STRATEGIC OUTCOME : THE HERITAGE, CHARACTER AND CONSERVATION OF THE AREA IS RESPECTED, PRESERVED AND ENHANCED

ACTION : ASSESS ALL APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE NEW LEP/DCP

REPORTING OFFICER : SHAHRAM MEHDIZADGAN


2018-1031

PROPOSAL ADDITION OF FIRST FLOOR AT REAR OF DWELLING, NEW LOWER DECK, SWIMMING POOL AND ASSOCITED LANDSCAPING

APPLICANT WEBBER ARCHITECTS

OWNER GREGORY T PIKE

DATE LODGED 1 MAY 2018

Ref:393615

INTRODUCTION Reasons for Report The proposal results in non-compliance one (1) submission received in response to the neighbour notification process. REPORT 1. SUMMARY Objectors Issues Natalie David 12 Windeyer Avenue Gladesville

The balustrade to the upper level rear deck that faces my rear garden be a solid material, not glass, wires or pickets that can be seen through.

The balustrade to the upper level rear deck that faces the south east have a privacy screen to minimum 1600mm high.

The windows to the upper level rear habitable room that faces south east have a privacy or a still level at 1600mm.


Item 2.2 Page 11

Submissions One (1) submission was received. Recommendation The application is recommended for approval for reasons that it is acceptable having regard to:

1. is permissible under the zoning 2. complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill

Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The subject application seeks consent for a first floor storey addition containing a master bedroom with ensuite, robe, and a sitting area as well as a rear balcony. Ground floor alterations include converting a small bathroom to an ensuite, new stair and associated storage under and alteration of the rear doors and windows opening to a new level deck at the rear. Externally, the deck area steps down to the existing rear yard with a new pool to the rear of the site. External materials for the first storey rear addition will be painted weatherboard. The vast majority of work is contained at the rear of the existing dwelling with the exception of converting the “entry room” back to its original state of a front veranda with the removal of the infill windows to the front and side. A new window to match the existing is also proposed to the side of the house off the north eastern bedroom. Materials and forms to the original front section of the dwelling will remain unchanged. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The site is known as No.23 Isler Street, Gladesville, located on the northern side of Isler Street. The site is rectangular in shape with a site area is 547.8sqm. The site slopes from the front to the rear. The site has a 12.9 metre street frontage and a depth of 44.99 metres. The site is located within the conservation area. The site accommodates a single storey brick and tiled/metal roofed residential dwelling. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY On 18 December 2017, Council under delegated authority refused Development Application No.2017-1042 for demolition of the rear roof to allow for addition of a first floor with deck, replacement of back deck, closed in porch reopened and new swimming pool. The main reasons of refusal was relating to non-compliance with the Landscaped Area - Clause 6.9 of LEP 2012.


Item 2.2 Page 12

5. STATUTORY CONTROLS Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan 2012 Zone: R2 Conservation Area: Yes River Front Area: No SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005: No Development Control Plan: DCP 2013 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No 6. POLICY CONTROLS Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor who raised no concern, subject to conditions. 7.3 Heritage Not applicable. 7.4 Works & Services The application was referred to Council’s Design and Development Engineer who stated that there is no pipe at the rear. Applicant has to confirm if there is a private pipe and comply. Otherwise the applicant has to install new pipe system satisfying Council at their cost. A condition will be imposed to reflect the above comments. 7.5 Parks & Landscape The application was referred to Council’s Tree Consultant who provided the following comments:

The following documentation/plans have been received and reviewed:

Architectural Plans (prepared by Weber Architects, dwg no 0202, 0301, 0302, 0401, 0402, 0501, dated 22/04/2018, date stamped 1 May 2018)

Landscape Plans

(prepared by Weber Architects, dwg no 0206, dated 20/04/2018, date stamped 1 May 2018)


Item 2.2 Page 13

Landscape Management The site contains no trees covered under the provisions of Council’s Tree Management Controls. Council’s Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 encourages the protection and augmentation of the Municipality’s tree covered environment. Section 3.3.4 Landscaped Areas stipulates the residential requirements for canopy trees. Whilst there is flexibility within these stipulations, a minimum number of canopy trees are required for each site depending on the sites area. No new trees have been proposed as part of the landscape works. Provisions should be made onsite for the planting of two (2) small-sized trees or one (1) medium-sized tree. Small trees should have a minimum mature height between 5-6m and medium sized trees a minimum mature height of 8m. The Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2012 commenced on 29 October 2012 and made a number of amendments to the Swimming Pools Act 1992. Swimming pools that commenced construction from 1st September 2008 must have a barrier that complies with AS 1926. 1-2012 Part 1: Safety barriers for swimming pools, which includes new requirements for non-climbable zones. Trees and shrubs, existing or proposed, must not be within the 900mm ‘non-climbable zone’ (NCZ). The (NCZ) is a zone measured in an arc shape. Where the NCZ is measured from depends on if the barrier is a 1200mm pool fence, or an 1800mm boundary barrier. When a boundary fence is used as the barrier then the NCZ will be measured from the inside (pool) side of the fence. Any proposed and existing planting must ensure compliance with AS 1926. 1-2012.

