Development Control Unit No. 014 - Municipality of Hunter ... · Tree 7 Magnolia indica (Mango Tree) Rear of site POC10 Compliance with Arboricultural Report Prepared by Arboreport,

Development Control Unit

No. 014 24 October 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 24 October 2018

Minutes of the Development Control Unit Meeting held on 26 September 2018. This is page 1

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL UNIT

24 October 2018 INDEX

1 – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1 Confirmation of Minutes of Development Control Unit 13 held 26 September 2018

2 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

2.1 6 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill 1

2.2 7-9 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill 65



COMMENCEMENT

The meeting commenced at approximately 10:30 am. LIST OF ATTENDEES

Debra McFadyen Group Manager, Corporate Governance – (Acting Chair)

Kerry Smith Senior Development Officer

Shahram Zadgan Development Assessment 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 012 held on 12 September 2018.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

2.1 10:30 AM - 8 CROWN STREET, HENLEY

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF

PROPOSAL Section 8.2 – Review of Determination – Construction of new two (2) storey dwelling. ATTENDEES Mr Yan Lai Owner Ms Deb McKenzie Town Planner for applicant Mr Richard Edwards Neighbour

RESOLVED on the motion of Ms McFadyen, seconded Mr Smith That a “Deferred Commencement” consent be granted 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 contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council.



Schedule No.1 Tree Permit Application 1. The applicant is required to consult with the owners at 6 Crown Street

regarding the proposed removal of Tree 3 Plumeria rubra (Frangipani) and Tree 5 Cupress torulosa (Himalayan Cypress). If the owners are in support of the proposed works a Tree Permit Application is required to be submitted to Council for processing. The Tree Permit Application must include written authorization from the tree owner (in the case of Tree 3, both tree owners).

Amended Landscape Plan 2. The Landscape Plan (prepared by Eco Design, dwg no L – 01 - 03,

dated 12.07.2018, date stamped 16 Jul 2018) shall be amended as follows: The proposed Prunus cerasifera ‘Nigra’ shall be replaced with

one of the following:

Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) x 2 (75 Litre)

Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) x 1 (75 Litre) Tree 1 Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) for

removal Schedule No.2 That the review of determination under s8.2 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, to the refusal of Development Application No.2017/1135 for the construction of a new two storey dwelling at No.8 Crown Street, Henley, be approved, subject to the following conditions: Special Conditions

(CON)

1. Concept stormwater management plan is satisfactory, but the applicant needs to submit details of proposed easement at Lot 2 prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Standard Conditions

GEN0 GEN1 GEN3 GEN5 GEN6 GEN7 GEN20 GEN21 PCC0 PCC1 ($2577) PCC2 ($2200) PCC3 ($1500) PCC4 ($1536) PCC5 ($7365) PCC11 PCC12 PCC13 PCC20 PCC21 PCC40 PCC41 PCW0 PCW1 PCW2 PCW3 PCW4 PCW5 PCW6 PCW14 CSI0 CSI1CSI2 CSI3 DEM0 DEM1 DEM3 DEM4 DEM5 DEM6 DEM7 DEM8 DEM9 DEM10 DEM11 CON0 CON1 CON2 CON3 CON5 CON7 CON9 CON11 CON12 CON13 CON17 CON18 CON19 CON20 CON21 CON51 CON52 CON53 CON54 CON55 CON56 CON57 CON58 CON59 CON60 CON61 POC0 POC1 POC2 POC3 POC4 POC7 POC13 POC14 POC25 POC75 CON49 Protection of Trees



Tree No/ Species Location Height (m)

Tree 4 Magnolia soulangena (Saucer Magnolia) 6 Crown Street 6 CON50 Tree Removal Tree No/ Species Location Tree 2 Plumeria rubra (Frangipani) Front of site

Tree 7 Magnolia indica (Mango Tree) Rear of site

POC10 Compliance with Arboricultural Report

Prepared by Arboreport, dated 12.07.2018, not date stamped)

PCW Tree Protection Tree protection for Tree 4 Magnolia soulangena (Saucer Magnolia) shall be in accordance with Section 4, Section 5, Section 6 and Section 10 of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (prepared by Arboreport, dated 12.07.2018, not date stamped).

2.2 10:50 AM - 29 WARUDA PLACE, HUNTLEYS COVE

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF

PROPOSAL To subdivide the land into three (3) community title lots& to construct a two storey dwelling - S4.55 - changes to landscape plan and finishes of roof balustrade, additional skylights, decking and gravel driveway. ATTENDEES Nil

RESOLVED on the motion of Ms McFadyen, seconded Mr Zadgan That the s4.55 application No.2011-1139-6 to modify Development Application No.2011/1139 of consent dated 10 April 2012 for the changes to the balustrading and landscaping of the site at No.29 Waruda Place, Huntleys Cove, be approved, subject to the alteration to condition No.2 and condition No.58 as follows: 2. The development consent No.2011/1139 relates to the plans prepared

by Zoltan Kovacs Architect numbered DA.03 A to DA.05 A dated November 2011 as received by Council on 7 December 2011, and additional plans relating to balustrade detail, east elevation 07/2012 CC.11 A south elevation 07/2012 CC.08 A, west elevation 07/2012 CC.09 A, north elevation 07/2012 CC.10 A as received by Council on 15 May 2018 and undated and unnumbered plans as prepared by Zoltan Kovacs Architect as received by Council on 14 June 2018 and Landscape Plan LPCC 13-16/1 issue C dated Jan 2013 as prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects, as received by Council on 15 May 2018, except where amended by conditions of this consent.



58. Compliance with the schedule of external materials as prepared by Zoltan Kovacs architect dated July 2012 except where amended by architectural plans received by Council on 15 May 2018 and 14 July 2018 and the landscape plan prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects as received by Council on 15 May 2018 .

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 24 October 2018

Item 2.1 Page 1

ITEM NO : 2.1 SUBJECT : 6 AVENUE ROAD, 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

2017-1184

PROPOSAL DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION

OF ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY (RETAINING FRONT DWELLING), SWIMMING POOLS, CABANA, LANDSCAPING, TREE REMOVAL AND STRATA SUBDIVISON

APPLICANT TIFFANY STERNE OWNER TIFFANY STERNE

DATE LODGED 29 NOVEMBER 2017

Ref:385363

INTRODUCTION Reasons for Report The proposal results in five (5) submissions received in response to the neighbour notification process. The reason for this amended report is due to an additional submission which was dated 19 February 2018 and received by Council on 19 October 2018, from Mr William Fleming, Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners, on behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford being the owners of 8 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill. REPORT 1. SUMMARY Objectors Issues William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of John and Virginia Krom Owners of 4 Avenue Road Hunters Hill


Item 2.1 Page 2

Building height – rear dwelling should be single storey and a maximum height of 3.6 metres.

Setbacks – side setback of 1.24 metres to the eastern boundary of the front dwelling is non-compliant.

Visual privacy – potential overlooking into primary habitable space and private open

space balcony. The setbacks proposed are unreasonable and may result in potential visual and acoustic privacy.

Acoustic Privacy – the proposed two pools would increase noise. Tree Preservation – proposed development requires the removal of several trees

which are identified in the Arborist report, 10 out of 17 mature trees have been designated for removal by the developers and arborist. This is excluding the already illegally removed Lilly Pilly.

Overshadowing.

Andy Kastanias 10 Avenue Road Hunters Hill Construction of two separate and independent dwellings should comply with the

standards under DCP 2013.

Privacy Impacts – from the balcony and windows on the first floor.

Dwelling No.2 exceeds the height requirements of 3.6 metres for second dwelling built in the backyard of the existing property.

Ensuring all vegetation comply with Hunters Hill requirements.

All external buildings and structures such as cabanas and pool filters need reviewing to ensure compliance with building size and noise pollution levels.

Added traffic to Avenue Road.

Dr Barbara Hungerford & Vicki McKinnon 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill Question was raised regarding the determination of the s82A for the pervious

DA2016/1147? A formal request for an extension to the 6 February 2018, and that this will be

acknowledged and confirmed in writing. William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford Owners of 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill This is an additional submission received on 19 October 2018.


Item 2.1 Page 3

Building height – rear dwelling should be single storey and a maximum height of 3.6 metres.

Setbacks – side setback of 1.24 metres to the eastern boundary of the front dwelling is non-compliant.

Visual privacy – potential overlooking into primary open space area located at the

front of their dwelling. The proposed front balcony of dwelling 1 will result in an unreasonable level of overlooking into the private open space area of number 8. Privacy screens should be added to the balcony to provide additional screening to my client’s private open space area. The second story of the dwelling 2 will also result in opportunities for overlooking into my clients front garden.

Acoustic Privacy – dwelling No.2’s primary open space area is located directly

adjacent to my client’s dwelling where 2 bedrooms are located, including master bedroom. Cabana will be used in tandem with the pool which is significant generator of noise. Pool pump and filter have not been noted on the plans. Also the single driveway running adjacent to the side boundary leading to two double garages would increase the noise impact made by the cars entering and exiting and the noise generated by the garage doors.

Tree Preservation – proposed development requires the removal of several trees

which are identified in the Arborist report, 10 out of 17 mature trees have been designated for removal by the developers and arborist. This is excluding the already illegally removed Lilly Pilly. The protection of the Snappy Gum (identified as T2) adjacent to the driveway is if great importance to my client’s. The design of the dwelling and sitting of the driveway should be amended to minimise the impact of this significant tree.

