ORDINARY MEETING No. 4214 24 July 2006 7...HUNTER’S HILL COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 4214 – 24 July 2006 INDEX A – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 1. Confirmation of Minutes

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETINGNo. 4214

24 July 20067.30pm

ORDER OF BUSINESSPRAYERATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES, DECLARATIONS

A. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESCIVIC CEREMONIES

B. MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTSTABLING OF PETITIONSADDRESSES FROM THE PUBLIC

C. NOTICE OF MOTIONS (INCLUDING RESCISSIONMOTIONS)REPORTS FROM STAFF

D. DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTE. PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTUREF. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATIONG. CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICESH. GENERAL MANAGERJ. COMMITTEE REPORTSK. CORRESPONDENCEL. DELEGATES REPORTSM. GENERAL BUSINESSN. QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICEZ. COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

HUNTER’S HILL COUNCILORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

4214 – 24 July 2006

INDEXA – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No. 4213 held 10 July 2006. 1

B –MAYORAL MINUTE

1. The Late John Cossar Merrington (to be tabled)........................................ 1

D – DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

1. 4 Tiree Avenue, Hunters Hill ...................................................................... 12. 7 Mayfield Avenue, Woolwich .................................................................. 133 38 Earl Street, Hunters Hill ....................................................................... 234. 18 Junction Street, Gladesville................................................................. 375. 42 The Point Road, Woolwich.................................................................. 526. 10 Campbell Street, Hunters Hill .............................................................. 647. 1 Lloyd Avenue, Hunters Hill .................................................................... 768. 5-9 St Malo Avenue, Hunters Hill ............................................................. 819. 18 Prince Edward Parade, Hunters Hill (B) .............................................. 8610. 18 Prince Edward Parade, Hunters Hill (C) .............................................. 9211. Metropolitan Strategy for Hunters Hill....................................................... 9812. Delegated Authority................................................................................101

E – PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE

1. Tree Preservation Order – Approvals/Refusals .......................................... 1

F – FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

1. Summary of Council's Investments for June 2006 ..................................... 1

G – CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES

1. Joint Library Service Advisory Committee.................................................. 1

H – GENERAL MANAGER

1. Local Government Act Amendments.......................................................... 12. Audit of Pecuniary 2005/06 Interest Returns.............................................. 73. Standard Contract of Employment for General Managers -

In Force from 1 July 2006........................................................................... 94. Clr. Simon Frame – Request for Leave of Absence ................................. 125. Regulation Reduction Incentive Fund (RRIF)........................................... 13

J – COMMITTEES

1. Minutes of the Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee Meetingheld 18 June 2006...................................................................................... 1

2. Minutes of the Parks & Trees Advisory Committee Meetingheld 18 July 2006 ....................................................................................... 6

3. Minutes of the Joint Library Service Advisory Committee Meetingheld 5 July 2006 ......................................................................................... 7

K – CORRESPONDENCE

1. Items 1 and 2 of Correspondence .............................................................. 1

M – GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Meetings – Various Committees of Council................................................ 1

Confirmation OfMinutes

A – Confirmation Of Minutes

4214 – 24 July 2006

Index

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No. 4213 held 10 July 2006 1

......................................... ..............................................Barry Smith Councillor Susan HoopmannGENERAL MANAGER MAYOR

MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING NO.4213 – 10 July 2006 A1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4213 held on 10 July 2006 . This is page

COMMENCEMENT

The meeting opened with Prayer at 7.30pm.

IN ATTENDANCE

The Mayor, Councillor Susan Hoopmann, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Peter Astridge, CouncillorsAnnabel Croll, Simon Frame, Jason Lin and Richard Quinn.

ALSO PRESENT

The General Manager, Barry Smith, the Manager Public Works and Infrastructure, Don Cottee,the Manager Development and Environment, Steve Kourepis and Administration Officer,Anna Yusef.

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillor Ross Sheerin.

279/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Frame that the apologies beaccepted.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Quinn declared an interest in Item D1 – DA No.05/1050 - 4 Tiree Avenue,Hunters Hill, the interest being that the applicant is a relative.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

280/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Croll that the Minutes ofOrdinary Meeting No.4212 held 26 June 2006 be confirmed.

MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS (Pages B1 – B2)

1. RYDE BUSINESS FORUM - BUSINESS AFTER HOURS

281/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Quinn that the report bereceived and noted.

2. ROTARY CLUBS OF HUNTERS HILL AND GLADESVILLE

282/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Lin that the report be receivedand noted.



REPORTS FROM STAFF

DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT (Pages D1 – D25)

7.40pm Having declared an interest, Councillor Quinn here left the meeting prior toconsideration of the following matter.

1. DA NO. 05/1050 - 4 TIREE AVENUE, HUNTERS HILL

283/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Croll that this matter bedeferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee for on-site inspection onMonday 24 July 2006 at a time to be advised.

7.42pm Councillor Quinn here returned to the meeting.

2. DA NO. 05/1069 - 7 MAYFIELD AVENUE, WOOLWICH

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF

Mr Martin McGrane, Martin McGrane Architects (Consultant for Owner) addressedthe meeting on the subject matter.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

284/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Croll that at 7.47pm StandingOrders be suspended to allow Councillors to view plans.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

285/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Croll, seconded Clr Quinn that at 7.50pm StandingOrders be resumed.

286/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Croll, seconded Clr Quinn that this matter bedeferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee for on-site inspection onMonday 24 July 2006 at a time to be advised.

3. LEGAL MATTERS

287/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Croll that the report bereceived and noted.

4. DELEGATED AUTHORITY

288/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Lin that the report be receivedand noted.



PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE (Pages E1 – E4)

1. FLOATING BOOM AT TARBAN CREEK

289/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Astridge that:

1. Investigation and research be carried out on the installation of effectivegross pollutant traps further upstream within the canal.

2. The current boom upstream be removed to facilitate flow and mitigatestagnate smelly waters at the pond site.

3. Community education be undertaken within the Tarban Creek area.

4. Litter be removed by Council staff when necessary.

2. COUNCILLOR COMMITTEE OF THE PARRAMATTA RIVER CATCHMENTGROUP

290/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Lin that Councillors Astridgeand Croll be elected as the Councillor representative and the alternaterepresentative respectively to the Councillor Committee of the Parramatta RiverCatchment Group.

GENERAL MANAGER (Pages H1 – H3)

1. MONTHLY REPORT ON OUTSTANDING MATTERS

291/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Astridge that the report bereceived and noted.

2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT & SHIRES ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE –MOTIONS & ATTENDANCE

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF

A motion was moved Clr Lin, seconded Clr Frame that:

1. Motions for the 2006 Local Government and Shires Association Conferencebe lodged with the General Manager by Friday 28 July 2006.

2. Council nominates Clr Quinn, together with the Mayor and GeneralManager, to attend the Blue Mountains Local Government AssociationConference from 29 October, to 1 November 2006.

FORESHADOWED MOTION

Clr Croll foreshadowed a motion, seconded Clr Astridge that:




2. Council nominates Clr Astridge, together with the Mayor and GeneralManager, to attend the Blue Mountains Local Government AssociationConference from 29 October, to 1 November 2006.