Recommendation

Council’s Tree and Landscape Consultant has determined that the development

proposal is satisfactory in terms of tree preservation and landscaping, subject to

compliance with Conditions of Consent.

Conditions

The following Conditions of Consent apply:

GEN21 Tree planting in accordance with Australian Standard 2303-2015 “Tree

Stock for Landscape Use”

CON47 Compliance with AS1926.1-2012 Part 1

CON51 Planting undertaken at the completion of construction CON52 Planting to be in accordance with Tree Management Control CON53 Establishment of landscape for 2 years CON54 Section 96 require for amended landscape

CON55 Trees to be retained under Tree Management Control

CON59 Tree Planting

POC75 Landscaping prior to Final Occupation Certificate


Item 2.2 Page 14

The following Special Conditions apply: PCC Amended Plans

The Architectural Plans (prepared by Weber Architects, dwg no 0206, dated 20/04/ 2018, date stamped 1 May 2018) shall be amended to show two (2) small sized trees or one (1) medium sized tree. Small trees should have a minimum mature height between 5-6m and medium sized trees a minimum mature height of 8m. Tree(s) shall be supplied and planted as 45L stock. Small tree species shall be selected from:

Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle)

Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’

Callistemon citrinus x viminalis ‘Harkness’

Corymbia ficifolia ‘Calypso Queen’ Medium tree species shall be selected from:

Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistachio)

Pyrus ussuriensis (Manchurian Pear)

Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani)

Magnolia doltsopa (Evergreen Magnolia) An amended Plan complying with this condition shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that the amended Landscape Plan fully satisfies the requirements of this condition.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings. 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION 9.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) Not applicable. 9.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs Not applicable. 9.3 Other Legislation Not Applicable. 10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012 10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Zone


Item 2.2 Page 15

The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone R2 and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.2012.

Compliance with Current Statutory Controls Proposed Control Compliance

HEIGHT Ridge

7.7 metres

8.5 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storey 2 storeys Yes

Landscape Area 57.6% 50% Yes

10.3 Site Area Requirements The proposal complies with these requirements. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi-unit housing-density and garden

area controls Not Applicable. 10.5 Height of Buildings The height of the proposal, being 7.7 metres and 2 storey in height is acceptable as it would comply with the maximum of 8.5 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. 10.6 Landscaped Area The proposed revised garden area of 57.6% would be above the 50% minimum permissible garden area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. 10.7 Subdivision Lot Size Not Applicable. 10.8 Floor Space Ratio Not Applicable. 10.9 Street Frontage Not Applicable. 10.10 Dual Occupancy Not Applicable. 10.11 Foreshore Building Lines Not Applicable.


Item 2.2 Page 16

10.12 River Front Area Not Applicable. 10.13 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards Not Applicable. 11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS (DCPs) 12.1 Compliance Table Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

Compliance with Current Statutory Controls

Proposed Control Compliance

Height Ridge External Walls

7.7 metres 6.9 metres


Yes Yes

Storeys 2 storey 2 storeys Yes

Landscaped Area 57.6% 50% Yes

Setbacks Dwelling Front (south) Rear (north) Side (west) Side (east) Swimming Pool Rear (north) Side (west) Side (east)

Existing 14.612m 1.7m 2.55m 2.4m 1.3m 4m

Average street pattern 6m 1.5m 1.5m 1m 1m 1m

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Planning Policy – All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Parts 2 and 3 of Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. Heritage Conservation Areas The proposal complies with the relevant objectives under Part 2 of Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. River Front Area Not Applicable. Height Refer to section 10.5 of this report ‘Height of Buildings’.


Item 2.2 Page 17

Front, Side & Rear Setbacks Complies. Landscaped Area Refer to section 10.6 of this report ‘Garden Area’. Solar Access The shadow diagrams indicate that at 9am mid winter, the shadows are cast to the south-west within the subject site.