JS & RA Stevens 203/64 Gladesville Road Hunters Hill Bulk and scale Over development of the site by replacing a single residential development with two

residences both with swimming pools so close to boundaries raises serious concern of damage to mature jacaranda and liquid amber street from deep excavation and construction.

Submissions Five (5) submissions were received. An additional submission was received on 19 October 2018, from Mr William Fleming, Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners, on behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford being the owners of 8 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill. Recommendation The application is recommended for Deferred Commencement Approval for reasons that it is acceptable having regard to: 1. is permissible under the zoning


Item 2.1 Page 4

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 development application seeks consent 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. The proposal would consist of the following: Demolition Partial demolition of the existing dwelling

Removal of existing pool and garage and shed Attached Dual Occupancy Dwelling 1 (Fronting Avenue Road): Ground Floor: kid’s room, study bathroom, laundry, double garage with hallway to combined kitchen/living area. First Floor: Master bedroom and balcony with walk-in robe and ensuite, bedroom 2, bedroom 3 with WIR and balcony (with roof garden), shared bathroom. Ancillary: Inground pool, covered cabana behind pool and landscaping. Dwelling 2 (Rear of property): Ground Floor: Bedroom 4, formal lounge, bathroom and combined kitchen, living, dining, bar and laundry, double garage. First Floor: Master bedroom with ensuite, bedroom 2 and bedroom 3 with shared bathroom. Ancillary: Inground pool, covered cabana and landscaping. Also, the proposal seeks consent for strata subdivision. On 5 February 2018, Council received amended plans and information as follows: First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5

metres from the boundary.

The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. Schedule of colours and materials with actual swatches. Light colours have been

removed from the plans and replaced with dark, recessive tones. Windows acting as a swimming pool barrier have been updated to meeting the

Australian Standards 1926.1-2012 and the plans are consistent with this notation.


Item 2.1 Page 5

All vegetation around the swimming pool complies with AS1926.1-201. There is a clear 900mm non-climbable zone around the pool

On 8 May 2018, Council received an amended Arborist report and landscape plan, responding to Council’s Landscape Advisor’s letter dated 12 March 2018. These amended plans were not required to be re-notified, as the changes result in a lesser impact. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is known as No.6 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill, located on the southern side of Avenue Road. The site has an area of 1123.63sqm, irregular in shape, with the allotment frontage and vehicular access to Avenue Road. The site accommodates a single storey red brick and tiled roof dwelling, with detached garage adjacent the western boundary of the site. The site has a fall from the rear towards Avenue Road. Surrounding development consists of a variety of single to two storey dwellings as well as some Residential flat building development. To the rear of the site is a set of residential units that overlook the rear garden of the site, next to the rear of the Hunters Hill Hotel. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY On 5 April 2017, Council under delegated authority refused Development Application No.2016/1147 for demolition of existing dwelling, garage, pool and any ancillary structures and tree, construct new attached dual occupancy, new swimming pools and cabanas and strata subdivision. This application was refused by Council, as there was a lack of information to make a proper assessment. The reasons of refusal were as follows:

1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, particularly in relation to clauses (1)(a)(i), (iii), (b)(c)(d) and (e) for general matters of consideration of development applications.

2. The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health & Building

Surveyor who requested amended plans and clarification. A letter was sent to the applicant on 30 November 2016, requesting this information, but to date no information has been submitted to address this concern. Thus, in the absence of this information, Council is unable to make a proper assessment of this application in its current form, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered the application in its present form should be refused.

3. The application was referred to Council’s tree consultants who requested

additional information relating to tree and landscape management. A letter was sent to the applicant on 30 November 2016, requesting this information, but to date no information has been submitted to address this concern. Thus, in the absence of this information, Council is unable to make a proper assessment of this application in its current form, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered the application in its present form should be refused.


Item 2.1 Page 6

4. The subject application was referred to Council’s Design & Development Engineer who requested additional plans and engineering information. A letter was sent to the applicant on 7 February 2017, requesting this information, but to date no information or correspondence has been submitted to Council address this concern. Thus, in the absence of this information, Council is unable to make a proper assessment of this application in its current form, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered the application in its present form should be refused.

5. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for

consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Development Control Plan 2013. There is lack of information to properly assess the application in its current form, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered the application in its present form should be refused.

6. The proposal would create an undesirable precedent for Council. 7. The proposal would not be in the public interest.

The s82A Review of the refused Development Application 2016/1147 lapsed, hence

that application was not determined by Council. On 29 November 2017, Council received the subject Development Application

No.2017/1184. An additional submission was received on 19 October 2018, from Mr William

Fleming, Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners, on behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford being the owners of 8 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill.

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: Yes 6. POLICY CONTROLS Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable.


Item 2.1 Page 7

7.2 Health & Building The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor who raided no concern subject to conditions. 7.3 Heritage As stated within the body of the report, the property is within 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 items are 1 & 12 Avenue Rd, and 64-68 Gladesville Road. Proposal: Attached Dual Occupancy / strata subdivision.

Statement of Heritage Impact: by Perumal Murphy Alessi Comments: the proposal is largely as previous, but now retains a portion of the front of the existing house. A hipped roof, similar to the existing, is to be used to the front dwelling and a hipped roof to the rear. There is some mention of a colour scheme in the Statement of Heritage Impact: “...grey tones with sandstone features...”. I have reviewed the proposed external colours and consider them appropriate. Recommendation: Approval.

7.4 Works & Services The application was referred to Council’s Design and Development Engineer who stated the following information is required for assessment: A stormwater management concept Plan

A driveway plan, cross section plan A condition will form part of the Schedule No.1 of the Deferred Commencement to reflect the above comments. 7.5 Parks & Landscape The application was referred to Council’s Tree Consultants who provided the following comments: Further to the Review of Determination dated 5 March 2018 the following additional information has been received and reviewed:

Transplant Feasibility Assessment Statement 2018

(prepared by McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 4 May 2018, not date stamped). The following additional documentation and/or plans were reviewed as part of the Review of Determination:


Item 2.1 Page 8

Architectural Plans (prepared by Raymond Panetta Architects, dwg no DA01-39 Rev N, dated 10.10.2017, date stamped 29.11.2017)

Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 G, dated 12.10.2017, date stamped 29 Nov 2017)

Survey Plan (prepared by Norton Survey Partners, ref 18154, dated 16.10.2015, date stamped 29 Nov 2017)

Arboricultural Assessment & Development Impact Report (Report 1) (prepared by Rain Tree Consulting, dated 18.10.2017, not date stamped)

Arboricultural Picus Sonic Tomograph Test Report (Report 2) (prepared by Rain Tree Consulting, dated 21.12.2016, not date stamped)

Tree Management

Tree removals were undertaken without Council consent on the subject site during April 2016. Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly) and Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) are plotted on Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 - 02, dated 05/12/2016, date stamped 14 June 2017). Tree 3 is noted as a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 3 and Tree 4 were removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. Tree 3 was removed without Council consent. The Transplant Feasibility Assessment Statement 2018 (Report) has addressed the feasibility of transplanting Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle). The Report concludes that with correct pruning, staking and a rigorous irrigation and maintenance program, moving with an experienced crane operator and under the supervision of an AQF Level 5 Arborist, Tree 6 is suitable for transplanting. The health of Tree 6 should be reassessed by an AQF Level 5 Arborist 12 months after the date of transplanting. The AQF Level 5 Arborist must provide a statement outlining that Tree 6 has successfully re-established. The statement must be submitted to the certifying authority for approval. If Tree 6 has not fully re-established within this period a super-advanced sized replacement tree must be supplied and planted. Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying authority upon completion of the works. The Arboricultural Assessment and Development Impact Report (Report 1) has addressed the impact of the proposed works on a number of trees located onsite and/or neighbouring sites. The trees are discussed in detail below: Tree 1 Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) is a Council-managed street tree located in front of the subject site. Tree 1 has a calculated Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 2.4m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 4.8m. The proposed works are outside of the TPZ. Standard tree protection measures implemented in accordance with AS4970-2009 apply.


Item 2.1 Page 9

Tree 2 Eucalyptus racemosa (Snappy Gum) is located along the western side boundary. Tree 2 is a large, mature specimen with high landscape significance. The Report has calculated a Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 3.7m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 15m. The results of the Arboricultural Picus Sonic Tomograph Test (Report 2) show that Tree 2 contained 92% sound wood and 8% of wood under first stages of decay. The decay is primarily located within the central pith area and is increasing at a slow rate. Based on the assessment, Tree 2 is considered viable for retention. Retesting of the decay should be conducted within a five (5) year period. New works within the TPZ of 15m of Tree 2 include additional driveway access, new foundations along the existing building footprint and second storey elevation. New works proposed within the SRZ of 3.7m include a driveway turning circle, part driveway addition and excavations for dwelling foundation works. The Report 1 outlines that several hard surfaces exist within the SRZ and TPZ and the new works have a calculated incursion of <15%. The Report 1 outlines site specific tree protection measures relating to Tree 2. The driveway addition is to be constructed above existing grade and of a porous material. Demolition and excavation for the dwelling will be within the existing footprint. No over excavation must occur. Any removal of vegetation, including grass, to facilitate construction of the driveway turning circle should be undertaken by hand. The turning circle should be constructed from a permeable material and on a permeable subbase. The Report 1 outlines canopy reduction pruning to accommodate the upper floor level. The specified pruning is considered acceptable. Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is plotted on the Landscape Plan. Tree 4 is shown for removal. Tree 4 was removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. An additional tree, Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly), was also removed in April 2016 without Council consent. Tree 3 was a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 5 Macadamia integrifolia (Macadamia) is located along the rear western side boundary. Tree 5 has a calculated SRZ of 2m and a TPZ of 3m. The Report has calculated a minor incursion from the secondary dwelling footprint within the TPZ (the % incursion has not been provided). The works are setback outside of the SRZ. Tree protection measures have been outlined in the Report 1. Tree 7 Morus rubra (Mulberry Tree) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 7 has damage at the base with an open spilt increasing upwards on the lower trunk. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 7 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 7 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) is located in the rear of the site (adjacent to Tree 7). Tree 8 is an 8m specimen with a 10m canopy spread. Tree 8 is considered to have high landscape significance. The Report provides a SRZ of 2.5m and TPZ of 5.4m.