On being put to the floor, the initial motion was CARRIED.

292/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Croll, seconded Clr Astridge that:


2. Council nominates Clr Quinn, together with the Mayor and GeneralManager, to attend the Blue Mountains Local Government AssociationConference from 29 October, to 1 November 2006.

293/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Croll that Clr Frame benominated as an observer to the 2006 Local Government and Shires AssociationConference.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (Pages J1 – J13)

1. GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE INSPECTION HELD 26 JUNE 2006

294/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Quinn that the minutes bereceived and noted.

2. MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL SENIOR SUPPORT GROUP MEETING HELD5 JULY 2006

295/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that:

1. The minutes be received and noted.

2. A letter of thanks be sent to Shirley George for attending the NorthernSydney Region bus service consultation organised by the Ministry ofTransport.

3. MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL ART AND CRAFT ADVISORY COMMITTEEMEETING HELD 27 JUNE 2006

296/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Astridge that the minutes bereceived and noted.

4. MINUTES OF THE JOINT LIBRARY SERVICE ADVISORY COMMITTEEMEETING HELD 28 JUNE 2006

297/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Croll that the minutes bereceived and noted.



5. MINUTES OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL MEETING HELD21 JUNE 2006

298/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Croll that the minutes bereceived and noted.

6. MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL – LE VESINET FRIENDSHIP COMMITTEEMEETING HELD 14 JUNE 2006

299/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Lin that the minutes bereceived and noted.

GENERAL BUSINESS (Page M1)

1. MEETINGS – VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL

300/06 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Croll that the report listing thevarious Committees of Council be received and noted.

TERMINATION

The meeting terminated at 8.32 pm.

I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Ordinary Meeting No.4213held 10 July 2006.

................................................... .......................................Councillor Susan R. Hoopmann Barry SmithMAYOR GENERAL MANAGER

Development &Environment

D – Development & Environment

4214 – 24 July 2006

Index

1. 4 Tiree Avenue, Hunters Hill 12. 7 Mayfield Avenue, Woolwich 133. 38 Earl Street, Hunters Hill 234. 18 Junction Street, Gladesville 375. 42 The Point Road, Woolwich 526. 10 Campbell Street, Hunters Hill 647. 1 Lloyd Avenue, Hunters Hill 768. 5-9 St Malo Avenue, Hunters Hill 819. 18 Prince Edward Parade, Hunters Hill (B) 8610. 18 Prince Edward Parade, Hunters Hill (C) 9211. Metropolitan Strategy for Hunters Hill 9812. Delegated Authority 101

........................................................Steve Kourepis

MANAGERDEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENT

Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4214 held on 24 July 2006. This is page

ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 05/1050PROPERTY: 4 TIREE AVENUE, HUNTERS HILLOWNER: MR T J & MRS R F SIDGREAVESAPPLICANT: TIMOTHY JOHN SIDGREAVESPROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOORADDITION AND NEW SWIMMING POOLAPPLICATION LODGED: 7 APRIL 2005AMENDED PLANS LODGED: 7 APRIL 2006

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

REPORTING OFFICER : JOE CAGLIATA

FILE : 1695/4 : DA05/1050

Preamble

This application was considered by Council at it’s Ordinary Meeting on 10 July 2006 where itwas resolved that this matter be deferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee foron-site inspection on Monday 24 July 2006 at 5.00pm.

Proposed Works

It is proposed to carry out the following works:-

Ground floor

An extension to the north-eastern corner of the existing single storey dwellinghouse. The extension would service a laundry, with a small porch off to its easternend.

An extension to the eastern, rear end of the single storey dwelling house, thisextension serves as an extension of the existing living area and adjoining kitchen.

An extension to the south-eastern corner of the single storey dwelling house, theaddition would result in an increase to the size of the family room.

First floor

Remove the part of the existing roof to the existing one storey dwelling house andconstruct a first floor addition following part of the footprint of the dwelling below.

External works

Reduce the size of the existing swimming pool sited to the north-eastern corner ofthe site.




It should be noted that amended plans were lodged in an attempt to address Council’sconcerns. The amendments are as follows:

Re-location of staircase to facilitate changes to first floor addition.

Overall ridgeline reduced to RL 48.0, being 1.6 metres higher than the existingdwelling house. This results in the ridgeline being 600mm above the overall heightof the dwelling house at No. 2 Tiree Avenue and 3 metres above the single storeydwelling house at No. 6 Tiree Avenue.

The first floor addition has a greater setback from the existing front facade of thedwelling house below, being setback 4.2 to 6 metres from the front of the building.

Site and the Environs

The subject site is situated on the eastern side of Tiree Avenue. The site has a frontage width of16.39metres to Tiree Avenue and has a site area of 732 square metres, based on survey. Thesite gently slopes up towards the rear of the site, with the rear recreational open space relativelylevel. Standing on the subject site is a single storey dwelling house, a concrete block studiosited to the south-eastern corner of the site and an in-ground swimming pool to the north-eastern corner of the site. Surrounding development comprises of one and two storey dwellinghouses.

Relevant Statutory Instruments:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979LEP No 1 (as amended)Zone: Residential 2(a2)Conservation Area: YesForeshore Scenic Protection Area: YesSREP for waterway: NoDevelopment Control Plan: DCP No. 15 - Residential DevelopmentListed Heritage item: NoContributory Building: NoVicinity of Heritage Item: Yes, 2 Blake Avenue

Neighbour Notification

NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YESNUMBER NOTIFIED 6SUBMISSIONS RECEIVEDName & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Hunter Southwick6 Tiree AvenueHunters Hill.

Dwelling house (No.6 Tiree Ave) incorrectlyshown on shadow diagrams.

Inconsistency with the plans to the southernelevation and eaves overhang.

Bulky appearance out of character with thestreetscape.

Impact of fixed glass windows to frontfaçade.

S & C Cowan35 Woolwich RoadHunters Hill.





SUBMISSIONS RECEIVEDName & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

H & A Hromas1 Tiree AvenueHunters Hill.


Inaccurate plans, namely the southernelevation.

Existing studio referred to as concrete blockconstruction in reality sandstone brick.

M Sproule (Hertzberg)2 Tiree AvenueHunters Hill.

Inaccurate and inconsistent plans No clarification on air-conditioning and pool

filtering equipment. Privacy impacts. Potential damage to two (2)

camellia/sasanqua trees to northern end ofsite.

Scale and bulk issues. Proposed aesthetic disparity with existing

federation style cottage.A & R Bouffler3 Tiree AvenueHunters Hill.

Proposed aesthetic disparity with existingfederation style cottage and streetscape.

Off-street car parking.J & M Ronzel5 Tiree AvenueHunters Hill.


Garden area issues. Heritage implications with the proposed

development.S Stobo2 Prince Edward ParadeHunters Hill.

Bulky appearance out of character with thestreetscape, impact from their property.

Inaccurate plans, namely the southernelevation.

Existing studio referred to as concrete blockconstruction in reality sandstone brick.

Fixed glass windows to front façade out ofcharacter.

Overshadowing to No. 6 Tiree Avenue. Loss of privacy to No. 2 Tiree Avenue.