The shadow diagrams indicate that at 12 noon mid winter the shadows are cast to the south of

the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.21 Isler Street. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the site. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 3pm mid winter there would be shadows cast south-east of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.21 Isler Street. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the site. The proposal would comply with the general requirements, being that new development must not eliminate more than one third of the existing sunlight to adjacent properties at ground level, measured at 9 am, 12 noon and 3 pm of the winter solstice. The proposal would comply with the general requirements and objectives stipulated under Part 3.5.2 of the Development Control Plan 2013, as the proposal would allow for reasonable access to sunlight to adjoining buildings and their recreational open space. Privacy The owners of No.12 Windeyer Avenue have raised concern in regards to privacy impacts from the proposed development. The following concerns have been raised:



The windows to the upper level rear habitable room that faces south east have a privacy or a still level at 1600mm

It should be noted that No.12 Windeyer Avenue is located partially to the rear of the subject allotment and is offset. It is considered that the level of privacy would not significantly alter as a result of the proposed first floor rear addition. Considering the first floor areas are of low trafficable use, being bedrooms, ensuite and retreat, and has an adequate distance separation in an urban residential area of approximately 16m provided between the proposed first floor addition and the rear boundary. The proposed first floor balcony would have a width of approximately 1.1m, which would not accommodate large tables and many chairs. The orientation of the subject allotment, which does not allow for direct overlooking, mainly cross views over the property, the proposal would not significantly impact upon the adjoining dwelling at No.12 Windeyer Avenue.


Item 2.2 Page 18

Views Not Applicable. Car Parking Not Applicable. Garages & Carports Not Applicable. Fences Not Applicable. 12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies

Hunter’s Hill Council S94A Developer Contributions Plan 2011

13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT The proposal is considered to not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan 2013 and LEP 2012. There would be no impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 for a period of fourteen (14) days commencing on the 17 May 2018. Within the specified time period one (1) submission was received. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report.


NUMBER NOTIFIED 8


SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Natalie David 12 Windeyer Avenue Gladesville

The balustrade to the upper level rear deck that faces my rear garden be a solid material, not glass, wires or pickets that can be seen through

The balustrade to the upper level rear deck that faces the south east have a privacy screen to minimum 1600mm high


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



Item 2.2 Page 19



Comment: It should be noted that No.12 Windeyer Avenue is located partially to the rear of the subject allotment and is offset from the subject allotment. It is considered that the level of privacy would not significantly alter as a result of the proposed first floor rear addition. Considering the first floor areas are of low trafficable use, being bedrooms, ensuite and retreat, and has an adequate distance separation in an urban residential area of approximately 16m provided between the proposed first floor addition and the rear boundary. The proposed first floor balcony would have a width of approximately 1.1m, which would not accommodate large tables and many chairs. The orientation of the subject allotment, which does not allow for direct overlooking, mainly cross views over the property, the proposal would not significantly impact upon the adjoining dwelling at No.12 Windeyer Avenue. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. CONCLUSION The proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in Development Control Plan 2013 and Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, the application is considered acceptable. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, and Development Control Plan 2013. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the adjoining residential properties and accordingly is recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct environmental impact on Council arising from Council consideration of this matter. SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct social impact on Council arising from Council consideration of this matter. RISK ASSESSMENT There are no direct or indirect risks impacting on Council arising from consideration of this matter.


Item 2.2 Page 20

HUNTERS HILL 2028 This matter relates to ensuring that heritage and conservation of the area is respected, preserved and enhanced including the preservation of the character, views to and from the Municipality, and the preservation of the tree canopy.

RECOMMENDATION

That Development Application No.2018/1031 for a first floor storey addition containing a master bedroom with ensuite, robe, and a sitting area as well as a rear balcony at No.23 Isler Street, Gladesville, be approved, subject to the following conditions: Special Conditions PCC The Architectural Plans (prepared by Weber Architects, dwg no 0206, dated 20/04/ 2018, date stamped 1 May 2018) shall be amended to show two (2) small sized trees or one (1) medium sized tree. Small trees should have a minimum mature height between 5-6m and medium sized trees a minimum mature height of 8m. Tree(s) shall be supplied and planted as 45L stock.

Small tree species shall be selected from:

Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle)

Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’

Callistemon citrinus x viminalis ‘Harkness’

Corymbia ficifolia ‘Calypso Queen’

Medium tree species shall be selected from:

Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistachio)

Pyrus ussuriensis (Manchurian Pear)

Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani)

Magnolia doltsopa (Evergreen Magnolia) An amended Plan complying with this condition shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that the amended Landscape Plan fully satisfies the requirements of this condition.

CON Applicant has to confirm if there is a private stormwater pipe and comply. Otherwise the applicant has to install new pipe system satisfying Council at their cost. Details to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.