Item 2.1 Page 10

The Report outlines a minor <10% incursion occurs by the location of the swimming pool with associated infrastructure such as pool fencing and Cabana within the SRZ. The Report provides tree sensitive construction methods including Tree Protection Fencing, excavation to accommodate the pool is to be limited to 0.3m (300mm) beyond the line of the proposed pool footprint to ensure no SRZ encroachment occurs. Pool hydraulics are to be limited to the eastern side to minimize additional excavation within the TPZ, the Cabana is recommended to be suspended above ground level, supported on isolated pier footings, and be cantilevered towards the tree spanning over the SRZ. Where excavation for post / pier foundations are required for the Cabana & pool fencing within the SRZ the project arborist is to certify that no significant roots >30mm(Ø) have been damaged. Canopy impacts have been reduced by the location of Dwelling 2 being setback by undertaking site survey and canopy impact assessments to achieve suitable building line clearances. The Report outlines minor reduction pruning will be required to reduce canopy conflicts with the proposed roof line. The line of the building footprint has been surveyed and marked on ground and based on site assessment with use of height poles the main structural extending limb is retainable. Tree 9 Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 9 is a structurally damaged tree with decay sections at two sides near ground level. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 9 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 9 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 10 Ligustrum lucidum (Large-Leafed Privet) along the rear boundary, Tree 13 and Tree 14 Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cocos Palm) in the rear south-eastern corner and Tree 12 Celtis spp. (Hackberry) in the eastern side boundary. The species proposed for removal are listed on Council’s Exempt Species List (DCP 2013). Consent from Council for removal is not required. Tree 11 and Tree 15 Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) are located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 11 and Tree 15 have been heavily pruned in the past. Tree 11 is multi-stemmed at the base with the central leader with decline and damage. Tree 15 has one side canopy biomass. The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the swimming pool to Tree 11 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 11 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The pool pavers are to be placed on top of ground level without grading. All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist. The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the building footprint with part incursion within the 2m SRZ to Tree 15 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 15 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The Report recommends minor canopy pruning to provide building clearance (no greater than 10% of the live canopy with stems no greater than 40mm diameter). All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist.


Item 2.1 Page 11

Tree 16 Camellia sasanqua (Camellia) is located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 16 is an 8m specimen. Tree 16 has been heavily pruned in the past with one sided canopy biomass. The Report has allocated a Short ULE. The SRZ of Tree 16 is located within the building footprint with additional major canopy impacts resulting from the proposed building elevation. With consideration to the small size and reduced ULE removal and replacement of Tree 16 is considered acceptable. Landscape Management The Landscape Plan appears to show Tree 8 for removal (a dashed black outline). The Landscape Plan should be amended to show Tree 8 for retention.

To compensate for the removal of Tree 3, and improve the sites future amenity, a replacement tree is recommended along the western side boundary. The replacement tree should be in the approximate location of Tree 4. With consideration to site constraints, including available planting space, a tree with a fastigiate habit is recommended. Recommended species include, Stenocarpus sinuatus (QLD Firewheel Tree), Banksia integrifolia (Coast Banksia), Elaeocarpus eumundi (Eumundi Quandong). The tree should be an advanced sized specimen. 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. All existing and proposed plantings must ensure compliance with AS 1926. 1-2012 Part 1. Recommendations 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 (Deferred Commencement). Conditions The following Conditions of Consent apply: Schedule 1 Landscape Plan 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,


Item 2.1 Page 12

- 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.

Schedule 2

GEN21 Tree planting in accordance with Australian Standard 2303-2015 “Tree Stock for Landscape Use”

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

PCW14 Arboricultural Report CON47 Compliance with AS1926.1-2012 Part 1 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.

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 CON56 Stump Grinding


Item 2.1 Page 13

CON57 Tree Condition CON58 TPZ CON59 Tree Planting CON60 Adjacent Trees CON61 Practising Arborist CON62 Tree Transplantation

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


Prepared by Rain Tree Consulting, dated 18.10.2017, not date stamped)

POC75 Landscaping prior to Final Occupation Certificate

The following Special Conditions apply;

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.

A condition will form part of the Schedule No.1 of the Deferred Commencement to reflect the above comments. 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.


Item 2.1 Page 14

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 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 Front Dwelling Rear Dwelling

8.5 metres 7.7 metres


Yes Yes

Storeys Front Dwelling Rear Dwelling

2 storey 2 storey

2 storeys 2 storey

Yes Yes

Landscape Area 48% 45% 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 8.5 metres for the front dwelling and 7.7m for rear dwelling in height 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.


Item 2.1 Page 15

10.6 Landscaped Area The proposed landscaped area of 48% complies with the 45% minimum (for dual occupancy) permissible landscaped area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. 10.7 Subdivision Lot Size There would be no change to the allotment size. The proposal is for strata subdivision of the existing allotment. 10.8 Floor Space Ratio The proposal has a FSR of 0.42:1, which complies with the 0.5:1 requirements of the LEP 2012. 10.9 Street Frontage Not Applicable. 10.10 Dual Occupancy The proposal having a site area of 1123.63sqm would comply with the minimum 700sqm area requirement in which two (2) new attached dwelling-houses can be erected, under Part 4.1A of LEP No.2012. The proposal indicates two (2) attached dwellings, one being new and the other existing. 10.11 Foreshore Building Lines Not Applicable. 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


Height

Ridge Front Dwelling Rear Dwelling

External Walls Front Dwelling Rear Dwelling





Yes Yes

Yes Yes


Item 2.1 Page 16

Compliance with Current Statutory Controls


Storeys Front Dwelling Rear Dwelling

2 storeys 2 storeys

2 storeys 2 storeys

Yes Yes

Landscaped Area 48% 45% Yes Floor Space Ratio 0.42:1 0.5:1 Yes

Planning Policy –All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Part 2 and 3 of Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. Heritage Conservation Areas The proposal complies comply with the relevant objectives under Part 2 of Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. Riverfront Area Not applicable. Visually Prominent Sites Not applicable. Height Refer to section 10.5 of this report “Height of Buildings”. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies. First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. Landscaped Area Refer to section 9.6 of this report “Landscaped Area”. Solar Access The shadow diagrams indicate that at 9:00 am mid winter, the shadows are cast to the south-west of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.8 and 8A Avenue Road. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the 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.64-66 Gladesville Road, 8 and 8A Avenue Road. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the site.


Item 2.1 Page 17

The shadow diagrams indicate that at 3:00 pm mid winter there would be shadows cast south-east of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.64-66 Gladesville Road, No.4 Avenue Road and No.18 Joubert 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 9:00 am, 12 noon and 3:00 pm of the winter solstice. The proposal would comply with the general requirements and objectives stipulated under Part 3.5.2 of the Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013, as the proposal would allow for reasonable access to sunlight to adjoining buildings and their recreational open space. Privacy In an urban residential area, it is considered that there is sufficient distance separation from the proposed first floor elevations of the dwellings to the adjoining properties. Also, the proposed first floors of both dwellings contain low trafficable areas used mainly for bedrooms, with limited number of window openings. It is considered that the proposed development is not likely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. Views It is considered that the height of dwelling No.1 and 2 roofs would not have significant impact on any views to the Lane Cove River from the adjoining properties. When considering the principles set out by the Land & Environment Court in the ‘Tenacity’ case, the expectation to retain side or distant views are often unrealistic. It is considered that the shared view loss will not be ‘severe’ or ‘devastating’. Car Parking The proposal would provide two car parking spaces for each unit dwelling, in total four (4) car parking spaces. The proposal complies with Part 5.3.3 of the DCP 2013, as four (4) car parking spaces have been provided for a gross floor area in excess of 125sqm. Garages and Carports The proposal would construct a double garage for each dwelling. The location and design of the proposed garages are considered to be acceptable and due to the siting of the garages on the allotment they would not impact on the streetscape. Fences The proposal would retain the existing retaining fence and repair it. Also, proposed is a metal fence proposed on top of the retaining wall. However, no detail has been submitted in regards to dimensions, elevations, and finish of this fence. A condition will form part of the Schedule No.1 of the deferred commencement that the applicant submit 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.


Item 2.1 Page 18

12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies Hunter’s Hill Council S94A Developer Contributions Plan 2011

13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT Subject to conditioning, the proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or Avenue Road Streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 and LEP 2012. Subject to conditioning, 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 11 December 2017. Within the specified time period five (5) submissions were received. An additional submission was received on 19 October 2018, from Mr William Fleming, Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners, on behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford being the owners of 8 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report. On 5 February 2018, Council received amended plans and information as follows: First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5

metres from the boundary.