J M Morrison7 Tiree AvenueHunters Hill.

Southern setback less than 1.5 metres. Overshadowing

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

Dwelling house (No.6 Tiree Ave) incorrectly shown on shadow diagrams.

Comment: This concern was raised to the architect who as a result has amended the shadowdiagrams. Refer to “Overshadowing” under “Development Control Plan” for a full assessment ofthese amended shadow diagrams.

Inconsistency with the plans to the southern elevation and eaves overhang.

Comment: The plans are considered to be accurate.




Bulky appearance out of character with the streetscape.

Comment: The revised plans have shown the proposed first floor level reduced in size in anattempt to address Council Case Officers concerns with regard to scale and bulk andstreetscape presentation, in particular when viewed from Tiree Avenue.

The first floor has been setback from the existing front façade of the dwelling house andlowered in height. It is considered that the proposal in its revised form would be sympatheticwith respect to streetscape to both Tiree Avenue and from adjoining properties.

As stated within the report, the revised ridgeline height would be solely 600mm above theadjoining part one and part two storey dwelling house to the north at No. 2 Tiree Avenue andthree (3) metres above the single storey dwelling house at No. 6 Tiree Avenue. The proposedridgeline would be only 1.6 metres above the existing ridgeline to the dwelling house at No. 4Tiree Avenue and is considered to be reasonable in height and scale and bulk for a first flooraddition.

The first floor addition, as stated by Council’s Heritage Advisor would allow the single storeycottage to remain legible to a substantial degree. Furthermore, the proposal being lowered inheight and further setback from the existing front building line would result in the upper level nothaving an unreasonable impact with respect to scale and bulk and general streetscape issues,in particular when viewed from Tiree Avenue.

Impact of fixed glass windows to front façade.

Comment: It is recommended to include a condition under the recommended consent to deletethe subject windows along the front elevation.

Existing studio referred to as concrete block construction in reality sandstonebrick.

Comment: This concern was forwarded to Council’s Heritage Advisor who requested a properfabric survey of the shed as a supplement to the original heritage assessment. The assessmentwas forthcoming and the Heritage Advisor requested that the applicant provide clarification ontheir intensions with the shed as a result. The applicant has indicated that the shed is to beretained. This will be reinforced by way of a condition under the recommendation section of thisreport.

Height non-compliance.

Comment: Refer to “Height” under ““(1)(a)(i) – The provision of any environmental planninginstrument”.

No clarification on air-conditioning and pool filtering equipment.

Comment: Standard conditions have been included requiring no mechanical ventilation beinstalled without full details being submitted to and gained by Council.

With respect to the pool filter equipment, the plans show that it is sited to the northern, sideelevation. Notwithstanding this, a condition of the recommended consent is to be includedrequiring the equipment to be sited 1.5 metres from the boundary and noise emanating not tobe more than 5dB(A) above the ambient background level.




Privacy impacts.

Comment: Refer to “Privacy” under “(1)(a)(ii)-any development control plan”.

Potential damage to two (2) camellia/sasanqua trees to northern end of site.

Comment: Council’s Landscape Advisor in his memorandum dated 7 May 2005, requested thata revised landscape plan be submitted and specifically addresses the retention and protectionof the large Camellia along the southern boundary adjacent to the front door. This details wereforthcoming, however, Council’s Advisor has recommended approval of the Landscape Plansubject to a condition requiring tree protection specifications on how the Camellias and subjecttrees will be protected through excavation and construction processes.

Proposed aesthetic disparity with existing federation style cottage andstreetscape.

Comment: Refer to “Conservation Area” under “The provisions of any environmental planninginstrument”.

Off-street car parking.

Comment: Under Clause 8.4.1 of Development Control Plan No. 15, Council does not requirethe provision for off street parking for any existing house.

Garden area issues.

Comment: Refer to “garden area” under ““(1)(a)(i) – The provision of any environmentalplanning instrument”.

Heritage implications with the proposed development.

Comment: Refer to “Conservation Area” under “The provisions of any environmental planninginstrument”.

Overshadowing to No. 6 Tiree Avenue.

Comment: Refer to “Overshadowing” under “(1)(a)(ii)-any development control plan”.

Loss of privacy to No. 2 Tiree Avenue.


Southern setback less than 1.5 metres.

Comment: Refer to “Setbacks” under “(1)(a)(ii)-any development control plan”.




Development Control Assessment:

CONTROL REQUIRED/PERMISSIBLE

PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HEIGHTCeiling 7.2 6.63 metres YesStoreys 2 2 YesGarden Area 50% 50.6% YesBOUNDARY SETBACKSDwelling houseWest (Front)East (Rear)South (Side)North (Side)

Pred. Street Pattern6metres1.5metres1.5metres

No change>6metres1.5-3metres1 -3metres

YesYesYesNo

Planning Consideration

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 this matter that Councilshall take into consideration when determining the application. The assessment process hastaken into consideration the matters as detailed below.

(1)(a)(i) – The provision of any environmental planning instrument;

Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1

The subject site is zoned residential 2(a2) (HHLEP No.1), dwelling houses are identified as apermissible use within the zone subject to Council consent.

Height

The height of the proposal, being 6.63metres, has been amended by way of revised plans,removing the proposed vaulted ceiling to comply with the 7.2 metres height limit prescribed byClause 15 of the Hunters Hill LEP No.1.

Garden Area

The plans indicate the proposed garden area to be 50.6%, as per drawings sheet 1 of 2 and 2of 2, labelled proposed garden area calculation and dated October 2005. The proposal wouldcomply with the 50% minimum permissible under the provisions of Clause 16A - garden areaunder Hunters Hill LEP No.1. Notwithstanding this, due to its proximity to the statutory maximumit is recommended to include a condition requiring the applicant to confirm that the proposaldoes comply with the minimum statutory requirement.

Conservation Area

Clause 19A of Councils LEP No.1 states:-

19A. (2) The council shall not grant consent to an application to carry out developmenton land within a conservation area unless it has made an assessment of theextent to which the carrying out of the development in accordance with theconsent would affect the heritage significance of the conservation area.




As stated within the body of the report, the property is a schedule 6 item under LEP No.1. Theproposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who on 20 April 2005, provided thefollowing comments:-

Heritage Status: “Noted Item” – not recommended for adoption into Schedule 6 in the Paul Davies &Assoc. Heritage Review. Adjoins Sch. 6 Item (2 Prince Edward Pde), in vicinity of Sch. 6 Items at 8Tiree Ave, 4 Prince Edward Pde, & 41 Woolwich Rd, within Conservation Area No 1.

Statement of Heritage Impact: By Graham Brooks & Assoc.- O.K.

Comments: The proposal is a virtual complete upper floor extension, and there should be someindication of the comparative heights of the adjoining single storey dwellings (one with attic).

The proposal appears relatively bulky, and the proposal to render and paint the existing paintedbrickwork, and to paint the whole in the colours selected will have adverse impacts- as DCP 15 statesat Cl. 2.2.4, “New development must be in darker recessive earth tones.”

Recommendation: Since the subject property is within the Conservation Area and adjoins a heritageitem, the proposal should be reviewed by the CAP.

