DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 1 of 14
Proposal: Partial demolition of existing structures, construction of a dual occupancy
with strata subdivision
Property: Lot 4 DP 29773, 24 Morrison Avenue, Engadine
Applicant: Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd
File Number: DA19/0041
To be determined by: Delegated authority
Report from: (Thomas Stanton)
PROPOSALThe application is for partial demolition of existing structures, construction of a dual occupancy with strata
subdivision.
ASSESSMENT OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
1.0 THAT:1.1 That Development Application No. DA19/0041 for Partial demolition of existing structures,
construction of a dual occupancy with strata subdivision at Lot 4 DP 29773 24 Morrison
Avenue, Engadine be approved, subject to the conditions.
ASSESSMENT OFFICER’S COMMENTARY
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSALThe proposal is for a two storey side by side dual occupancy which will have a single central driveway to
the north west of the site. The ground floor of both dwellings consists of a single garage, front living area,
bathroom, study, laundry, kitchen, family and a dining room. To the rear of site exists an outdoor living
area which steps down into the rear yard private open space. For the dwelling to the east of the site
known as unit 1 the existing garage is being maintained for the purposes of a storage space. The first floor
for both dwellings consists of three bedrooms, a sitting area and a bathroom. The master bedroom has an
attached ensuite and walk in robe.
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 2 of 14
A site plan is provided below.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCALITYThe site is located on the south eastern side of Morrison Avenue
within the suburb of Engadine. The site is rectangular in shape with a
frontage width of 15.24m, side length of 45.72m and a rear boundary width of 15.24m. The total site area
is 696.8m2 with an approximate 7.7m fall to the rear of the site. Currently existing on the site is a single
storey brick dwelling. The adjoining dwelling to the east of the site is fibro single store dwelling and to the
west exists a rendered single storey dwelling. As the site is located within a R2 Low Density Residential
Zone the majority of the surrounding character consists of 1-2 storey dwellings.
A locality plan and an aerial photo are provided below.
4.0 BACKGROUNDA history of the development proposal is as follows:
The current application was submitted on 23 January 2019.
The application was placed on exhibition, with the last date for public submissions being 04 March
2019.
A site visit was conducted on 20 March 2020.
Council requested that the following additional information be provided in relation to:
- Building Height
- Bulk and Scale
- Private open space
- Solar access
- Drainage
- Landscape plan
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 3 of 14
- Existing Garage
Amended plans were lodged on 30 August, 21 November 2019 and the 8 January 2020.
5.0 ADEQUACY OF APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONIn relation to the Statement of Environmental Effects, plans and other documentation submitted with the
application or after a request from Council, the applicant has provided adequate information to Council to
enable an assessment of this application.
6.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONThe application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 42 of Sutherland Shire
Development Control Plan 2015 (SSDCP 2015).
Council notified 9 adjoining or affected owners of the proposal and 3 submissions were received.
Address Date of Letter/s Issues
26 Morrison ave Engadine 2 March 2019 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
13 Tobruk Avenue Engadine 2 March 2019 4,8
15 Morrison Ave Engadine 3 March 2019 9
Additional concerns raised
over amended plans by 26
Morrison ave Engadine
29 September 2019 3,8,10
7.0 MAJOR ISSUES ARISING FROM SUBMISSIONSThe main issues identified in the submissions are as follows:
Issue 1: Existing garage does not comply with current regulationsComment : The garage was approved under an older application HB941/24. Whilst the criteria for which
the garage was supported back in 2000 would not likely be supported today it is a lawful structure based
on the prior assessment conducted by Council. As the structure does not contribute to any other non-
compliances its retention can be supported with the relevant conditions of consent discussed in the
assessment section of this report.
Issue 2: Rear balcony attached the existing garageComment : An objection has been raised in relation to the unapproved rear balcony attached to the
existing detached garage in relation to its privacy impact and structural integrity. To ensure visual privacy
is not hindered a privacy screen has been conditioned to obscure views to objectors property. To ensure
the balcony is structurally suitable conditions of consent have been provided requiring the applicant to
lodge certification from a suitably qualified engineer or licensed builder certifying the deck/balcony is
structurally sound and is fit for purpose.