The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. Schedule of colours and materials with actual swatches. Light colours have been

removed from the plans and replaced with dark, recessive tones. Windows acting as a swimming pool barrier have been updated to meeting the

Australian Standards 1926.1-2012 and the plans are consistent with this notation. All vegetation around the swimming pool complies with AS1926.1-201. There is a

clear 900mm non-climbable zone around the pool On 8 May 2018, Council received an amended Arborist report and landscape plan, responding to Council’s Landscape Advisor’s letter dated 12 March 2018. These plans were not required to be re-notified, as the changes result in a lesser impact. NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 100 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of John and Virginia

Building height – rear dwelling should be single storey and a maximum height of 3.6m

Setbacks – side setback of 1.24m to the eastern boundary of the front dwelling is non-compliant


Item 2.1 Page 19

Krom Owners of 4 Avenue Road Hunters Hill

Visual privacy – potential overlooking into primary habitable space and private open space balcony. The setbacks proposed are unreasonable and may result in potential visual and acoustic privacy

Acoustic Privacy – the proposed two pools would increase noise

Tree Preservation – proposed development requires the removal of several trees which are identified in the Arborist report, 10 out of 17 mature trees have been designated for removal by the developers and arborist. This is excluding the already illegally removed Lilly Pilly

Overshadowing Andy Kastanias 10 Avenue Road Hunters Hill

Construction of two separate and independent dwellings should comply with the standards under DCP 2013

Privacy Impacts – from the balcony and windows on the first floor

Dwelling No.2 exceeds the height requirements of 3.6m for second dwelling built in the backyard of the existing property

Ensuring all vegetation comply with Hunters Hill requirements

All external buildings and structures such as cabanas and pool filters need reviewing to ensure compliance with building size and noise pollution levels

Added traffic to Avenue Road Dr Barbara Hungerford & Vicki McKinnon 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford Owners of 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill

Question was raised regarding the determination of the s82A for the pervious DA2016/1147?

A formal request for an extension to the 6th February 2018, and that this will be acknowledged and confirmed in writing

Building height – rear dwelling should be single

storey and a maximum height of 3.6 metres. Setbacks – side setback of 1.24 metres to the

eastern boundary of the front dwelling is non-compliant.

Visual privacy – potential overlooking into primary open space area located at the front of their dwelling. The proposed front balcony of dwelling 1 will result in an unreasonable level of overlooking into the private open space area of number 8. Privacy screens should be added to the balcony to provide additional screening to my client’s private open space area. The second story of the dwelling 2 will also result in opportunities for overlooking into my clients front garden.


Item 2.1 Page 20

Acoustic Privacy – dwelling No.2’s primary open space area is located directly adjacent to my client’s dwelling where 2 bedrooms are located, including master bedroom. Cabana will be used in tandem with the pool which is significant generator of noise. Pool pump and filter have not been noted on the plans. Also the single driveway running adjacent to the side boundary leading to two double garages would increase the noise impact made by the cars entering and exiting and the noise generated by the garage doors.

Tree Preservation – proposed development requires the removal of several trees which are identified in the Arborist report, 10 out of 17 mature trees have been designated for removal by the developers and arborist. This is excluding the already illegally removed Lilly Pilly. The protection of the Snappy Gum (identified as T2) adjacent to the driveway is if great importance to my client’s. The design of the dwelling and sitting of the driveway should be amended to minimise the impact of this significant tree.

JS & RA Stevens 203/64 Gladesville Road Hunters Hill

Bulk and scale Over development of the site by replacing a

single residential development with two residence both with swimming pools so close to boundaries raises serious concern of damage to mature jacaranda and liquid amber street from deep excavation and construction

The main issues of concern outlining the objections are discussed below: William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of John and Virginia Krom Owners of 4 Avenue Road Hunters Hill Building height – rear dwelling should be single storey and a maximum height

of 3.6m Comment: This requirement is only applicable to detached dwellings. In this case, the proposal is for an attached dual occupancy, in which both dwellings are connected through common walls, and the height limit is 2 storeys and 8.5 metres, complying 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. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Setbacks – side setback of 1.24m to the eastern boundary of the front dwelling

is non-compliant


Item 2.1 Page 21

Comment: The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies. First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Visual privacy – potential overlooking into primary habitable space and

private open space balcony. The setbacks proposed are unreasonable and may result in potential visual and acoustic privacy

Comment: In an urban residential area, it is considered that there is sufficient distance separation from the proposed first floor elevations of the dwellings to the adjoining properties Also, the proposed first floors of both dwellings contain low trafficable areas used mainly for bedrooms, with limited number of window openings. It is considered that the proposed development is not likely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Acoustic Privacy – the proposed two pools would increase noise Comment: The proposed pools would be used for domestic residential use and are unlikely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. A standard condition has been imposed to ensure that the pool pump is setback from adjoining properties and is sound insulated. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Tree Preservation – proposed development requires the removal of several

trees which are identified in the Arborist report, 10 out of 17 mature trees have been designated for removal by the developers and arborist. This is excluding the already illegally removed Lilly Pilly

Comment: The application was referred to Council’s Tree Consultants who provided the following comments: Further to the Review of Determination dated 5 March 2018 the following additional information has been received and reviewed:

Transplant Feasibility Assessment Statement 2018

(prepared by McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 4 May 2018, not date stamped)

The following additional documentation and/or plans were reviewed as part of the Review of Determination:


Item 2.1 Page 22

Architectural Plans (prepared by Raymond Panetta Architects, dwg no DA01-39 Rev N, dated 10.10.2017, date stamped 29.11.2017)





Tree Management Tree removals were undertaken without Council consent on the subject site during April 2016. Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly) and Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) are plotted on Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 - 02, dated 05/12/2016, date stamped 14 June 2017). Tree 3 is noted as a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 3 and Tree 4 were removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. Tree 3 was removed without Council consent. The Transplant Feasibility Assessment Statement 2018 (Report) has addressed the feasibility of transplanting Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle). The Report concludes that with correct pruning, staking and a rigorous irrigation and maintenance program, moving with an experienced crane operator and under the supervision of an AQF Level 5 Arborist, Tree 6 is suitable for transplanting. The health of Tree 6 should be reassessed by an AQF Level 5 Arborist 12 months after the date of transplanting. The AQF Level 5 Arborist must provide a statement outlining that Tree 6 has successfully re-established. The statement must be submitted to the certifying authority for approval. If Tree 6 has not fully re-established within this period a super-advanced sized replacement tree must be supplied and planted. Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying authority upon completion of the works. The Arboricultural Assessment and Development Impact Report (Report 1) has addressed the impact of the proposed works on a number of trees located onsite and/or neighbouring sites. The trees are discussed in detail below: Tree 1 Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) is a Council-managed street tree located in front of the subject site. Tree 1 has a calculated Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 2.4m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 4.8m. The proposed works are outside of the TPZ. Standard tree protection measures implemented in accordance with AS4970-2009 apply.


Item 2.1 Page 23

Tree 2 Eucalyptus racemosa (Snappy Gum) is located along the western side boundary. Tree 2 is a large, mature specimen with high landscape significance. The Report has calculated a Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 3.7m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 15m.

The results of the Arboricultural Picus Sonic Tomograph Test (Report 2) show that Tree 2 contained 92% sound wood and 8% of wood under first stages of decay. The decay is primarily located within the central pith area and is increasing at a slow rate. Based on the assessment, Tree 2 is considered viable for retention. Retesting of the decay should be conducted within a five (5) year period. New works within the TPZ of 15m of Tree 2 include additional driveway access, new foundations along the existing building footprint and second storey elevation. New works proposed within the SRZ of 3.7m include a driveway turning circle, part driveway addition and excavations for dwelling foundation works. The Report 1 outlines that several hard surfaces exist within the SRZ and TPZ and the new works have a calculated incursion of <15%. The Report 1 outlines site specific tree protection measures relating to Tree 2. The driveway addition is to be constructed above existing grade and of a porous material. Demolition and excavation for the dwelling will be within the existing footprint. No over excavation must occur. Any removal of vegetation, including grass, to facilitate construction of the driveway turning circle should be undertaken by hand. The turning circle should be constructed from a permeable material and on a permeable subbase. The Report 1 outlines canopy reduction pruning to accommodate the upper floor level. The specified pruning is considered acceptable. Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is plotted on the Landscape Plan. Tree 4 is shown for removal. Tree 4 was removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. An additional tree, Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly), was also removed in April 2016 without Council consent. Tree 3 was a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 5 Macadamia integrifolia (Macadamia) is located along the rear western side boundary. Tree 5 has a calculated SRZ of 2m and a TPZ of 3m. The Report has calculated a minor incursion from the secondary dwelling footprint within the TPZ (the % incursion has not been provided). The works are setback outside of the SRZ. Tree protection measures have been outlined in the Report 1. Tree 7 Morus rubra (Mulberry Tree) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 7 has damage at the base with an open spilt increasing upwards on the lower trunk. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 7 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 7 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) is located in the rear of the site (adjacent to Tree 7). Tree 8 is an 8m specimen with a 10m canopy spread. Tree 8 is considered to have high landscape significance. The Report provides a SRZ of 2.5m and TPZ of 5.4m.