Council’s Heritage Advisor provided additional comments on 11 May 2005. The comments aredue to concerns raised with regard to the existing shed sited to the rear of the property. Thecomments are as follows:-

Heritage Status: “Noted Item” – not recommended for adoption into Schedule 6 in the Paul Davies &Assoc. Heritage Review. Adjoins Sch. 6 Item (2 Prince Edward Pde), in vicinity of Sch. 6 Items at 8Tiree Ave, 4 Prince Edward Pde, & 41 Woolwich Rd, within Conservation Area No 1.

Statement of Heritage Impact: By Graham Brooks & Assoc.- O.K., but see comments

Comments: Concern has been raised as to the background of the brick shed (indicated as being ofconcrete block on the survey and architecturals) – whether it may have historical associations with“Tiree” (8 Tiree Ave). The research in the Brooks report appears to indicate otherwise, but under thecircumstances, a proper fabric survey of the shed should be undertaken as a supplement to theheritage assessment.

Recommendation: Request additional information from the applicant by way of a supplementary fabricassessment.

Information was provided on the rear shed and forwarded to Council’s Heritage Advisor on 22 July2005. His comments as per his memorandum dated 27 July 2005, are as follows:-

Heritage Status: Not listed, within Conservation Area No 1.

Statement of Heritage Impact: supplementary statement by Graham Brooks and Partners.

Comments: While the SoHI give an indication that the shed may be retained, it is inconclusive on thehistory of it. The bricks and, perhaps, the windows would indicate that it is of 19th century constriction.

Recommendation: Seek further information from the applicant as to their intentions with regard to theshed.

The applicant confirmed that the shed is to stay, addressing the objectors concerns.

Revised plans were lodged on 7 April 2006, and referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor and hiscomments from his memorandum dated 3 May 2006, are as follows:-




Heritage Status: Within Conservation Area No 1, adjoins Sch. 6 Heritage Item at 2 Prince EdwardParade.

Statement of Heritage Impact: by Graham Brooks & Assoc.- O.K. but has not assessed the currentversion of the proposal, to my knowledge.

Comments: the design has been the subject of a number of discussions and amendments. While Iwould not consider the approach to be entirely sympathetic to the existing California Bungalow, it does,in its present form, allow the fact of the original single storey cottage to remain legible to a substantialdegree.

Given that the external colours and finishes of the upper extension and original lower portion of thehouse are differentiated, the imposition of the bulk of the addition should not overpower the existingcottage to the extent it otherwise would.

Recommendation: Approval

In light of Council’s Heritage Advisors recommendation for approval, it is considered that theproposed works would maintain the setting of the surrounding heritage items and character ofthe conservation area, not affecting the heritage significance of the conservation area.

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The subject site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and such as assessment isrequired in accordance with clause 18A of LEP No.1. Clause 18A states:-

The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out developmenton land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that the area shown by hatching on themap marked “Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 14 – Heritage Conservation” unless it hasmade an assessment of:

(a) The appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from thewaterway; and

(b) The impact of the proposed development of the view toward the waterway from public roadsand from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6 (b).

The subject site falls within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposed works wouldnot be seen from the waterway and accordingly would not affect the visual amenity of theforeshore.

(1)(a)(ii) – any development control plan

Development Control Plan No. 15 – Residential Development

DCP 15 contains objectives that relate to all residential development within the Municipality ofHunters Hill. The objectives of DCP 15 state:

a. Development should be compatible with the landscape character of the area. Generally, thelandscape character of Hunters Hill is encapsulated in the “tree” whether indigenous, nativeor exotic. Hunter’s Hill Council is committed to protecting and enhancing the area’slandscape character and natural environment.

b. Development, particularly when viewed from the street or other public place, should becompatible with the character and scale of any existing building to be retained on the siteand residential development in the immediate vicinity.

c. Development, particularly when viewed from public reserves, National Parks, waterways oracross valleys, should not be obtrusive in or upon the natural landscape.

d. In areas with significant stylistic/architectural associations and identity, additions and newdevelopment should be designed in sympathy with their surrounds.




For the reasons outlined in this report, the revised proposal is considered consistent withobjectives (a), (b), (c) and (d) outlined above.

Garden Area

Refer to “Garden Area” under “(1)(a)(i) – The Provisions Of Any Environmental PlanningInstrument”.

Height

Refer to “Height” under “(1)(a)(i) – The Provisions Of Any Environmental Planning Instrument”.


As stated above, the subject site is not located within the foreshore scenic protection area.

Setbacks

The proposed ground floor extensions would comply with requirements stipulated under Part7.2 of DCP No.15, with the exception of the northern, side boundary setback. The northern,external wall extension, servicing the laundry and spanning 5.1 metres would be setback 1metre from the boundary. The minor non-compliance would not unreasonably impact upon theamenity of the adjoining property to the north with respect to sunlight, privacy and private views.

The proposed first floor addition would comply with requirements stipulated under Part 7.2 ofDCP No.15.

The revised proposal in general would not unreasonably impact upon the adjoining properties,with respect to perceived scale and bulk, privacy and overshadowing, as stated within the bodyof the report. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the setback objectivesstipulated under Part 7.2.1 of the RDCP No.15.

Solar Access

Clause 7.4 requires that development should not eliminate more than one third of the existingsolar access to adjoining properties measured at ground level at 9am, noon and 3pm in midwinter. The shadow diagrams show the following additional shadowing in mid-winter:

9am: The shadows falling to a small section of the rear yard to No.6 Tiree Avenue and its roofand front yard would be the same as the existing shadows cast to the site and would be underthe one-third maximum requirement.

12noon: Additional shadows would fall onto the north-eastern outdoor courtyard area to No. 6Tiree Avenue. Notwithstanding the increase in shadows, the overall shadows cast to the openspace of No. 8 Tiree Avenue is minimal and would be well under the 33% maximumrequirement, effecting under 10% of the open space area.

3pm: The majority of the rear yard of No.6 Tiree Avenue, would be affected by shadows.

Notwithstanding this non-compliance it is considered that on balance the proposal issatisfactory. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal building height of 6.63 metreswould be well below the statutory height maximum requirement of 7.2 metres. The applicant hasbeen mindful of proposing a development that is sensitive to the street and the amenity of theadjoining properties. The non-compliance would exist for only a couple of hours in midwinter.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D10


On balance the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with the objectives under Part 7.4.1 ofDevelopment Control Plan No.15, as the proposal would allow for reasonable access to sunlightto adjoining buildings and their open spaces. This non-compliance with overshadowing isconsidered acceptable on balance with the entire assessment of the application.

Accordingly, the proposal would comply with the objectives stipulated under Part 7.4.1 of theDevelopment Control Plan No.15.

Privacy

The owner of the adjoining property to the north, being No. 2 Tiree Avenue, has objected to theproposal with respect to loss of privacy. The concern specifically relates to the first floorwindows to the east elevation and their ability to overlook the objectors rear yard and pool area.The openings to the eastern elevation are to bedrooms which are considered to be rooms of lowuse, this coupled with a substantial degree of separation to the subject rear yard area shouldensure that their would be no unreasonable impact to the adjoining property to the north withrespect to privacy.