Item 2.2 Page 21

Standard Conditions

GEN0 GEN1 GEN3 GEN5 GEN6 GEN7 GEN20 GEN21 PCC0 PCC1 ($1862) PCC2 ($2200) PCC3 ($1500) PCC4 ($1536) PCC5 ($5322) PCC11 PCC12 PCC13 PCC16 PCC17 PCC18 PCC20 PCC21 PCC40 PCC41 PCW0 PCW1 PCW2 PCW3 PCW4 OCW5 CSI0 CSI2 CSI3 CSI7 DEM0 DEM1 DEM3 DEM4 DEM6 DEM7 DEM8 DEM9 DEM11 DEM15 CON0 CON1 CON2 CON3 CON5 CON7 CON13 CON14 CON17 CON18 CON19 CON20 CON21 CON23 CON28 CON41 CON42 CON43 CON44 CON45 CON47 CON51 CON52 CON53 CON54 CON55 CON59 POC0 POC1 POC2 POC3 POC4 POC7 POC8 POC13 POC14 POC28 POC75


Site Plan, 0201, Rev G Webber Architects 20.04.18 01.05.18

Ground Floor Plan, 0301, Rev H Webber Architects 20.04.18 01.05.18

First Floor Plan, 0302, Rev H Webber Architects 20.04.18 01.05.18

Elevations, 0401, Rev F Webber Architects 20.04.18 01.05.18

Elevations, 0402, Rev G Webber Architects 20.04.18 01.05.18

Sections, 0501, Rev H Webber Architects 20.04.18 01.05.18

Landscape Plan, 0206, Rev E Webber Architects 20.04.18 01.05.18

Colours and Materials Plan, 0207 Webber Architects undated 01.05.18

ATTACHMENTS

1. Plans 2. Map 3. Submission


Item 2.3 Page 26

ITEM NO : 2.3

SUBJECT : 35 WYBALENA ROAD, HUNTERS HILL

STRATEGIC OUTCOME : MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER AND AMENITY OF HUNTERS HILL

ACTION : ALL BUILDING WORK COMPLIES WITH COUNCIL REGULATIONS

REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH


2018-1088

PROPOSAL PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TWO STOREY DWELLING

APPLICANT WILLIAM MCGARRY

OWNER MRS T S MCGARRY

DATE LODGED 20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Ref:393917

INTRODUCTION Reasons for Report The proposal results in non-compliance with the height development standard of clause 4.3 of LEP 2012 and a clause 4.6 ‘exceptions’ submission was lodged with the application. One (1) submission was received in response to the neighbour notification process. REPORT 1. SUMMARY Issues

Water view loss

Height excess

Number of storeys Submissions One (1) submission was received. Recommendation The application is recommended for approval for reasons that it is acceptable having regard to:


Item 2.3 Page 27

1. It is permissible under the zoning. 2. It complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill

Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013.

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Following substantial demolition of the existing dwelling from the site, it is proposed to construct a new dwelling to be used as follows: On the lower ground floor, retention of large undercroft area, games room, gym, office plant rooms and staircase. On the ground floor (which retains some original walls) double garage study, lounge, kitchen, dining room entry foyer, laundry and two sets of staircases. On the first floor, rumpus room, four (4) bedrooms (one with an ensuite and walk-in ‘robe and one with an ensuite), bathroom and staircase. A roof garden 3m x 7m will open off the rumpus room on the south elevation. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The premises are known as No.35 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill and are legally described as being Lot 3 in DP 568190. The site is hatchet shaped lot and is located on the western side, between Fern Road and Woolwich Road. It has an area of 825sqm with a frontage of 3.86 metres to Wybalena Road. The site has a slope of approx.7 metres down to the west from the street frontage. The site which until recently contained a part three storey dwelling is now vacant land due to the demolition of the dwelling on the site. Adjoining and nearby are mostly part three storey and part two-storey dwelling houses, some with swimming pools and boatsheds. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY Consent Orders were issued by the Land & Environment Court on 16 February 2016 to carry out alterations and additions to the existing dwelling with a new pool, spa & terrace plus landscaping which involved the upholding of clause 4.6 ‘exception’ submissions in relation to additional height and floor space ratio of 0.51:1. The proposal approved by the Court was for partial demolition of the existing dwelling, alterations and additions to the lower ground floor, ground floor and first floor, new pool, spa and terrace at ground level and comprehensive landscaping. Demolition of the dwelling has since taken place contrary to the consent issued by the Court and such matter has been referred to Council’s solicitors for action concerning such unauthorised works.