Issue 3: Privacy
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 4 of 14
Comment : Concerns of privacy from the rear balcony and from the backyard where raised. To ensure
visual privacy is not hindered a privacy screen has been conditioned to obscure views to neighbouring
property from the rear facing balcony. The proposed landscape plan has been proposed in a manner that
will not allow for adverse onlooking. Further conditions have been placed on the development to modify
the rear yard to ensure visual privacy is maintained.
Issue 4: Drainage Comment : The downstream property owners were contacted by Council officers on few occasions to
discuss the application and explain the easement process. It was also explained that an alternate solution
would be designed if an easement was formally rejected. Easement rejection letters were provided from
the neighbouring properties in 2017 and again in 2019. As a result the applicant has designed an alternate
drainage plan which has been assessed by Councils engineers and has been conditioned to comply with
the DCP.
Issue 5: Boundary fence between 22 and 24 Morrison is in the wrong location. Comment : If the existing boundary fence is inadequate or incorrect, changes are to be agreed upon by
the neighbouring properties considering the Dividing Fences Act 1991 as diving fences are not subject to
a Council approval unless proposed over 1.8m. A fence up to this height is permissible under exempt
development. This application does not consider nor grant approval for any boundary fences.
Issue 6: Tree removal Comment : The application proposes to remove the Howea forsteriana (Kentia palm) located at the centre
of the property. Council tree management officer has inspected the tree and has supported the applicant’s
proposal to removal the tree to incorporate the retaining walls and drainage tanks. Replacement tree
planting has been recommended as a result of the removal.
Issue 7: What is the use of the existing garage to be as it is being maintained? Comment : The garage has been conditioned to be used solely for the purposes of storage and that all
elements of the unlawful kitchen are removed.
Issue 8: Structural suitability of retaining walls Comment : The structural specifications of all the proposed retaining walls is a matter to be specified at a
later stage prior to occupation certificate. To ensure the walls structural suitability, it is has been
conditioned that certification will need to be provided ensuring that they are fit for purpose.
Issue 9: Parking Comment : Concerns were raised in relation to the effect of the development on street parking as well as
the parking provided by the development not being suitable for the locality due to the narrow street. The
development has proposed a single central driveway which will assist in maintaining the majority of the on
street parking. As the site has a slightly wider than normal frontage the development has demonstrated
that it will not be a greater impact on street parking than the controls anticipate. Furthermore, the
development is fully compliant with the amount of onsite parking that has been provided and can be
supported.
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 5 of 14
Issue 10: Landscape Plan Comment : Concerns were raised in relation to the detail shown on the landscape plan and the proposals
compliance with the minimum landscaping provisions. The landscape plans demonstrate adequate detail
for DA stage. Further details for elements such as retaining wall will be provided for CC stage and beyond.
Council tree protection officer has assessed the landscaped plan and deemed it an acceptable response
to the site. In addition the site has demonstrated compliance with the minimum landscaped areas control.
Revised PlansThe applicant lodged revised plans on the 30 August, 21 November 2019 and the 8 January 2020.
In accordance with the requirements of SSDCP2015 these plans were not publicly exhibited as, in the
opinion of Council, the changes being sought did not intensify or change the external impact of the
development to the extent that neighbours ought to be given the opportunity to comment.
Submission Review Panel (SRP)The submissions received were discussed with the Team Leader and given the nature of the issues raised
it was decided that referral to Council's SRP was not required.
8.0 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONSThe subject land is located within Zone R2 Low Density Residential Zone pursuant to the provisions of
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being a dual occupancy
and strata subdivision, is a permissible land use within the zone with development consent from Council.
The following Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs), Draft EPIs, Development Control Plan (DCP),
Codes or Policies are relevant to this application:
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP 2015).
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.
Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment.
Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015 (SSDCP 2015).