The proposed alterations and additions in general, due to its positioning and size of windowopenings, separation of adjoining properties and orientation is considered to provide for thereasonable privacy of the adjoining dwellings and their outdoor spaces, accordingly, satisfyingthe objective stipulated under Part 7.5.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15.

Views

The proposed works are considered to be satisfactory, given that no views from any adjoiningproperties would be affected.

(1)(a)(ii) – any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed onpublic exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority

There are no draft local environmental plans of relevance to the proposed development.

(1)(b)(c) the likely impacts of the development including environmental impacts on boththe natural and build environments and social and economic impacts the localitysuitability of the site for the development.

The proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoiningproperties or the Tiree Avenue streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposalwould satisfy the objectives of the DCP No.15. There would be no impact upon the natural andbuilt 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 theproposed works.

As stated previously, Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no objection to the proposed works.

The proposal was referred to Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who raisedno objection to the proposal.

The original landscape plan was referred to Council’s Parks and Landscape Coordinator, whoraised no objection to the proposed landscape plans subject to conditions.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D11


(1)(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the act or the regulations

The proposed development was originally notified on 14 April 2005, in accordance withCouncil’s Development Control Plan for a period of ten (10) working days. Within the specifiedtime period five (5) submissions were received.

The revised proposal was notified on 4 November 2005, in accordance with Council’sDevelopment Control Plan for a period of ten (10) working days. Within the specified time periodseven (7) submissions were received.

The further revised proposal was notified on 20 April 2006, in accordance with Council’sDevelopment Control Plan for a period of ten (10) working days. Within the specified time periodseven (7) submissions were received.

The submissions received have been addressed under the heading of neighbour notificationand appropriate comments have been provided addressing those concerns.

(1)(e) The public interest

The proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts uponthe adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest andfollowing compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in DCP No. 15and LEP No.1, the application is considered acceptable.

Conclusion

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration undersection 79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill LocalEnvironmental Plan No. 1, and Development Control Plan No. 15. For the reasons outlined inthis report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon theadjoining residential properties and accordingly is recommended for approval.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Development Application No. 05/1050 for the construction of a first floor addition at No.4Tiree Avenue, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to conditions:

Standard conditions:

A1-A4, B14 ($1960.00), C1-C10, C12(a-i), C19, C21, C22, C25, C33, C34, C36, C37, C39,C40, C41, C42, C44, C45, C46. C51, C59 (change PCA to Council), C47, C61, C64, C81-C85,C87, C94-C98, C100 (Prepared by Gana Architectural Design Services, drawing Nos. 4/11Revision C, dated March 2006, 5/11 Revision C dated March 2006, 6/11 Revision C March2006, 7/11 Revision C March 2006, 8/11 Revision C dated March 2006 and 9/11 Revision Ddated May 2006 and Landscape/Planting Plan prepared by Sue Hallam Horticulturist and datedJuly 2005), C102, D1-D5, D12, D14, D16, D19, D21, D22, D30, PE2, PE8, PE15-PE17, SP1,SP3- SP12, SP16, SP21, SP30, SP31 L5 ((i) Provide tree protection specifications in bothdrawing and written form to detail how the Camellias and the street trees will be protectedthrough the excavation and construction period) and L8.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D12


Special conditions:

1. The sandstone shed sited to the south-eastern corner of the site is to be retained, soas to preserve its heritage significance. Details confirming this are to be submittedand approved by the PCA at the construction certificate stage.

2. So as to preserve the Tiree Avenue streetscape, the proposed first floor fixedwindows to the western, front elevation are to be deleted. Details are to besubmitted and approved by the PCA prior to the issues of the ConstructionCertificate.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D13


ITEM NO : 2

SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 05-1069PROPERTY: 7 MAYFIELD AVENUE, WOOLWICHAPPLICANT: MICHAEL IANNELLO, C/- MARTIN MCGRANEARCHITECTSOWNER: MR & MRS IANNELLOPROPOSAL: SECTION 82A REVIEW – ERECT NEWENTRY STRUCTURE OVER AN EXISTING ENTRY GATEADJACENT TO THE STREET BOUNDARY APPLICATIONLODGED: 31 MAY 2006

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

REPORTING OFFICER : ROBERT SHERRY

FILE : 1495/7 & DA05/1069

Preamble

This application was considered by Council at it’s Ordinary Meeting on 10 July 2006 where itwas resolved that this matter be deferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee foron-site inspection on Monday 24 July 2006 at 5.15pm.

Background

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held 12 May 2003 issued a deferred commencement consent forthe demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a new house with undergroundparking and a swimming pool, subject to conditions.

On 8 September 2003 Council considered a section 96 application requesting the deletion of 6of Council’s standard site contamination conditions of consent i.e. Condition Nos.103-108inclusive, of Development application No.02-1183 that became operational on 22 May 2003.

The recommendation in the previous report was to refuse the application.

Council deferred the s.96 application to allow the applicant time to address the concerns raisedin the previous report. Briefly, these were:

1. With the LGA’s long industrial history there are sites along the waterfront wherecontamination has been found regardless of past and current industrial use; and

2. Lack of information on whether or not the site is contaminated.

Development Application 02/1183(A) was approved 22 September 2003 subject to the relevantconditions being amended.

On 20 October 2004 Council received a s96 application (DA 02/1183(B)) for an entry feature tothe property. The application was refused under Delegated Authority 7 February 2005.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D14


Council approved Development Application 02/1183 (C) for modification of DevelopmentApproval 02/1183 on 14 February 2005 (this proposal did not include the front entry structure).

On 20 May 2005 Council received an application (DA 05/1069) for an entry feature to theproperty. The application was refused under Delegated Authority 24 August 2005.

Details

Pursuant to section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mr MichaelIannello, the applicant for the proposal, is seeking a review of the Council’s determination,which refused a development application for an entry feature to the property.

Site Details

The site is on the eastern side of Mayfield Avenue, approximately 350 metres south of theintersection with The Point Road. It faces east and has views across Lane Cove River andGreenwich Point towards the City.

The site is generally rectangular in shape and has an area of 765.4sqm.

It has a frontage of 19.2 meters to Mayfield Avenue and a 15.3 metre frontage to the Lane CoveRiver.

The land slopes away from the street to the water with an approximate fall of 1 in 6.

The neighbourhood is residential in nature and there is a good deal of refurbishment and someredevelopment of houses of varying ages.

Houses fronting the water tend to be more modern than their historic counterparts further up thehill.

There are 8 heritage items and 1 house of note (3 Mayfield) in the vicinity of the site i.e.Mayfield Avenue (No.2), Hunter Street (Nos. 1,9,15,17,21 and 23) and 3 The Point Road.

Relevant Statutory Instruments

LEP No 1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a2)Conservation Area: YesForeshore Scenic Protection Area: YesDevelopment Control Plan No. 15- Residential DevelopmentSydney Regional Environmental Plans Sydney Harbour CatchmentListed Heritage item NoVicinity of Heritage Item Yes (2 Mayfield, 1 and 9 Hunter (3 Hunter noted))Contributory Building: NoIntegrated Development Yes


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D15


Procedure - 82A Review of determination

(1) If the consent authority is a council, an applicant may request the council to review adetermination of the applicant’s application.