Item 2.1 Page 24

The Report outlines a minor <10% incursion occurs by the location of the swimming pool with associated infrastructure such as pool fencing and Cabana within the SRZ. The Report provides tree sensitive construction methods including Tree Protection Fencing, excavation to accommodate the pool is to be limited to 0.3m (300mm) beyond the line of the proposed pool footprint to ensure no SRZ encroachment occurs. Pool hydraulics are to be limited to the eastern side to minimize additional excavation within the TPZ, the Cabana is recommended to be suspended above ground level, supported on isolated pier footings, and be cantilevered towards the tree spanning over the SRZ. Where excavation for post / pier foundations are required for the Cabana & pool fencing within the SRZ the project arborist is to certify that no significant roots >30mm(Ø) have been damaged. Canopy impacts have been reduced by the location of Dwelling 2 being setback by undertaking site survey and canopy impact assessments to achieve suitable building line clearances. The Report outlines minor reduction pruning will be required to reduce canopy conflicts with the proposed roof line. The line of the building footprint has been surveyed and marked on ground and based on site assessment with use of height poles the main structural extending limb is retainable. Tree 9 Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 9 is a structurally damaged tree with decay sections at two sides near ground level. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 9 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 9 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 10 Ligustrum lucidum (Large-Leafed Privet) along the rear boundary, Tree 13 and Tree 14 Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cocos Palm) in the rear south-eastern corner and Tree 12 Celtis spp. (Hackberry) in the eastern side boundary. The species proposed for removal are listed on Council’s Exempt Species List (DCP 2013). Consent from Council for removal is not required. Tree 11 and Tree 15 Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) are located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 11 and Tree 15 have been heavily pruned in the past. Tree 11 is multi-stemmed at the base with the central leader with decline and damage. Tree 15 has one side canopy biomass.

The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the swimming pool to Tree 11 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 11 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The pool pavers are to be placed on top of ground level without grading. All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist.

The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the building footprint with part incursion within the 2m SRZ to Tree 15 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 15 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The Report recommends minor canopy pruning to provide building clearance (no greater than 10% of the live canopy with stems no greater than 40mm diameter). All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist.


Item 2.1 Page 25

Tree 16 Camellia sasanqua (Camellia) is located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 16 is an 8m specimen. Tree 16 has been heavily pruned in the past with one sided canopy biomass. The Report has allocated a Short ULE. The SRZ of Tree 16 is located within the building footprint with additional major canopy impacts resulting from the proposed building elevation. With consideration to the small size and reduced ULE removal and replacement of Tree 16 is considered acceptable.

Landscape Management The Landscape Plan appears to show Tree 8 for removal (a dashed black outline). The Landscape Plan should be amended to show Tree 8 for retention. To compensate for the removal of Tree 3, and improve the sites future amenity, a replacement tree is recommended along the western side boundary. The replacement tree should be in the approximate location of Tree 4. With consideration to site constraints, including available planting space, a tree with a fastigiate habit is recommended. Recommended species include, Stenocarpus sinuatus (QLD Firewheel Tree), Banksia integrifolia (Coast Banksia), Elaeocarpus eumundi (Eumundi Quandong). The tree should be an advanced sized specimen. 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. All existing and proposed plantings must ensure compliance with AS 1926. 1-2012 Part 1. Recommendations 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 (Deferred Commencement). Conditions The following Conditions of Consent apply: Schedule 1 Landscape Plan 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.





Item 2.1 Page 26




These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Overshadowing Comment: The shadow diagrams indicate that at 9:00 am mid winter, the shadows are cast to the south-west of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.8 and 8A Avenue Road. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the 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.64-66 Gladesville Road, 8 and 8A Avenue Road. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the site. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 3:00 pm mid winter there would be shadows cast south-east of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.64-66 Gladesville Road, No.4 Avenue Road and 18 Joubert 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 9:00 am, 12 noon and 3:00 pm of the winter solstice. The proposal would comply with the general requirements and objectives stipulated under Part 3.5.2 of the Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013, as the proposal would allow for reasonable access to sunlight to adjoining buildings and their recreational open space. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Andy Kastanias 10 Avenue Road Hunters Hill Construction of two separate and independent dwellings should comply with

the standards under DCP 2013

Comment: This proposal is not for detached dwellings. This proposal is for an attached dual occupancy, in which both dwellings are connected through common walls. The proposal having a site area of 1123.63sqm would comply with the 700sqm area requirement in which two (2) new attached dwelling-houses can be erected, under Part 4.1A of LEP No.2012. Privacy Impacts – from the balcony and windows on the first floor

Comment: The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies.


Item 2.1 Page 27

First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. In an urban residential area, it is considered that there is sufficient distance separation from the proposed first floor elevations of the dwellings to the adjoining properties Also, the proposed first floors of both dwellings contain low trafficable areas used mainly for bedrooms, with limited number of window openings. It is considered that the proposed development is not likely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. Dwelling No.2 exceeds the height requirements of 3.6m for second dwelling

built in the backyard of the existing property

Comment: Comment: This requirement is only applicable to detached dwellings. In this case, the proposal is for an attached dual occupancy, in which both dwellings are connected through common walls, and the height limit is 2 storeys and 8.5 metres, complying 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. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Ensuring all vegetation comply with Hunters Hill requirements

Comment: Refer to Part 7.5 - Parks & Landscape of this report.

All external buildings and structures such as cabanas and pool filters need

reviewing to ensure compliance with building size and noise pollution levels

Comment: The proposed pools would be used for domestic residential use and are unlikely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. All external structures are single storey, non-habitable, low traffic, ancillary and used for domestic residential use. A standard condition has been imposed to ensure that the pool pump is setback from adjoining properties and is sound insulated. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Added traffic to Avenue Road Comment: The proposal would increase the occupancy of the existing site from one to two occupancies. It is considered that an additional occupancy would not significantly impact on the overall traffic volume of Avenue Road. It should be note that the area is an urban residential area. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Dr Barbara Hungerford & Vicki McKinnon 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill


Item 2.1 Page 28

Question was raised regarding the determination of the s82A for the pervious DA2016/1147?

Comment: Development Application No.2016/1147 s82A Review lapsed, hence that application was not determined by Council.

A formal request for an extension to the 6th February 2018, and that this will be

acknowledged and confirmed in writing

Comment: On 2 February 2018, Council sent a letter advising that Council extends the exhibition notification period and grants you an extension until the 20 February 2018. William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford Owners of 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill An additional submission was received on 19 October 2018, from Mr William Fleming, Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners, on behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford being the owners of 8 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill. Building height – rear dwelling should be single storey and a maximum height

of 3.6 metres.

Comment: This requirement is only applicable to detached dwellings. In this case, the proposal is for an attached dual occupancy, in which both dwellings are connected through common walls, and the height limit is 2 storeys and 8.5 metres, complying 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. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Setbacks – side setback of 1.24 metres to the eastern boundary of the front

dwelling is non-compliant. Comment: The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies. First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Visual privacy – potential overlooking into primary open space area located at

the front of their dwelling. The proposed front balcony of dwelling 1 will result in an unreasonable level of overlooking into the private open space area of number 8. Privacy screens should be added to the balcony to provide additional screening to my client’s private open space area. The second story of the dwelling 2 will also result in opportunities for overlooking into my clients front garden.


Item 2.1 Page 29

Comment: The proposed front balconies of dwelling No.1 are sufficiently setback and offset, with more of an active view towards the front of the site. The western elevation of dwelling No.2 indicates only two (2) windows, one is from the void area along the stairwell, which is a low trafficable area, and the other window from bedroom No.1, which is also considered a low trafficable area. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Acoustic Privacy – dwelling No.2’s primary open space area is located directly

adjacent to my client’s dwelling where two (2) bedrooms are located, including master bedroom. Cabana will be used in tandem with the pool which is significant generator of noise. Pool pump and filter have not been noted on the plans. Also the single driveway running adjacent to the side boundary leading to two double garages would increase the noise impact made by the cars entering and exiting and the noise generated by the garage doors.

Comment: The proposed pools and cabana are low trafficable areas, only used during the warmer periods of the year, the cabana is not a habitable space and would have a satisfactory setback of 2 metres from the western boundary, and would be used for domestic residential use, and thus unlikely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. A standard condition has been imposed to ensure that the pool pump is setback from adjoining properties and is sound insulated. The proposed driveway and garages would have a reasonable setback from the western side boundary, they would be low trafficable areas, with the garages being non-habitable, and would be used for domestic residential use. The proposed garages are unlikely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Tree Preservation – proposed development requires the removal of several

trees which are identified in the Arborist report, 10 out of 17 mature trees have been designated for removal by the developers and arborist. This is excluding the already illegally removed Lilly Pilly. The protection of the Snappy Gum (identified as T2) adjacent to the driveway is if great importance to my client’s. The design of the dwelling and sitting of the driveway should be amended to minimise the impact of this significant tree.

Comment: T2 Snappy Gum is to be retained and Council’s Landscape Advisor has imposed Condition PCW9 for the applicant to provide a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for this tree. The application was referred to Council’s Tree Consultants who provided the following comments:

Further to the Review of Determination dated 5 March 2018 the following additional information has been received and reviewed: Transplant Feasibility Assessment Statement 2018

(prepared by McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 4 May 2018, not date stamped). The following additional documentation and/or plans were reviewed as part of the Review of Determination: Architectural Plans


Item 2.1 Page 30

(prepared by Raymond Panetta Architects, dwg no DA01-39 Rev N, dated 10.10.2017, date stamped 29.11.2017)





Tree Management

Tree removals were undertaken without Council consent on the subject site during April 2016. Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly) and Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) are plotted on Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 - 02, dated 05/12/2016, date stamped 14 June 2017). Tree 3 is noted as a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 3 and Tree 4 were removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. Tree 3 was removed without Council consent. The Transplant Feasibility Assessment Statement 2018 (Report) has addressed the feasibility of transplanting Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle). The Report concludes that with correct pruning, staking and a rigorous irrigation and maintenance program, moving with an experienced crane operator and under the supervision of an AQF Level 5 Arborist, Tree 6 is suitable for transplanting. The health of Tree 6 should be reassessed by an AQF Level 5 Arborist 12 months after the date of transplanting. The AQF Level 5 Arborist must provide a statement outlining that Tree 6 has successfully re-established. The statement must be submitted to the certifying authority for approval. If Tree 6 has not fully re-established within this period a super-advanced sized replacement tree must be supplied and planted. Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying authority upon completion of the works. The Arboricultural Assessment and Development Impact Report (Report 1) has addressed the impact of the proposed works on a number of trees located onsite and/or neighbouring sites. The trees are discussed in detail below: Tree 1 Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) is a Council-managed street tree located in front of the subject site. Tree 1 has a calculated Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 2.4m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 4.8m. The proposed works are outside of the TPZ. Standard tree protection measures implemented in accordance with AS4970-2009 apply.