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)
Section 7.11 / 7.12 Development Contribution Plan 2016
Section 7.12 Development Contribution Plan 2016 - Sutherland Shire.
9.0 COMPLIANCE9.1. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land) (SEPP 55)State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires Council to
consider whether the land subject to the development proposal is contaminated; and if the site is
contaminated, Council must be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable (i.e. following
remediation) for the proposed land use.
A search of Council’s contaminated land register specifies that the site is not potentially contaminated. In
conclusion, the site is suitable for the proposed residential in accordance with requirements of SEPP 55.
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 6 of 14
9.2. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index) 2004 (BASIX) aims to establish a
scheme to encourage sustainable residential development across New South Wales. BASIX certificates
accompany the development application addressing the requirements for the proposed building. The
proposal achieves the minimum performance levels / targets associated with water, energy and thermal
efficiency.
9.3. Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2- Georges River CatchmentGreater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 (GMREP2) includes a number of aims and
objectives for the environment and water quality within the catchment. Appropriate stormwater
management and water quality measures are proposed and there is likely to be minimal adverse impacts
on water quality. Council is of the view that with the implementation of the recommended conditions of
consent the proposal would be consistent with the aims and objectives of GMREP2.
9.4. Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 outlines the
framework for assessment and approval of biodiversity impacts for development that requires consent
under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The assessment of the development has revealed that the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) threshold is
not triggered and biodiversity matters have been appropriately assessed via Council’s LEP and DCP
objectives and controls.
9.5. Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015The proposal has been assessed for compliance against Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan
2015. A compliance table with a summary of the applicable development standards is contained below:
CHAPTER 4: A. Dual Occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential ZoneB. Site area = 696.8m2
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015CLAUSE REQUIRED PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE NOTESCl.4.3Height of Building 8.5m 8.3 m YesCl.4.4Floor Space Ratio
0.55 : 1 (382.96 m2)
0.53: 1 (373.7m2)
Yes
Cl.6.14 Landscaped Area
35% (243.88m2) 35% (243.88m2) Yes
9.6. Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015The proposal has been assessed for compliance with SSDCP 2015. A compliance table with a summary
of the applicable development controls is contained below.
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 7 of 14
Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015REQUIRED PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE NOTES
Cl.1.2 – Streetscape & Building FormCl. 1Development must be designed and sited so that it addresses the street frontage ensuring that the path to all main entries are clearly identifiable form the street.
Clearly identifiable Yes
Cl.2Front entrance is to be the dominant element in each dwelling frontage. (landings/patios used to accomplish this)
Entrance is dominant Yes
Cl. 3Where dwellings are provided side by side, the building entries to each dwelling should not require entry through a space allocated for parking nor be recessed behind garaging.
Entrances are not through garages
Yes
Cl.4Design must seek to reduce the bulk and scale. Façade articulation should be employed.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.5Dual occ development limited to one single garage door per dwelling fronting the same street.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.7Maximum 2 storeys. Basements are not permitted.
No basement proposed
Yes
Cl.9Two or Three storey development is only permitted on the front 60% of the depth of the site measured from the property boundary.
<60% Complies Yes
Cl.10 (despite Cl.9)Where topography, orientation or context of the site would allow for a better outcome…a variation may be considered if it does not result in significant loss in privacy or amenity of adjoining properties.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.12Development must be sensitively designed so that it is sympathetic to the amenities and view corridors of neighbouring public and private property and balances this with the amenity afforded to the new development.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.2.2 – Building SetbacksCl.2Street Setback
Side Setback
Rear Setback
7.5m
900mm (ground floor)
1.5m (second storey)
6.0m
7.5m (with articulation)
0.9m
1.5m
16m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cl.3If setback of 7.5m or greater, building elements may encroach 1.5m into the articulation zone for a max of one third of the area of the façade.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.4Garage and garage doors cannot be located in the articulation zone. Must be located no closer than
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 8 of 14
7.5mCl.12Where a second storey wall adjacent to a side boundary exceeds 15m in continuous length, the side setback shall be increased by a further 500mm or more for part of the wall.