(2) A request for a review may be made at any time, subject to subsection (2A).

(2A) A determination cannot be reviewed:

(a) after the time limited for the making of an appeal under section 97expires, if no such appeal is made against the determination, or

(b) after an appeal under section 97 against the determination is disposedof by the Court, if such an appeal is made against the determination.

(3) The prescribed fee must be paid in connection with a request for a review.

(3A) In requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to the developmentdescribed in the original application, subject to subsection (4) (c).

(4) The council may review the determination if:

(a) it has notified the request for review in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the council has made a developmentcontrol plan under section 72 that requires the notification oradvertising of requests for the review of its determinations, and

(b) it has considered any submissions made concerning the request for review withinany period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development controlplan, as the case may be, and

(c) in the event that the applicant has made amendments to the developmentdescribed in the original application, the consent authority is satisfied that thedevelopment, as amended, is substantially the same development as thedevelopment described in the original application.

(4A) As a consequence of its review, the council may confirm or change thedetermination.

(5) The decision whether or not to review the determination must not be made by the personwho made the determination unless that person was the council, but is to be made by aperson who is qualified under subsection (6) to make the review.

(6) If the council reviews the determination, the review must be made by:

(a) if the determination was made by a delegate of the council - the council oranother delegate of the council who is not subordinate to the delegate who madethe determination, or

(b) if the determination was made by the council—the council.

Supporting Documentation

No documentation was provided in support of the request for the review.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D16



NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YesNUMBER NOTIFIED 6SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 2Submission OneD. Bonnitcha9 Mayfield Avenue,WOOLWICH 2110

It will create a safety issue for vehicles departing7 Mayfield Avenue.

It detracts from the streetscape.

It impedes the streetscape view from 9 MayfieldAvenue.

No other structures have been approved in thestreet.

It will adversely impact upon the general amenityof the street and all adjoining properties.

Submission TwoNicholas Korner1 St Ives Avenue,HUNTERS HILL 2110

Supporting Councils previous refusals of theproposal which would be intrusive on thestreetscape and is unnecessarily elaborate.


It will create a safety issue as it will further impede visibility of the street for cars exiting7 Mayfield Avenue.

Comment:- Whilst it is considered that the structure would impede visibility for vehicles exiting thesite, the setback of the new structure to the driveway of approximately 3.6 metres would providefor a light of sight immediately adjacent to the structure.

It adds further imposing structure to what is already an imposing new building and itdetracts from the streetscape.

Comment:- The proposed structure is located forward of the building line. The applicant hasstated that the proposal presents an elegant extension of the front fence at the gate location thatsubtly defines the pedestrian entry to the property.

The proposal has been refused previously for its lack of sympathy with the streetscape and thegeneral character of the area. This has been supported by Councils Heritage Advisor who hasstated that the proposal would impact upon the streetscape.

It impedes the streetscape view from 9 Mayfield Avenue.

Comment:- The letter of submission was forwarded to the applicant for their comment. Theapplicant did not provide a response to the submission. Additionally, the Statement ofEnvironmental Effects does not address the non-compliance with Clause 7.6 of DCP No.15.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D17


No other property in the street has been allowed such a large structure so closely to thestreet boundary.

Comment:- There is an example of an entry structure located at No.3 Mayfield Avenue.However, that structure is considered lightweight, does not dominate the streetscape with itsheight and is of open style construction.

The current proposal for a 3.15 metre wide, 1.8 metres deep and 2.6 metre high entry structureof solid construction (masonry and concrete) with a roof over is considered to adversely impactupon the streetscape and would be in competition with the main dwelling contrary to theobjectives of DCP No.15 due to its bulk and scale at the street boundary.

It will adversely impact upon the general amenity of the street and all adjoiningproperties.

Comment:- As indicated above, the current proposal for a 3.15 metre wide, 1.8 metres deepand 2.6 metre high entry structure of solid construction (masonry and concrete) with a roof overis considered to adversely impact upon the streetscape and would be in competition with themain dwelling contrary to the objectives of DCP No.15 due to its bulk, scale and presentation atthe street boundary.

Development Control Assessment

CONTROL REQUIRED/PERMISSIBLE

PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

GARDEN AREA 60% Not provided Unknown

Planning Consideration

Section 79c Of The Environmental Planning And Assessment Act 1979

Section 79C of the EP& A Act 1979 lists the matters the Council shall take into considerationwhen determining a development application. The assessment process has taken intoconsideration the relevant matters as detailed below:

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.

The subject site is located within the area covered by SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.This plan has a number of general aims and objectives, the most relevant of which, in this case,is as follows:

Aims of plan

(1) This plan has the following aims with respect to the Sydney Harbour Catchment:

(a) to ensure that the catchment, foreshores, waterways and islands of SydneyHarbour are recognised, protected, enhanced and maintained:

(i) as an outstanding natural asset, and

(ii) as a public asset of national and heritage significance, for existing andfuture generations,

(b) to ensure a healthy, sustainable environment on land and water,

(c) to achieve a high quality and ecologically sustainable urban environment,

(d) to ensure a prosperous working harbour and an effective transport corridor,


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D18


(2) For the purpose of enabling these aims to be achieved in relation to the Foreshores andWaterways Area, this plan adopts the following principles:

(a) Sydney Harbour is to be recognised as a public resource, owned by the public, tobe protected for the public good,

(b) the public good has precedence over the private good whenever and whateverchange is proposed for Sydney Harbour or its foreshores,

(c) protection of the natural assets of Sydney Harbour has precedence over all otherinterests.

Furthermore, Part 3 Division 2 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 lists matters forconsideration by Council when determining an application. It further states that Council shall notgrant consent to an application unless it is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with therelevant objectives of the SREP.

The following matters for consideration are relevant to this application:

Foreshore and waterways scenic quality

The matters to be taken into consideration in relation to the maintenance, protection andenhancement of the scenic quality of foreshores and waterways are as follows:

(a) the scale, form, design and siting of any building should be based on an analysis of:

(i) the land on which it is to be erected, and

(ii) the adjoining land, and

(iii) the likely future character of the locality,

(b) development should maintain, protect and enhance the unique visual qualities of SydneyHarbour and its islands, foreshores and tributaries,

(c) the cumulative impact of water-based development should not detract from the character ofthe waterways and adjoining foreshores.

The current proposal involves a significant structure adjacent to the street frontage. Thestructure is not considered to meet the aims or objectives of the SREP.