Item 2.1 Page 31

Tree 2 Eucalyptus racemosa (Snappy Gum) is located along the western side boundary. Tree 2 is a large, mature specimen with high landscape significance. The Report has calculated a Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 3.7m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 15m. The results of the Arboricultural Picus Sonic Tomograph Test (Report 2) show that Tree 2 contained 92% sound wood and 8% of wood under first stages of decay. The decay is primarily located within the central pith area and is increasing at a slow rate. Based on the assessment, Tree 2 is considered viable for retention. Retesting of the decay should be conducted within a five (5) year period. New works within the TPZ of 15m of Tree 2 include additional driveway access, new foundations along the existing building footprint and second storey elevation. New works proposed within the SRZ of 3.7m include a driveway turning circle, part driveway addition and excavations for dwelling foundation works. The Report 1 outlines that several hard surfaces exist within the SRZ and TPZ and the new works have a calculated incursion of <15%. The Report 1 outlines site specific tree protection measures relating to Tree 2. The driveway addition is to be constructed above existing grade and of a porous material. Demolition and excavation for the dwelling will be within the existing footprint. No over excavation must occur. Any removal of vegetation, including grass, to facilitate construction of the driveway turning circle should be undertaken by hand. The turning circle should be constructed from a permeable material and on a permeable subbase. The Report 1 outlines canopy reduction pruning to accommodate the upper floor level. The specified pruning is considered acceptable. Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is plotted on the Landscape Plan. Tree 4 is shown for removal. Tree 4 was removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. An additional tree, Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly), was also removed in April 2016 without Council consent. Tree 3 was a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 5 Macadamia integrifolia (Macadamia) is located along the rear western side boundary. Tree 5 has a calculated SRZ of 2m and a TPZ of 3m. The Report has calculated a minor incursion from the secondary dwelling footprint within the TPZ (the % incursion has not been provided). The works are setback outside of the SRZ. Tree protection measures have been outlined in the Report 1. Tree 7 Morus rubra (Mulberry Tree) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 7 has damage at the base with an open spilt increasing upwards on the lower trunk. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 7 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 7 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) is located in the rear of the site (adjacent to Tree 7). Tree 8 is an 8m specimen with a 10m canopy spread. Tree 8 is considered to have high landscape significance. The Report provides a SRZ of 2.5m and TPZ of 5.4m.


Item 2.1 Page 32

The Report outlines a minor <10% incursion occurs by the location of the swimming pool with associated infrastructure such as pool fencing and Cabana within the SRZ. The Report provides tree sensitive construction methods including Tree Protection Fencing, excavation to accommodate the pool is to be limited to 0.3m (300mm) beyond the line of the proposed pool footprint to ensure no SRZ encroachment occurs. Pool hydraulics are to be limited to the eastern side to minimize additional excavation within the TPZ, the Cabana is recommended to be suspended above ground level, supported on isolated pier footings, and be cantilevered towards the tree spanning over the SRZ. Where excavation for post / pier foundations are required for the Cabana & pool fencing within the SRZ the project arborist is to certify that no significant roots >30mm(Ø) have been damaged. Canopy impacts have been reduced by the location of Dwelling 2 being setback by undertaking site survey and canopy impact assessments to achieve suitable building line clearances. The Report outlines minor reduction pruning will be required to reduce canopy conflicts with the proposed roof line. The line of the building footprint has been surveyed and marked on ground and based on site assessment with use of height poles the main structural extending limb is retainable. Tree 9 Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 9 is a structurally damaged tree with decay sections at two sides near ground level. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 9 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 9 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 10 Ligustrum lucidum (Large-Leafed Privet) along the rear boundary, Tree 13 and Tree 14 Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cocos Palm) in the rear south-eastern corner and Tree 12 Celtis spp. (Hackberry) in the eastern side boundary. The species proposed for removal are listed on Council’s Exempt Species List (DCP 2013). Consent from Council for removal is not required. Tree 11 and Tree 15 Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) are located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 11 and Tree 15 have been heavily pruned in the past. Tree 11 is multi-stemmed at the base with the central leader with decline and damage. Tree 15 has one side canopy biomass. The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the swimming pool to Tree 11 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 11 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The pool pavers are to be placed on top of ground level without grading. All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist. The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the building footprint with part incursion within the 2m SRZ to Tree 15 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 15 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The Report recommends minor canopy pruning to provide building clearance (no greater than 10% of the live canopy with stems no greater than 40mm diameter). All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist.


Item 2.1 Page 33

Tree 16 Camellia sasanqua (Camellia) is located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 16 is an 8m specimen. Tree 16 has been heavily pruned in the past with one sided canopy biomass. The Report has allocated a Short ULE. The SRZ of Tree 16 is located within the building footprint with additional major canopy impacts resulting from the proposed building elevation. With consideration to the small size and reduced ULE removal and replacement of Tree 16 is considered acceptable. Landscape Management The Landscape Plan appears to show Tree 8 for removal (a dashed black outline). The Landscape Plan should be amended to show Tree 8 for retention.

To compensate for the removal of Tree 3, and improve the sites future amenity, a replacement tree is recommended along the western side boundary. The replacement tree should be in the approximate location of Tree 4. With consideration to site constraints, including available planting space, a tree with a fastigiate habit is recommended. Recommended species include, Stenocarpus sinuatus (QLD Firewheel Tree), Banksia integrifolia (Coast Banksia), Elaeocarpus eumundi (Eumundi Quandong). The tree should be an advanced sized specimen. 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. All existing and proposed plantings must ensure compliance with AS 1926. 1-2012 Part 1. Recommendations 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 (Deferred Commencement). Conditions The following Conditions of Consent apply: Schedule 1 Landscape Plan 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.





Item 2.1 Page 34




Schedule 2

GEN21 Tree planting in accordance with Australian Standard 2303-2015 “Tree Stock for Landscape Use”

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

PCW14 Arboricultural Report CON47 Compliance with AS1926.1-2012 Part 1 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



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 CON56 Stump Grinding


Item 2.1 Page 35

CON57 Tree Condition CON58 TPZ CON59 Tree Planting CON60 Adjacent Trees CON61 Practising Arborist CON62 Tree Transplantation

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


Prepared by Rain Tree Consulting, dated 18.10.2017, not date stamped)

POC75 Landscaping prior to Final Occupation Certificate

The following Special Conditions apply;


(f) 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.

(g) 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.

(h) The replacement tree shall be a minimum container size of 400 Litres.

(i) The replacement tree shall be planted using healthy and vigorous stock grown in accordance with Australian Standard 2302 (2015) Tree Stock for Landscape Use.

(j) Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying authority upon completion of the works.

A condition will form part of the Schedule No.1 of the Deferred Commencement to reflect the above comments. JS & RA Stevens 203/64 Gladesville Road Hunters Hill Bulk and scale


Item 2.1 Page 36

The height of the proposal, being 8.5 metres for the front dwelling and 7.7 metres for the rear dwelling in height 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.

The proposed landscaped area of 48% complies with the 45% minimum (for dual occupancy) permissible landscaped area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal has a FSR of 0.42:1, which complies with the 0.5:1 requirements of the LEP 2012.

The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies with the 1.5 metres requirement of DCP 2013. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Over development of the site by replacing a single residential development

with two residence both with swimming pools so close to boundaries raises serious concern of damage to mature jacaranda and liquid amber street from deep excavation and construction

Comment: Refer to Part 7.5 - Parks & Landscape of this report.

The height of the proposal, being 8.5 metres for the front dwelling and 7.7 metres for rear dwelling in height 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.

The proposed landscaped area of 48% complies with the 45% minimum (for dual occupancy) permissible landscaped area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal having a site area of 1123.63sqm would comply with the 700sqm area requirement in which two (2) new attached dwelling-houses can be erected, under Part 4.1A of LEP No.2012. The proposal indicates two (2) attached dwellings, one being new and the other existing. The proposal has a FSR of 0.42:1, which complies with the 0.5:1 requirements of the LEP 2012.

The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies. First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.


Item 2.1 Page 37

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 Consolidated 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 S4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, and Consolidated 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 deferred commencement 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. 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 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.


Item 2.1 Page 38

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





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 anew 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



CON62 Tree Transplantation

Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle).