Less that 15m continuous Achieved satisfactorily
Yes
Cl.3.2 – LandformCl.1The depth of cut and fill must not exceed 1m from existing ground level, except where the excavation is for a basement.
0.6m Yes
Cl.3Avoid any unnecessary earthworks by designing and siting buildings within the natural slope of the land. Building footprint must be designed to minimise cut and fill by allowing the building mass to step in accordance with the slope of the land.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl. 4Any excavation must not extend beyond the building footprint
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.5Natural ground level surround the development at the property boundaries must be retained.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.4.2 – LandscapingCl.1Hard surface areas within the street frontage shall be limited to a max of 50% of the area of the front setback, with the remaining area occupied by landscaping.
51% Yes
Cl.2Development should be designed to retain existing canopy trees in the vicinity of side, rear and front setbacks including on adjoining land
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.3A minimum of 4 trees are to be provided per dual occupancy development.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl. 4Landscape design and plant species selection should reduce the potential for invasive plant species to escape into the surrounding bushland.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.5Street trees are only required on the side of the road where there are no continuous overhead power lines.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.5.2 – Building Layout, Private Open Space & Solar AccessCl. 1Orientate all new development and windows to take advantage of solar orientation to maximise natural light penetration to indoor areas and reduce the need for mechanical heating and cooling.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.2Minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in midwinter should be provided to living areas.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.3Each dwelling is to provide a POS with minimum area of 36m2 (min dimension of 5m and 9m2 paved)
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.5Primary living area to directly access private open space.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.710m2 of private open space is to have 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm at the winter
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 9 of 14
solstice (21 June).Cl.810m2 of private open spaces and windows of living areas of neighbouring dwellings are to have 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice (21 June) where reasonably expected.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.9Secure space of 10m3 per dwelling exclusively for storage as part of the garage or dwelling. Must be adequately lit & secure
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl. 10Each dwelling is to provide an external service area set aside for accommodating garbage bins, air conditioning units etc
Shown on landscape plan
Yes
Cl.6.2 – Visual & Acoustic PrivacyCl. 1Locate, orientate and design new development to ensure visual privacy between buildings and between buildings and adjacent private open space
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl. 2Use building design to increase privacy without compromising access to light and air
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.3Living/dining/kitchen area windows that provide a direct outlook on to adjacent property which leads to a loss of amenity, needs to consider privacy treatment.a.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl. 5Arrange dwellings within a development to minimise noise transition between dwellings.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl. 6All noise generating equipment such as air conditioning units, swimming pool filters, fixed vacuum systems and driveway entry shutters must be designed to protect the acoustic privacy of residents and neighbours.
Conditioned Yes
Cl.7.2 – Vehicular Access, Parking & CirculationCl.1One parking space per dwelling required.
Provided satisfactorily Yes
Cl. 2Two may be permitted is such spaces do not excessively add to overall bulk and scale and diminish the streetscape quality. Should be behind the building line.
1 space provided Yes
Cl.3Min. garage dimension: Single – 5.5m long x 3.0m wide with opening of 2.75m (can be reduced to 2.4m if straight driveway access).Double - 5.5m long x 5.7m wide with opening of at least 5m.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.4Only two single garage doors with a max width of 3m to face the street.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.5 Parking spaces shall have a grade no greater than 1:20.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.7Car parking layout and vehicular access requirements and design and public/private footpaths must be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004 and
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 10 of 14
requirements in Chapter 36. Cl. 8Driveways are to be designed and sited to accommodate street gully pits and street trees, and maximise the availability of on-street parking
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.9Single driveways should not exceed a max of 3.5m at the boundary.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl. 11Where a common driveway serves a side by side dual occ, (where adjacent parking is provided) and the required parking space is setback 7.5m or less, driveways should not exceed a max width of 4.5m at the boundary and 3.5m at the kerb.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.12Hard surface areas within the street frontage shall be limited to a maximum of 50% of the area of the front setback, with the remaining 50% occupied by deep soil landscaping.