Item 2.3 Page 28

Advice was then given to the owner to submit a development application for the construction of a new dwelling. In the meantime a Notice of Intent was served by Council on the owner. The solicitors for the owner submitted a letter to Council dated 14 June 2018 in seeking non-enforcement action or rectification by Council for the breach of building work and advising of the exercise of discretion of the Court. This matter was referred to Council’s solicitors for their advice and as a result a reply letter was forwarded to the solicitors for the owner. Council under delegated authority on 6 August 2018, refused an application to modify the original consent for alterations and additions by alterations to the swimming pool, dwelling and landscaping for reason that the dwelling had been demolished and hence the outcome would not be substantially the same and as the pre-conditions to the s4.55 had not been met, there was no legal basis for a s4.55 modification to the original development consent. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan 2012 Zone: Low Density Residential R2 Conservation Area: Yes River Front Area: Yes SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005): Yes Development Control Plan 2013: 2013 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes 6. POLICY CONTROLS Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and appropriate conditions have been incorporated in the recommendation. 7.3 Heritage As stated within the body of the report, the property is not a heritage item but is in a conservation area under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who provided the following comments:

Heritage Status: Within Hunters Hill Conservation Area C1 (“The Peninsula”), nearest heritage items are 23 and 47 Wybalena Road. Visible from the Parramatta River.

Proposal: Partial demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new two-storey dwelling.

Statement of Heritage Impact: “HIS Letter” provided- O.K. under the circumstances.


Item 2.3 Page 29

Comments: the proposed works appear to be driven by the structural inadequacy/ dilapidation of the existing structure. The proposed “new two storey dwelling” appears to be in accordance with the consent issued by the Land and Environment Court. This application was considered by the Conservation Advisory Panel at its meeting of October 2018, and the Panel conclude:

In examining the proposal, the Panel raised no concern and advised that the “new building” is supported.

Recommendation: Approval.

The application was forwarded to the Conservation Advisory Panel meeting of 17 October 2018. The minutes for this item are as follows:-

Tony Coote re-joined the meeting. Helen Temple Berry left the meeting. The Panel was addressed by the owner, William McGarry, and Urbis planner Murray Donaldson, and Urbis heritage consultant, Lynette Gurr. The property is within Hunters Hill Conservation area C1 (‘The Peninsula’), and is visible from the Parramatta River. The development was subject to a Land and Environment Court consent as alterations and additions to an existing house, but once works commenced, it was found that the existing fabric was largely non-viable and the extent of demolition required meant that the proposed reconstruction is effectively a new house with minor fragments of the pre-existing structure only remaining. It was advised that the previously approved design had been refined to allow the roof to be lowered while maintaining the overall form of the building. In examining the proposal, the Panel raised no concern and advised that the “new building” is supported. Panel Advice: The Conservation Advisory Panel advises the Group Manager Development and Regulatory Control that the proposed demolition/ replacement dwelling development is considered to be supportable.

As both the Conservation Advisory Panel and Council’s Heritage Adviser have given their support to this latest proposal, there are no heritage objections to this proposal in the Conservation Area. 7.4 Works & Services The application was referred to Council’s Design and Development Engineer and no objections were raised to the proposal. 7.5 Parks & Landscape The application was referred to Council’s Tree Consultants who advised by memo that there are no landscape objections to the proposal subject to conditions.


Item 2.3 Page 30

8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.4.15 The relevant matters for consideration under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings. 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION 9.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) Not applicable. 9.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs Not applicable. 9.3 Other Legislation Not Applicable. 10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012 10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Zone The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone Low density residential R2 and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.2012.

Compliance with Current Statutory Controls Proposed Control Compliance

HEIGHT 9.05 metres 8.5 metres No

STOREYS 3 storeys 2 storeys No

LANDSCAPED AREA 51.7% 50% Yes

FLOOR SPACE RATIO 0.5:1 0.5:1 Yes

10.3 Site Area Requirements The proposal complies with these requirements. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi-unit housing-density and garden

area controls Not Applicable. 10.5 Height of Buildings The height of the proposal, being 9.05 metres as the development standard and 3 storeys, as the objective, in height does not comply with the maximum of 8.5 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. To overcome this non-conformity, the applicant has submitted a formal clause 4.6 ‘exceptions’ submission.


Item 2.3 Page 31

In support of the objection, the planning consultants for the applicant establish the legal precedents for this matter and set out their interpretation of the objectives of the standard. They state in part:

In general, the height of the roof extension above the Level 1 master bedroom, ensuite, walk-in ‘robe and bedroom No.3 does not have a significant environmental impact. An alternative design of the roof has been considered to remove the technical non-compliance. Lowering the pitch of the roof or provide a flat roof will bring about strict compliance, though in the writer’s view this will result in an unsympathetic roof form that will unbalance the appearance of the house., particularly from the waters of Parramatta River. The previous dwelling’s pitched roof forms with gabled ends, which are part of the enduring features of the dwelling, which are desirable to retain. The building height is consistent with the maximum building height for the site as presently constructed. The variation does not diminish the redevelopment potential or amenity of any adjoining land. Compliance in this circumstance would not on balance improve the outcome in the writer’s view. Rather it would unreasonably impact on the building quality of the development. It is considered that to force compliance in the circumstances would be antipathetic to the inherent flexibility provided by clause 4.6, thereby hindering the attainment of the objectives. It is concluded that that in the particular circumstances of the case, including as a result of the Court’s s34AA process, the proposal has achieved a better outcome than was originally proposed , the request is well founded, providing an aesthetically appropriate development in keeping with the recent and historic development in the area.