Item 2.1 Page 39

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)


(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 O Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 05.02.18

Ground Floor Plan, DA07, issue O Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 05.02.18

First Floor Plan, DA08, issue O Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 05.02.18

Roof Plan, DA09, issue O Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 05.02.18

South & North Elevations, issue O Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 05.02.18

East & West Elevations, issue O Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 05.02.18

Building 1 – Pool & Cabana, issue O Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 05.02.18

Building 2 – Pool & Cabana, issue O Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 05.02.18

Landscape Plan, revision I Raymond Panetta

Architect 24.01.18 05.02.18

Schedules of Colours, DA39, issue O Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 07.02.18


Item 2.1 Page 40

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 ATTACHMENTS 1. Plans 2. Location Map 3. Submission


Item 2.1 Attachment 1 Page 41
















































Item 2.2 Page 65

ITEM NO : 2.2 SUBJECT : 7-9 RYDE 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 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO

2017-1109-1

PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING DWELLINGS &

CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING WITH NINE UNITS OVER TWO STOREYS PLUS ATTIC AND 1 1/2 LEVELS OF BASEMENT - S4.55 - DELETION OF SCHEDULE 1 CONDITION RE MEDIAN STRIP AND TRANSPOSING OF THE REMINDER OF THE SCHEDULE 1 CONDITIONS INTO AN 'OUTRIGHT' CONSENT

APPLICANT 8 HUNTERS HILL PTY LTD OWNER 8 HUNTERS HILL PTY LTD

DATE LODGED 3 AUGUST 2018

Ref:385525

INTRODUCTION Reasons for Report The proposal resulted in two (2) objections being received as a result of the public exhibition of the application. REPORT 1. SUMMARY Issues Retain the provision of a median strip in Ryde Road for additional traffic safety. Supports the right of way in the basement to connect with No.5 Ryde Road.

View loss. Submissions Two (2) submissions were received.


Item 2.2 Page 66

Recommendation The application for modification under s4.55 of the Act is recommended for approval for reasons that it is acceptable having regard to:

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. the development will be substantially the same as that originally approved 4. it will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Original Development Application It is proposed to demolish the existing structures on the site including the two existing dwelling houses and to construct a new two-storey plus attic and basement residential flat building to be used as follows: On basement level 01, seven (7) off-street car parking spaces (including one disabled space, two visitor spaces and one shared space) will be provided. Five (5) car stackers will be provided at that section of the development giving parking for ten (10) cars at that part of the deeper basement. Space will also be provided for waste bin storage, bulk storage, a wash bay, two stores, two staircases and a lift. Thus there will be off-street parking for a total of sixteen (16) cars plus the wash bay and shared space plus access space to adjoining premises No.5 Ryde Road for future redevelopment. On ground floor level, ground floor section of units GO1 and GO2 in one wing closest to the street. In the rear wing, self-contained three bedroom units GO3, GO4 and GO5 with lift and staircase. On first floor level 01, two bedrooms plus staircase for upper level of units GO1 and GO2 at the front wing. In the rear wing, ground floor sections of units 101, 103 and 104 with their own staircase along with self-contained 1 bedroom unit 102. On the second floor (attic) level 02, one bedroom plus staircase for each of units GO1 and GO2 in the front wing. In the rear wing, two bedrooms plus staircase at the front of the rear wing for unit 101 and one bedroom and staircase each for units 103 and 104 at the rear of the rear wing. The building will contain a total of eight (8) x 3-bed units and one (1) x 1-bed unit over a mix of 1, 2 and 3 levels. S4.55 Modifications Proposed To transfer Schedule 1 condition Nos.1 to 5 into Schedule 2 approval conditions and to delete condition No.6. Accompanying the application was a Statement of Effects and an engineer’s report regarding the proposed new median strip in Ryde Road.


Item 2.2 Page 67

3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The premises are known as Nos.7-9 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill and are legally described as Lot 2 and Lot 3 in DP 7691. The site is located on the north eastern side, between Joubert Street and Figtree Road. It has a combined area of 1,316.1sqm with a frontage of 24,38 metres to Ryde Road. It has a slope of 0.71 metres down to Ryde Road and a crossfall of 0,50 metres down to the south east along the Ryde Road alignment. Existing on the site are two (2) single storey dwelling houses one with a detached granny flat at the rear plus pool and the other with a detached garage and shed. . Adjoining and nearby development comprises single–storey and two-storey dwelling houses plus residential flat buildings. Opposite is a public reserve. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY A ‘deferred commencement development consent was issued by Council on 26 February 2018. The relevant parts of that consent are those listed under Schedule 1 and are quoted below.

Schedule 1 1. Tree Management

An Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report and Tree Protection Plan and Pruning Specification should be submitted for the Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) and any other tree located onsite or neighbouring properties (including tree within 16 Avenue Road and hedge with 5 Ryde Road). The report should be prepared by an Arborist with a minimum qualification (using the Australian Qualifications Framework) of NSW TAFE Level 5 or above in Arboriculture. The report should be based on methods outlined within Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites and should contain the following information:

Site address

Author of the report, contact details & qualification

Site Plan showing the location of the trees

Tree numbers which correspond to the text of the report

Scope of the report and documentation viewed as part of the assessment

Methods used in the site and tree inspection

For the subject tree the following should be provided:

i. Species

ii. Height, Crown Spread & DBH (Diameter at Breast Height)

iii. Health

iv. Structural Condition

v. Overall Retention Value

vi. Tree Protection Zone and Structural Root Zone


Item 2.2 Page 68

vii. Impact of proposed development and encroachment type

viii. Details of tree sensitive construction methods, if recommended

ix. Proposed pruning works

x. Tree protection measures for trees to be retained

xi. Resource material referenced using the Harvard system

2. Landscape Management

A Landscape Plan should be prepared and submitted for assessment. Landscape Plan should be prepared by a Landscape Architect/ Horticulturalist (Australian Qualifications Framework Level 5). The Landscape Plan should include the following: Site boundaries and dimensions surveyed.

North point and scale.

Existing and proposed levels.

Location of all proposed and existing planting delineating existing trees to be retained, removed or transplanted. Trees within 4m of the site boundary should also be accurately plotted.

A detailed planting schedule including species by botanical and common names, quantities, container sizes and estimated size at maturity.

Details of planting procedures.

Details of earthworks including mounding, retaining walls, and planter boxes with details of existing and proposed finished heights for all elements (top and bottom of walls, garden beds, soil levels before and after the landscaping works).

3. Details being provided as to the privacy screens to be installed on the

northern elevation of the rear balcony. Such information being provided on architectural plans and finished materials & colours plans to be submitted to Council prior to the release of any stamped approved plans.

4. An appropriate easement or right-of-carriageway of a certain form and up to

a given ceiling height being created through the basement car park of the subject site to give the owners of No.5 Ryde Road the legal right to provide vehicular access from a future basement carpark on that site through to Ryde Road via the subject site. A strip of land 1 metre wide adjacent to the eastern boundary of the subject site is to be created by subdivision and transferred to Council free of charge to enable vehicular access from No.5 Ryde Road through the basement and driveway of Nos.7-9 Ryde Road and to burden successors in Title of the subject land. The creation of this form of legal document is to be lodged with the Land Titles Office prior to the release of an ‘outright’ consent and stamped approved plans. The cost of such survey and legal work is to be carried by the applicant in this case.

5. An updated Basix Certificate being submitted to Council based on the

amending plans as received by Council on 4 December 2017.


Item 2.2 Page 69

6. (a) That a median strip be installed along Gladesville Road adjoining the subject site for the purpose of restricting vehicles turning right into the subject site northbound and that the Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) provide concurrence to this median.

(b) That the applicant provides the proposal/submission incorporating

plans and documentation/specifications to the RMS for their review /consideration and concurrence.

(c) Once consent has been issued by the RMS, all costs are to be

worn by the applicant with regard to the construction and installation of the median along Ryde Road immediately outside the subject property from Ryde Road northbound.

5. STATUTORY CONTROLS Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan 2012 Zone: Medium Density Residential R3 Conservation Area: Yes River Front Area: No SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005): No 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 The matter of the proposed median strip in Ryde Road has not been referred to the RMS. 7.2 Health & Building The application not was referred to Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor as no change in the building work was proposed. 7.3 Heritage This modification proposal was not referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor or to the Conservation Advisory Panel as no altered works were involved. 7.4 Works & Services The application was referred to Council’s Design and Development Engineer.


Item 2.2 Page 70

7.5 Parks & Landscape The application was referred to Council’s Tree Consultants to review the Arboricultural Report and the amending landscaping plan which was received on 15 October 2018. Council is currently awaiting the results of this assessment work and as such, the Schedule 1 condition Nos.1, 2 & 2(a) have been proposed to be transferred to the ‘outright’ consent without change other than being satisfied prior to the release of the stamped approved plans. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER s.4.15 and s.4.55 The relevant matters for consideration under section 4.15 and section 4.55 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 Medium Density R3 and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table Not applicable as no change is proposed to the approved building. 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 No change proposed to the residential flat building. 10.5 Height of Buildings No change proposed to the height of the approved building. 10.6 Landscaped Area No change proposed to the landscaped area of the approved development.


Item 2.2 Page 71

10.7 Subdivision Lot Size Not applicable. 10.8 Floor Space Ratio No change proposed to the approved building. 10.9 Street Frontage Not Applicable. 10.10 Dual Occupancy Not Applicable. 10.11 Foreshore Building Lines Not Applicable. 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) Not applicable as no change is proposed to the approved building. Planning Policy – All Development The proposal complies/does not comply 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 No change proposed.


Item 2.2 Page 72

Front, Side & Rear Setbacks No change proposed. Landscaped Area Not Applicable. Solar Access No change proposed. Privacy No change proposed. Views Not Applicable Car Parking No change proposed. Garages & Carports No change proposed. Fences No change proposed. 12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies Not applicable. 13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT With respect to the conditions of consent, it is considered that the modifications to the approval will have no effect on the proposed building works. It will maintain conformity with the controls of the LEP 2012 and DCP 2013. At this point of time, Schedule 1 condition Nos.1, 2 and 2(a) cannot be deleted from the approval pending the response from Council’s tree consultants. It will mean that they will have to be satisfied pending the release of stamped approved plans following this ‘outright’ consent. Such landscape plans may require upgrading and this should be done in such a way that does not require a further s4.55 modification in time for compliance purposes. Schedule 1 Conditions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 can be transposed into the ‘outright’ consent with no change other than to give relevance to the release of stamped approved plans.