Additionally, the DCP supporting the SREP states:

4.5 Built Form

Buildings and other structures should generally be of the same scale and of a design sympathetic totheir surroundings; well-designed contrasts will be considered where they enhance the scene. Thefollowing guidelines are designed to reinforce the requirements:

where buildings would be of a contrasting scale or design to existing buildings, care will beneeded to ensure that this contrast would enhance the setting;

while no shapes are intrinsically unacceptable, rectangular boxy shapes with flat or skillionroofs usually do not harmonise with their surroundings. It is preferable to break up facadesand roof lines into smaller elements and to use pitched roofs

use of reflective materials is minimised and the relevant provisions of the Building Code ofAustralia are satisfied

The current proposal involves a significant structure adjacent to the street frontage. Thestructure is not considered to meet the aims or objectives of the DCP supporting the SREP.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D19


Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1

The LEP sets out the criteria that a new development is required to comply with by law prior tothe issue of a development consent. The objectives of the Hunters Hill Local EnvironmentalPlan are as follows:

To conserve the identity of the Municipality of Hunters Hill, Council as established by its heritage,character, topography and residential amenity, by –

(a) conserving the environmental heritage significance, the foreshore and riverscape, thetownscape quality and tree covered environment of the Municipality through regulation of theuse and development of land, buildings and structures;

(b) retaining specific evidence of the thematic development of the environmental heritage of theMunicipality through conservation of items of environmental heritage;

(b1) integrating heritage conservation into the planning and development controlprocesses;

(b2) providing for public involvement in the matters relating to the conservation of thearea's environmental heritage;

(b3) ensuring that new development is undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to,and does not detract from, the heritage significance of the items and theirsettings, as well as streetscapes and landscapes and the distinctive characterthat they impart to the land to which this plan applies.

(c) increasing the area and standard of public open space in the Municipality;

(d) improving public access to the shores of the Lane Cove and Parramatta Rivers;

(e) provide off-street parking facilities at or near shopping centres at Boronia Park, Gladesvilleand Hunters Hill; and

(f) providing or assisting in the provision of public amenities and support services consistentwith the development of the area.

The subject site is zoned residential 2(a2) (HHLEP No.1), dwelling houses are identified as apermissible use within the zone subject to Council consent.

As noted in the development control table above, no details have been provided to indicatewhether the proposal does or does not comply with the control relating to garden area.

This is a development standard under the Hunters Hill LEP No 1 (as amended), and accordinglythe applicant has failed to satisfy this requirement.


The subject site is also located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and such asassessment is required in accordance with clause 18A of LEP No.1. Clause 18A states:-

The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out developmenton land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that the area shown by hatching on themap marked “Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 14 – Heritage Conservation” unless it hasmade an assessment of:

(a) The appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from thewaterway; and

(b) the impact of the proposed development of the view toward the waterway from public roadsand from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6 (b).

The subject site is a waterfront property and is visible from the water. The proposal isconsidered unsatisfactory and will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the riverscape,and fails to satisfy the following specific objectives relating to development within the FSPA, asoutlined in DCP 15:


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D20


a. To encourage residential development that ensures dwelling form, including alterations andadditions, that does not degrade the amenity of the surrounding residents or the visualquality of Hunter’s Hill particularly when viewed from the waterway;

b. To minimise the visual impact of development when viewed from adjacent land, publicreserves and waterways;

c. To ensure that dwellings be designed with regard to the site conditions, to minimise theimpact on the landform and visual amenity;

d. To ensure that dwellings blend into the natural surroundings and are consistent with theaesthetic quality of surrounding developments;

e. To ensure that dwelling designs have regard to preserving existing views towards thewaterway from public roads, public reserves and adjoining properties

(1)(a)(iii) – any Development Control Plan

Development Control Plan No. 15 – Residential Development

The site does not warranted support for the current proposed structure forward of the buildingline as the structure is not considered to be sympathetic to the existing streetscape and wouldintroduce a new element into the street that would compete with the dwelling for streetscapepresentation, contrary to the aims and objectives of DCP No.15.

These requirements are outlined within the DCP including Sections 7 (Development Controls), 8(Garage and Carports) & 9 (Fencing). These requirements clearly indicate that new structuresshould be sympathetic to the streetscape and should be designed as ancillary structures todwellings.

Garden Area

Refer to “Garden Area” under “(1)(a)(i) – The Provisions Of Any Environmental PlanningInstrument”.

The objectives of Clause 8 of DCP No.15 include the requirements for garage and carportstructures to be set behind the dwelling where possible or along the side of dwellings but atleast one metre behind the front building line. In exceptional circumstances Council wouldconsider a hardstand area forward of the building line.

The site is benefited with a garage and the lacks of constraints of the site do not warrantedsupport for the current proposed structure forward of the building line.

Further to the above, the structure is not considered to be sympathetic to the existingstreetscape and would introduce a new element into the street that would compete with thedwelling for streetscape presentation, contrary to the aims and objectives of DCP No.15.

Heritage Comments

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who provided the followingcomments:

Heritage Status: Within Conservation Area No. 1

Statement Of Heritage Impact: None Provided


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D21


Comments: I reiterate my previous position which is: I do not support the tendency to providestructures on the street alignment as “entry canopies”, lych gates and the like. Such structures should,in my view be treated in a similar manner as garages and carports- i.e. either dispensed with, or setback off the street frontage so that they do not have an impact on the streetscape.

If such structures are permitted to proliferate, the character of Hunters Hill will be adversely impactedupon.

Recommendation: Refusal

This issue was raised with the applicant previously who provided a heritage report in whichGraham Brooks states Council’s heritage consultant has been providing comments on apersonal rather than professional basis. The report also states that the requirements forgarages and carports has been drawn upon to provide additional comments such as the visualeffect of the proposed canopy on the streetscape will therefore be ameliorated by this primaryrelationship with the main fence line (that is, being slightly setback from the front boundary).

The objectives of Clause 8 of DCP No.15 include the requirements for garage and carportstructures to be set behind the dwelling where possible or along the side of dwellings but atleast one metre behind the front building line. In exceptional circumstances Council wouldconsider a hardstand area forward of the building line.

The site is benefited with a garage and the lacks of constraints of the site do not warrantedsupport for the current proposed structure forward of the building line.

(1) (b) (c) the likely impacts of the development including environmental impacts on boththe natural and build environments and social and economic impacts the localitysuitability of the site for the development.

The proposed alterations and additions are considered to adversely impact upon the amenity ofthe locality and therefore it is considered that the proposal would be an over development of asite.

(1)(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the act or the regulations

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development ControlPlan for a period of ten (10) working days.

Within the specified time period two submissions were received. The submissions have beendiscussed within the body of the report. Copies of the submissions are attached.

(1) (e) The public interest

The proposal is not considered acceptable and would have an unreasonable impact uponadjoining properties and the existing streetscape.

The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance withthe relevant development standards and objectives in DCP No. 15 and LEP No.1 the applicationis considered unacceptable.

Council’s powers to properly manage, develop and conserve its natural and artificial resourcesfor the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community andenvironment, as required under 5(a)(i) of the EP&A Act would be diminished, if the developmentwas approved.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D22


Conclusion

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration undersection 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Hunters Hill LocalEnvironmental Plan No. 1 and Development Control Plan No. 15.

For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development wouldunduly impact upon the amenity and scenic quality of the area and undermine the integrity ofCouncil’s planning policies resulting in an over development of the site, and accordingly isrecommended for refusal.

Additionally, it has been observed that construction of the entry feature has commenced.Therefore Council is unable to favourably determine a Section 82A review of DevelopmentApplication 05/1069 with the development having already commenced without priordevelopment consent.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Section 82A application reviewing the determination of Development Application No.05/1069 for the erection of a new entry structure over an existing entry gate adjacent to thestreet boundary at 7 Mayfield Avenue, Woolwich be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 79C of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to clauses (1)(a)(i)(iii), (b)(c) and (e).