51% Yes
Cl.8.2 – Waste Management RequirementsCl.1Each dwelling must provide waste storage to accommodating 3 waste bins.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.2 The waste storage area must not be located forward of the building line and must not detract from the streetscape.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
Cl.3Developments must be designed so that bins do not need to be wheeled more than 75 metres.
Achieved satisfactorily Yes
10.0 SPECIALIST COMMENTS The application was referred to the following internal specialists for assessment and the following
comments were received:
Engineering (Assessment Team)Council’s Assessment Team Engineers have reviewed the stormwater drainage, vehicular driveway and
carparking provision and determined that the proposal is satisfactory, subject to the recommended
conditions of development consent, which have been incorporated into the conditions of consent.
Tree Management OfficerCouncil’s Tree Management officer has reviewed the landscape plan and determined that the proposal is
acceptable, subject to the recommended conditions of development consent, which have been
incorporated into the conditions of consent.
Compliance Officer (Building Regulation)Council Environmental Health and building team was consulted in regards to the garage and the attached
unlawful balcony from the rear of the garage. Through the submission of further certification to justify the
balcony. Council compliance officer has further recommended that conditions have been added to ensure
that the garage is used only for the use of storage.
11.0 ASSESSMENT
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 11 of 14
A detailed assessment of the application has been carried out having regard to the Heads of
Consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The
following matters are considered important to this application.
11.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot SizeThe subject application proposes the Strata title subdivision of one lot into 2 newly created strata lots.
Enabled by clause 4.1(3C) of SSLEP 2015, subdivision of a lot in zone R2 Low Density Residential is not
required to comply with the minimum subdivision lot size if there is a dual occupancy on the lot and one of
those dwellings will be situated on each lot resulting from the subdivision. Considering that the proposed
subdivision will not take place until the completion of the requirements detailed in the development
consent, and that the proposed development has ensured that each dwelling on each newly created lot
will comply with the FSR and landscaped area development standards, the application is considered
acceptable
11.2 Minimum Lot Width and DepthSimilar to above, clause 4.1A(3) enables subdivision of a lot without complying with the minimum lot width
and depth requirements if there is a dual occupancy on the lot and one of those dwellings will be situated
on each lot resulting from the subdivision.
11.3 General Compliance with SSLEP 2015 and SSDCP 2015The site is located within R2 – Low Density Residential zone and the proposed development is a
permissible form of development within the zone. The proposed land use intensification from an existing
single dwelling land use is consistent with Council’s current planning direction and the broader planning
agenda for Greater Sydney Region and the South District, and achieves the objectives of the R2 – Low
Density Residential zone.
11.4 Existing Garage The existing brick garage was approved as a part of application HB941/24 in 2000. The garage has since
been fitted out and is primarily used as a storage area for the current occupants. In the past the garage
has been used unlawfully as a secondary dwelling and at some point a previous owner has unlawfully
erected a balcony at the rear of the garage.
The applicant has proposed to retain the garage to be used as a storage space. To ensure that further
unlawful use does not occur as it has in the past, conditions of consent have been provided to ensure that
the garage is to be used only as a storage space and that any unlawful kitchen appliance/ structures must
be removed from the garage. As the structure itself was previously approved and does not contribute to
the development not complying with relevant development standards, it can be support with the proposed
conditions of consent.
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 12 of 14
Council’s compliance unit has been involved in the investigating of the rear balcony to the garage and has
recommended that the balcony can stay subject to privacy measures being added to the structure and that
further certification is provided to Council to justify the structural suitability of the balcony. To ensure this
takes place further conditions of consent have been applied to this aspect of the development.
11.5 EarthworksThe proposal includes earthworks and Clause 6.2 of SSLEP 2015 requires certain matters to be
considered in deciding whether to grant consent. These matters include impacts on drainage; future
development; quality and source of fill; effect on adjoining properties; destination of excavated material;
likely disturbance of relics; impacts on waterways; catchments and sensitive areas and measures to
mitigate impacts. The relevant matters have been considered and the application is acceptable.