On balance it is considered that strict compliance with the development standard of height under clause 4.3 of LEP 2012 would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. Hence, it would be deemed reasonable to support the objection relating to the height non-conformity in the circumstances of the case. The circumstances are that the standard deviation is relatively minor and the current DA plans provide for a new dwelling (plus additions) that is lower in height than that as approved by the Court for the alterations and additions to the original dwelling. 10.6 Landscaped Area The proposed revised landscaped area of 51.7% would be above the 50% minimum permissible garden area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. 10.7 Subdivision Lot Size Not Applicable, 10.8 Floor Space Ratio Complies.


Item 2.3 Page 32

10.9 Street Frontage Not Applicable. 10.10 Dual Occupancy Not Applicable. 10.11 Foreshore Building Lines Not Applicable. 10.12 River Front Area The subject site is also located with the River Front Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 6.7 of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. Clause 6.7 states: 6.7 (3) Development consent must not be granted for development on land to

which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) Measures will be taken, including in relation to the location, design and appearance of the development and conservation of existing trees, to minimize the visual impact of the development to and from the nearest waterway, and

(b) Any historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological,

architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out, and of surrounding land, will be maintained, and

(c) Existing views towards waterways from public roads and reserves

would not be obstructed.

As the proposed modifications will be of a minor effect when compared to the development approval, this will have no detrimental effect in relation to the views to or from the waterway. 10.13 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards Not Applicable. 11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS (DCPs) 12.1 Compliance Table Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

CONTROL REQUIRED/PERMISSIBLE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HEIGHT Ridge External walls



No No

Storeys 2 3 No


Item 2.3 Page 33

Landscaped Area 50% minimum 51.7% Yes

BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house East (Front) West (Rear) North (Side) South (Side) Pool East (front) West (rear) North (side) South (side)

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

23 metres 9 metres 1.233m – existing 5.072m 43 metres 1 metre 5.7 metres 7.2 metres

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Planning Policy – All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Parts 2 and 3 of Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. Heritage Conservation Areas The proposal complies with the relevant objectives under Part 2 of Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. River Front Area Refer to section 10.12 of this report ‘River Front Area’. Height Refer to section 10.5 of this report ‘Height of Buildings. The present circumstances are that the development standard deviation for the ridge height is relatively minor and the current DA plans provide for a new dwelling (plus additions) that is lower in this measured height than that as approved by the Court for the alterations and additions to the original dwelling The external wall height non-conformity, being 7.9 metres and thus in excess of 7.2 metres is, in this case, a function of the overall height non-conformity as referred to above for the development. As such deviation for the external wall height is relatively small, it is deemed reasonable to support this part of the proposal. Front, Side & Rear Setbacks The boundary setbacks for the development are generally in compliance with the controls of DCP 2013. The non-conformity is with the northern side setback which at 1.233 metres to a corner is less than the control of 1.5 metres. However, as the building currently exists in this position and it was part of the original approval of the Court, there are no reasonable objections to this part of the development. Landscaped Area Complies.


Item 2.3 Page 34

Solar Access There will be a slight improvement in solar access from this new development compared to that as approved previously by the Court. Under these circumstances it is considered that there are no objections from a solar access aspect to this development. Privacy It is considered that privacy loss for adjoining residents is not of major concern bearing in mind that the Court approved aspects of the original development taking into account privacy concerns for the adjoining and nearby residents. In any case, the development plans show privacy screens on part of the eastern elevation of the dwelling where the windows are closest to the eastern boundary. Views It is considered that there will be some improvement to the water views over the roof of the new dwelling as originally approved by the Court and a refusal on view loss could not be substantiated no further loss of shared water views from that as previously approved as part of the alterations and additions. Car Parking Complies. Garages & Carports Complies. Fences Not Applicable. 12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies

Hunter’s Hill Council S7.12 Developer Contributions Plan 2014

13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT The proposed development incorporates the approval granted by the Court for additions to the lower ground floor for the purpose of games room, gym, office, plant room, cellar and staircase thus creating the conditions for a three storey development on the site. Similarly, the alterations to the existing dwelling at the time for the ground floor and first floor alterations and additions as approved by the Court are effectively the same in terms of layout, dimensions etc. as for this current DA for the new dwelling. The elevations are essentially the same as that approved by the Court with the exceptions that the overall roof ridge height has been lowered by 0.603 metres and a reduction in the number of skylights and alteration to windows. The height non-conformity of a maximum of 0.55 metres to part of the ridge, as addressed by the applicant in the clause 4.6 ‘exceptions’ submission, is reasonable and is worthy of upholding such objection to this breach. Such height non-conformity is less than that as previously approved by the Court.