Item 2.2 Page 73

Schedule 1 condition 6(a), (b) & (c) were imposed by Council as a result of its processing and approving the application and is reliant upon the NSW Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) separately giving its approval for such median strip works, signage & linemarking. In this case, it is considered that condition 6 should not be deleted as the case placed before Council for such action is not compelling. In the possible case that the RMS does not grant Council the necessary concurrence for the installation of such median strip, then with the altered wording to the condition, it can in time be deleted from the consent without the need for a formal s4.55 application. The applicant has specifically proposed that the condition be deleted based on their engineer’s report which does not provide any formal response of the RMS in relation to the provision of the median. As such, it is recommended that such condition 6in the main be part of this development consent but with a rider that the condition have no effect in time should the RMS not concur in the implementation of such condition. The proposed s.4.55 alteration as recommended below is such that the final development will be substantially the same as that originally approved by Council. There would be no undue impact upon the natural and built environment as a result of the proposed alterations to the clauses of the consent. Furthermore, there would be no undue social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed modifications to the consent.

14. SUBMISSIONS The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 for a period of thirty (30) days commencing on the 29 August 2018. Within the specified time period one (2) submissions were received. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report. NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 194 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Dr. Chris Hartley P.O. Box 1121 HUNTERS HILL

Condition 6 should remain a deferred commencement condition as it serves a sound and appropriate purpose during construction and provides certainty prior to occupation

The proposed amendments are manifestly inadequate in addressing the legitimate concerns of the community and Council on traffic safety and flow

The proposed island and envisaged compliance with a discretionary ‘no right turn sign’ is wildly optimistic and presents zero practical deterrence or disincentive to traffic turning right on to or out of the site

There is precedent for the original Council approval not less than 75 metres away from the applicant site which given the proximity should serve as a part model

James H. Berry 104/58 Gladesville Road HUNTERS HILL

As it is, the DA on 7/9 leaves little room for open space and buildings will be located near the rear alignment of the profit. This means limited views from my property will be eroded

Of even more importance the variation of the DA seeks to grant vehicular access to 5 Ryde Road. This would allow 5 Ryde Road owners to avoid RMS requirements regarding traffic lights


Item 2.2 Page 74

The main issues of concern outlining the objections are discussed below: Condition 6 should remain a deferred commencement condition as it serves a

sound and appropriate purpose during construction and provides certainty prior to occupation.

The proposed amendments are manifestly inadequate in addressing the legitimate concerns of the community and Council on traffic safety and flow.

The proposed island and envisaged compliance with a discretionary ‘no right

turn sign’ is wildly optimistic and presents zero practical deterrence or disincentive to traffic turning right on to or out of the site.

There is precedent for the original Council approval not less than 75 metres

away from the applicant site which given the proximity should serve as a part model.

Comment: All of the concerns re the modification application as received from the objector relate to Schedule 1 condition No.6 only. This condition was imposed by Council and cannot be implemented unless formally sanctioned by the NSW Roads & Maritime Service (RMS). The terms of this Schedule 1 condition of Council and the response of the applicant by his engineer opposing such proposal, have since been forwarded to the RMS for their response and decision. The response has not yet been received by Council at the time of preparing this report and as such, it is recommended for this application that Council retain the wording of such condition No.6 for incorporation into the ‘outright’ Schedule 2 conditions for a consent but on the proviso that should the RMS not concur in the provision of such median strip, then the condition has no effect and stamped approved plans can be released.. It must however be borne in mind that if the RMS does not grant its approval or concurrence to such median installation, Council would have no power to implement such road works.

As it is, the DA on 7/9 leaves little room for open space and buildings will be

located near the rear alignment of the profit. This means limited views from my property will be eroded.

Comment: No change is proposed for the approved building form including heights and setbacks Of even more importance the variation of the DA seeks to grant vehicular

access to 5 Ryde Road. This would allow 5 Ryde Road owners to avoid RMS requirements regarding traffic lights.

Comment: This development does not involve building work on No.5 Ryde Road and the RMS has full authority to consider traffic changes relative to the lanes and traffic signals. These matters are presently unresolved between Council and the RMS CONCLUSION The s.4.55 application to modify the consent by the transposing of Schedule 1 conditions into the main body of the consent, thus removing it from a ‘deferred commencement’ consent and is deemed acceptable in the circumstances of the case. There will be no breach of any development standard nor change proposed to the building itself.


Item 2.2 Page 75

The likely impacts of the modified development as recommended are such that there will be no undue detrimental effects on the amenity of the adjoining and nearby residents. The local streetscape of Ryde Road will not be altered and, as stated within the body of the report, the proposal would comply with the objectives for redevelopment stipulated under LEP 2012 and DCP 2013.

There would be no undue social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed development and subject to compliance with the conditions of consent

It would be reasonable to grant approval to the modification to the existing consent as set out in the recommendation and as proposed under the provisions of s.4.55 of the EP & A. Act. The development, as to be amended, will result in its being substantially the same as that originally approved. 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 2030 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 the s4.55 application No.2017/1109-1 to modify Development Application No.2017/1109 of consent dated 26 February 2018 for the demolition of the existing dwellings & construction of a residential flat building with nine units over two storeys plus attic and 1½ levels of basement at Nos.7 & 9 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the Schedule 1 conditions Nos.1 to 6 be deleted and such conditions be incorporated in an altered worded form to Part A with the addition of new/altered conditions Nos.7 to 12 as follows: 7. Tree Management

An Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report and Tree Protection Plan and Pruning Specification should be submitted for the Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) and any other tree located onsite or neighbouring properties (including tree within 16 Avenue Road and hedge with 5 Ryde Road). The report should be prepared by an Arborist with a minimum qualification (using the Australian Qualifications Framework) of NSW TAFE Level 5 or above in Arboriculture. The report should be based on methods outlined within Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites and should contain the following information:


Item 2.2 Page 76

Site address

Author of the report, contact details & qualification

Site Plan showing the location of the trees

Tree numbers which correspond to the text of the report

Scope of the report and documentation viewed as part of the assessment

Methods used in the site and tree inspection

For the subject tree the following should be provided:

i. Species

ii. Height, Crown Spread & DBH (Diameter at Breast Height)

iii. Health

iv. Structural Condition

v. Overall Retention Value

vi. Tree Protection Zone and Structural Root Zone

vii. Impact of proposed development and encroachment type

viii. Details of tree sensitive construction methods, if recommended

ix. Proposed pruning works

x. Tree protection measures for trees to be retained

xi. Resource material referenced using the Harvard system.

Such report to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s tree consultants prior to the release of stamped approved plans with an appropriately altered consent.

8. Landscape Management

A Landscape Plan should be prepared and submitted for assessment. Landscape Plan should be prepared by a Landscape Architect/Horticulturalist (Australian Qualifications Framework Level 5). The Landscape Plan should include the following: Site boundaries and dimensions surveyed.

North point and scale.

Existing and proposed levels.

Location of all proposed and existing planting delineating existing trees to be retained, removed or transplanted. Trees within 4m of the site boundary should also be accurately plotted.

A detailed planting schedule including species by botanical and common names, quantities, container sizes and estimated size at maturity.

Details of planting procedures.

Details of earthworks including mounding, retaining walls, and planter boxes with details of existing and proposed finished heights for all elements (top and bottom of walls, garden beds, soil levels before and after the landscaping works).


Item 2.2 Page 77

Such landscape plan to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s tree consultants prior to the release of stamped approved plans including the landscape plan with an appropriately altered consent.

9. Details being provided as to the privacy screens to be installed on the northern

elevation of the rear balcony. Such information being provided on architectural plans and finished materials & colours plans to be submitted to Council prior to the release of any stamped approved plans with an appropriately altered consent.

10. An appropriate easement or right-of-carriageway of a certain form and up to a given

ceiling height being created through the basement car park of the subject site to give the owners of No.5 Ryde Road the legal right to provide vehicular access from a future basement carpark on that site through to Ryde Road via the subject site. A strip of land 1 metre wide adjacent to the eastern boundary of the subject site is to be created by subdivision and transferred to Council free of charge to enable vehicular access from No.5 Ryde Road through the basement and driveway of Nos.7-9 Ryde Road and to burden successors in Title of the subject land. The creation of this form of legal document is to be lodged with the Land Titles Office prior to the release of stamped approved plans. The cost of such survey and legal work is to be carried by the applicant in this case.

11. An updated Basix Certificate being submitted to Council based on the amending

plans as received by Council on 4 December 2017. Such Certificate has to be received by Council prior to the release of stamped approved plans with an appropriately altered consent.

12. (a) That a median strip be installed along Gladesville Road adjoining the

subject site for the purpose of restricting vehicles turning right into the subject site northbound and that the Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) provide concurrence to this median.

(b) That the applicant provides the proposal/submission incorporating plans

and documentation/specifications to the RMS for their review /consideration and concurrence.

(c) Once consent has been issued by the RMS, all costs are to be worn by the

applicant with regard to the construction and installation of the median along Ryde Road immediately outside the subject property from Ryde Road northbound.

13. In the event that the NSW Roads & Maritime Services does not give approval or

does not concur in the terms of this condition above, then the condition will cease to have any effect and stamped approved plans can be released accordingly with an appropriately altered consent.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Map 2. Plans 3. Section 4.55 Submission from the Applicant 4. Submissions from Residents











































Documents

Development Control Unit No. 014 - Municipality of Hunter ... · Tree 7 Magnolia indica (Mango Tree) Rear of site POC10 Compliance with Arboricultural Report Prepared by Arboreport,