11.6 Stormwater ManagementClause 6.4 requires Council to be satisfied of certain matters in relation to stormwater management prior
to development consent being granted. These matters include maximising permeable surfaces; on-site
stormwater retention minimising the impacts on stormwater runoff. The rear adjoining neighbours were
given adequate opportunities to provide an easement with compensation but have communicated in
writing that they are not willing to provide the easement. Therefore the applicant has provided an alternate
solution to the site stormwater management which has addressed the DCP to Council’s satisfaction.
11.7 Urban Design (Residential Buildings)Clause 6.16 and 6.17 of SSLEP2015 and Chapter 4 of SSDCP 2015 contain certain matters of
consideration relating to urban design and residential amenity. The proposed development is considered
to be appropriate in design and compatible with the desired future character of the area in terms of height,
bulk and scale, subject to conditions.
Council requested on the 9 May 2019 to ensure compliance with the maximum building height, modify
materials to reduce the apparent building bulk, increase solar access and amend the private open spaces.
The amended plans have adjusted the building height to comply, the bulk and scale of the building has
been reduced, skylights have been added to improve solar access and the private open spaces have
been amended to comply.
Due to the sloping nature of the site retaining walls have been proposed to allow the applicant to have a
useable private open space. These walls have been conditioned to ensure that there is minimal disruption
to neighbouring properties and the natural landform that exists within the rear of the site. Conditions have
also been issued to ensure the walls are structurally suitable.
Following the amendment, the site area and built form has been adequately distributed in accordance with
the assessment criteria specified within SSDCP 2015 so as to enable reasonable internal and external
amenity for future occupants of the proposed dual occupancy. Visual intrusion and bulk of the building is
considered minimised by the proposed development. The proposed development appropriately responds
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 13 of 14
to the established street pattern and spatial proportion of the streetscape. Garaging is integrated well with
the façade of the development and contrasting architectural treatment is provided to the elevation. The
proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of its streetscape appearance, architectural
design, articulation and landscape treatment so as to be compatible with the established and desired
streetscape character.
The proposed development, subject to conditions, will not have significant detrimental impacts on
adjoining properties, in terms of privacy, amenity and overshadowing.
11.8 Archaeological SensitivityCouncil records indicate that the subject site is rated medium in terms of Archaeological Sensitivity. A site
inspection did not reveal any evidence of shell material or significant sandstone features within the
development zone. The proposal does not warrant an Aboriginal Archaeological Study being undertaken.
12.0 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONSThe proposed development has a value of greater than $100,000. In order to provide high quality and
diverse public facilities, the proposed development will attract Section 7.12 Contributions in accordance
with Council’s adopted Section 7.12 Development Contribution Plan 2016.
This contribution is based upon the proposed cost of the development and has been calculated at 1% of
$743,241 (the estimated cost of development identified on the development application form). Therefore,
the Section 7.12 levy for the proposed development is $7,432.
13.0 DECLARATIONS OF AFFILIATION, GIFTS AND POLITICAL DONATIONSSection 10.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 requires the declaration of
donations/gifts in excess of $1000. In addition Council’s development application form requires a general
declaration of affiliation. In relation to this development application no declaration has been made.
14.0 CONCLUSIONThe subject land is located within Zone R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being dual occupancy and
strata subdivision, is a permissible land use within the zone with development consent.
In response to public exhibition, 3 submissions were received. The matters raised in these submissions
have been dealt with by design changes or conditions of consent where appropriate.
The application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 4.15 of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The application will not result in any significant impact
on the environment or the amenity of nearby residents. Following assessment, Development Application
No. DA19/0041 may be supported for the reasons outlined in this report.
The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is:
Author: (Thomas Stanton) Date: 13 January 2019
DAReportDelegated.dotx Page 14 of 14
Assessment Officer
Electronically Published by Administration Officer: mw
Top Related