Item 2.3 Page 35

The proposal gives compliance to the Landscaped Area and the Floor Space Ratio development standards of LEP 2012. It is considered that the scale character of the development are satisfactory and would comply with the likely finished form as envisaged through Council’s LEP 2012 and DCP 2013. It is also considered that the amended proposal gives conformity to the heritage and streetscape requirements of the Conservation Advisory Panel and Council’s Heritage Adviser. A ‘deferred commencement’ condition as set out in the recommendation is based on the heritage Adviser requiring more specific details in relation to the choice of external materials and colours for the external walls of the dwelling. Accordingly, the development application relating to the construction of the new dwelling plus retention of some of the existing dwelling post demolition as applied for under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is recommended for approval subject to conditions, as set out below. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, and Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. Subject to conditioning, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development relating to the new dwelling house would not unduly impact upon the amenity adjoining residential properties and accordingly is recommended for a ‘deferred commencement’ approval. 14. SUBMISSIONS The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 for a period of fourteen (14) days commencing on the 8 October 2018. Within the specified time period one (1) submission was received. Copy of the submission is attached to the report.


NUMBER NOTIFIED 8


SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Hugo Duarte 37 Wybalena Road HUNTERS HILL

On DA-0501 on the eastern elevation diagram, it shows new windows that will directly face our property. On the plans it seems there is some sort of privacy screen /louvres over the windows, but it is unclear if this is indeed the case

On DA-4001 the view loss diagram shows a view that is from 35 Wybalena Rd. but not our balcony at 37 Wybalena Rd. I have attached a photo of the view from our balcony at #37 before the house was demolished for your reference. As you can see the original verandah had an awning but the water was visible through this space. With the proposed design, where the old verandah area is enclosed, we will lose this water view. We do not want further complications for our new neighbours, so have a proposal that will help compensate the loss of view we incur with the new design. The current cabana in the yard has a pitched roof as shown in the plans and photo. What we propose is that this roof be changed to a flat roof in order to gain back some of the waterview lost in the new plans (through the enclosed verandah). Changing the pitched roof to a flat roof would mean we gain water view where the current pitch is


Item 2.3 Page 36

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

On DA-0501 on the eastern elevation diagram, it shows new windows that will directly face our property. On the plans it seems there is some sort of privacy screen /louvres over the windows, but it is unclear if this is indeed the case

Comment: The windows shown on the eastern elevation are a small window to the ensuite sited approximately 11 metres distant from the house at No.37 and a larger window to bedroom No.2 which will be sited approximately 21 metres distant from the adjoining house at No.37 Wybalena Road. The eastern elevation shows a possible privacy screen to the ensuite window but no such screening to the bedroom #2. A screen would be useful for the ensuite window and details for clarification are set out in Schedule 1 of the recommendation. It is considered that there is no effective need for privacy measures for bedroom #2 due to the distance of such window from the adjoining dwelling.

On DA-4001 the view loss diagram shows a view that is from 35 Wybalena Rd. but not our balcony at 37 Wybalena Rd. I have attached a photo of the view from our balcony at #37 before the house was demolished for your reference. As you can see the original verandah had an awning but the water was visible through this space. With the proposed design, where the old verandah area is enclosed, we will lose this water view. We do not want further complications for our new neighbours, so have a proposal that will help compensate the loss of view we incur with the new design. The current cabana in the yard has a pitched roof as shown in the plans and photo. What we propose is that this roof be changed to a flat roof in order to gain back some of the waterview lost in the new plans (through the enclosed verandah). Changing the pitched roof to a flat roof would mean we gain water view where the current pitch is

Comment: What is proposed through the current plans for the enclosure of the ground floor verandah at the south western corner of the site is exactly the same as the on the plans approved by the Court. That is, there will be an improvement in water views due to the reduction in the roof height of the new dwelling. There is no recommendation here to alter the roof of the cabana as no such change was a result of the Court decision. CONCLUSION The remnants of the existing dwelling and the new dwelling house, with garage, pool and landscaping as applied for under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is recommended for a ‘deferred commencement’ approval subject to conditions, as set out below. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, and Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. Subject to conditioning, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development, relating to the construction/additions of the dwelling, would not unduly impact upon the residents of the adjoining and nearby residential properties and’ accordingly’ is recommended for a deferred commencement approval. The matters relating Schedule 1 conditions for the ‘deferred commencement’ recommendation are the details of the finished surface materials, landscaping and privacy screens to the satisfaction of the Council’s various advisers and officers. FINANCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.


Item 2.3 Page 37

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct environmental impact on Council arising from Council consideration of this matter. SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct social impact on Council arising from Council consideration of this matter. RISK ASSESSMENT There are no direct or indirect risks impacting on Council arising from consideration of this matter. HUNTERS HILL 2028 This matter relates to ensuring that heritage and conservation of the area is respected, preserved and enhanced including the preservation of the character, views to and from the Municipality, and the preservation of the tree canopy.

RECOMMENDATION

A. That Council, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the objection lodged under clause 4.6 of LEP 2012 to vary the height development standard of clause 4.3 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, is well founded under the circumstances of the case and are consistent with the aims of the Policy.

B. That the development application No.2018/1088 for the construction of a new three

storey dwelling with pool and landscaping be granted a “Deferred commencement” consent pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in respect of No.35 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill

The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (nor be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council. Schedule 1 1. The details of the external finished surface materials and colours, with actual

swatches, being submitted with colours generally being dark and recessive particularly as able to be viewed from the Parramatta River and addressing the provisions of DCP 2013

. 2. Amended Tree Protection Plan to outline tree protection measures for all trees

and palms over 4m in height, to be retained plus a Transplant Method Statement to be prepared for the palms

(a) The Tree Protection Plan (prepared by Tree Consulting by Jo, dated 02.06.2017) shall be amended to address the protection requirements of all palms over 4m in height to be retained on site.

(b) The Tree Protection Plan shall be submitted to Council for approval as

part of the Deferred Commencement. (c) The Tree Protection Plan shall relate to all palms proposed for retention

(over 4m in height).


Item 2.3 Page 38

Tree Transplant Method Statement

(a) A Tree Transplantation Method Statement shall be submitted to Council for approval as part of the Deferred Commencement.

(b) The Tree Transplantation Method Statement shall relate to all palms

proposed for retention (over 4m in height). (c) The method statement shall be prepared by qualified Horticulturalist or

Arborist (minimum AQF Level 3) and shall detail the following:

pre-transplantation schedule of works;

preparation of transplant site;

transplantation method and

post-transplantation after-care and duration. 3. Details of the privacy screens on the eastern elevation being shown at a larger scale

with such plans being submitted to Council for approval and to be incorporated in the Construction Certificate plans.

Schedule 2


Site Plan Dwg. DA-0003 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan Dwg.DA-0201 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Proposed_Ground Floor Plan Dwg. DA-0202 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Proposed_First Floor Plan Dwg.DA-0203 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Proposed_ Roof Plan Dwg. DA-0204 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Proposed Elevations – South & East Dwg. DA-0501 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Proposed_Elevations – North & West Dwg. DA-0502 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Proposed_Section 01 Dwg. DA- 0601 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Proposed_Section 02 +03 Dwg.DA-0602 rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Proposed_Section 04-05 Dwg.DA-0603 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Landscape Plan Dwgs. LA.CD.101/01 to 602.01

Black Beetle 15 Feb 2017 20 Sep 2018

Demo_Lower Floor Plan Dwg. DA-2901 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018


Item 2.3 Page 39

Demo_Ground Floor Plan Dwg. DA-2902 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Demo_ First Floor Plan Dwg. DA-2903 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Demo_ Roof Plan Dwg. DA-2904 Rev.00

20 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Basix Certificate No.642865S_02

27 Aug 2018 20 Sep 2018

Standard Conditions:

GEN0 GEN1 GEN3 GEN5 GEN6 GEN7 GEN20 GEN21 PCC0 PCC1($2,329.00) PCC2($2,200.00) PCC3($1,300.00) PCC4($1,536.00) PCC5 ($6,650.00) PCC11 PCC12 (642865S-02 dated 27 August 2018) PCC13 PCC18 PCC20 PCC21 PCC41 PCC47 PCC48 PCW0 PCW1 PCW2 PCW3 PCW4 PCW5 PCW6 PCW9 PCW14 PCW21 CSI0 CSI2 CSI3 CSI7 DEM0 DEM1 DEM3 DEM6 DEM7 DEM8 DEM9 DEM10 DEM11 CON0 CON1 CON2 CON3 CON4 CON5 CON7 CON18 CON19 CON20 CON21 CON23 CON27 CON28 CON41 CON42 CON43 CON44 CON45 CON47 CON51 CON52 CON53 CON54 CON55 CON57 CON58 CON59 POC0 POC1 POC2 POC3 (642865S_02 dated 27 August 2018) POC4 POC7 POC8 POC13 POC14 POC 24 POC25 POC28 POC75

ATTACHMENTS

1. Plans 2. Map 3. Submission

Development Control Unit No. 017 - Hunters Hill · 3. Amended plans are to be submitted with...

Documents

Transcript of Development Control Unit No. 017 - Hunters Hill · 3. Amended plans are to be submitted with...