2. Insufficient information has been provided to verify the proposal complies with thedevelopment standards contained Clause 16A of the Hunters Hill LocalEnvironmental Plan No. 1 (relating to garden area).

3. The height of the structure is not considered to be sympathetic to the existingstreetscape and would introduce a new element into the street that would have adetrimental impact on the existing streetscape, contrary to the aims and objectivesof DCP No.15.

4. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area givingregard to the provisions of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No1 andDevelopment Control Plan No. 15 – Residential Development.

5. Approval of the application would set an undesirable precedent and would becontrary to the public interest and undermines Council’s planning objectives.

6. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of the Sydney Regional EnvironmentalPlan – Sydney Harbour Catchment.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D23


ITEM NO : 3

SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 05/1177PROPERTY: 38 EARL STREET, HUNTERS HILLOWNER: MR C & MRS M KAKAKIOSAPPLICANT: MR C & MRS M KAKAKIOSPROPOSAL: DEMOLISH EXISTING DWELLING HOUSEAND ERECT A BUILDING FOR USE AS A LONG DAYCARE CHILD CENTREAPPLICATION LODGED: 19 OCTOBER 2006

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

REPORTING OFFICER : JOE CAGLIATA

FILE : 1175/38 & da05/1177

Proposed Works

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling house on site and erect a part one and twostorey building to service a long-day child care centre for fifty (50) children with an open carparking area for three (3) cars, sited to the front of the property. The building is to be as follows:-

Lower Ground floor

Playroom for 2-3 year olds (up to 16 toddlers), storeroom, nappy change/toilet and aplayroom for 3-5 year olds (up to 24 children).

Ground floor

Office/administration room, staff room, w/c and laundry, sleep room, kitchen, bottlepreparation room, nappy change room, playroom for 0-2 years age group (up to 10babies) and an adjoining outdoor play area, sited to the western (rear) end of theupper level.

The centre will be staffed by nine (9) persons made up of the director, two (2) degree qualifiedteachers, three (3) qualified Advanced Child Care Workers, two (2) unqualified Advanced ChildCare Workers and a qualified cook.

The long-day child care centre will be open for business between the hours of 7.00am to6.00pm, Monday to Friday. The centre closes on public holidays.

All daily waste from soiled linen and nappies will be removed at the end of each working dayand general waste will be removed on a weekly basis, both by a commercial contractor.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D24


Site and the Environs

The subject site is situated on the western side of Earl Street. The site has a frontage width of15.24 metres and has a site area of 803.6 square metres, based on survey. The site gentlyslopes from the property frontage at RL 42.73, down towards the rear of the site, at RL 39.71,with the rear recreational open space relatively level. Standing on the subject site is a singlestorey fibro cottage, a concrete driveway sited to the northern end of the site and a fibro shed tothe north-western corner of the site. Surrounding development comprises of one and two storeydwelling houses.

Relevant Statutory Instruments:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979LEP No 1 (as amended)Zone: Residential 2(a1)Conservation Area: NoForeshore Scenic Protection Area: NoDevelopment Control Plan: DCP No. 15 - Residential DevelopmentListed Heritage item: NoContributory Building: NoVicinity of Heritage Item: NoVicinity of Contributory Item: Yes, Nos. 39 and 41 High Street


NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YESNUMBER NOTIFIED 10SUBMISSIONS RECEIVEDName & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS15 Received

T & T Ikonomou49 Earl StreetHunters Hill

Increased noise mostly due to addedtraffic and parking and early drop-offs

Traffic counts point to a huge trafficincrease in Earl Street

Mr & Mrs S Lieng41 High StreetHunters Hill

Privacy issues Noise issues Traffic issues

Ralph Barnes45 Earl StreetHunters Hill

Noise issues Traffic issues Parking issues

Margaret Lurie43 Earl StreetHunters Hill

Parking issues. Traffic issues. Zoning issues.

Mr & Mrs Petridis39 High StreetHunters Hill

Privacy issues Noise issues Traffic issues

J & K Harrett34 Earl StreetHunters Hill

Parking issues Noise issues Delivery truck impacts

Megan Swann47 Earl StreetHunters Hill

Traffic issues Noise issues Parking issues


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D25


SUBMISSIONS RECEIVEDName & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS15 Received

E Wall & S Timbrell36 Earl StreetHunters Hill

Intensification of use Parking issues. Doesn’t comply with

RTA guidelines for childcare parking Traffic issues Noise issues Waste removal, how is it to be

collected? Deliveries, times and frequency? Garden area concerns Contamination of site due to previous

use with panel beating and spraypainting

Mr F & Mrs V Pilien36a Earl StreetHunters Hill

Unsympathetic building design withexisting streetscape

Parking issues Traffic issues Deliveries and rubbish collection issues Resultant safety issues from traffic

concerns Terrace to impact with respect to

privacy Noise impacts Air-conditioning noise impacts

Melissa Cummins24 Earl StreetHunters Hill


Mr & Mrs R Henderson119 Pittwater RoadHunters Hill


E Wall of 36 Earl Street, organisedpetition signed by 55 people

Traffic issues Parking issues

Allan Southcombe11 Earl StreetHunters Hill

Traffic issues Safety issues Parking issues Noise issues Commercial development in a

residential areaD & R Ronning4 Earl StreetHunters Hill

Zoning contravention Traffic issues Noise issues Parking issues Overshadowing

R Barnes45 Earl StreetHunters Hill

Traffic issues Noise issues Safety issues Parking issues

Michael & Rosemary McCowage43 High StreetHunters Hill

Traffic issues Noise issues Safety issues Parking issues


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D26



Increased noise mostly due to added traffic and parking and early drop-offs

Comment: Refer to “Noise issues” under this section.

Traffic counts point to a huge traffic increase in Earl Street

Comment: A Traffic & Parking Impact Assessment of the proposed child-care centre wasprepared by Christopher Hallam & Associates Pty Ltd and dated June 2005. The reportconcluded the following:-

(i) At no stage do the current traffic flows exceed 100 vehicles/hour that is well below themaximum accepted environmental goal of 200 vehicles/hour within residential streets.

(ii) Traffic within Earl and High Streets would increase by more than 10 vehicles/hour so thatthose traffic conditions would not be significantly changed by centre-related traffic.

(iii) The existing kerb-side parking spaces within Earl Street in close proximity to the site forparent’s drop-off/pick-up movements will have the capacity to accommodate the centre’sparking needs without having an unacceptable adverse impact on street’s environmentalquality.

For further comments, refer to “Manager of Public Works and Infrastructure” comments under“Interdepartmental Comments”.

Based on the findings of the submitted Traffic & Parking Impact Assessment of the proposedchild-care centre, prepared by Christopher Hallam & Associates Pty Ltd and Council’s Managerof Public Works and Infrastructure, it is considered that the proposal would not unreasonablyimpact upon the amenity of the area with regard to traffic.

Privacy issues


Noise issues

Comment: A Noise Assessment report was prepared by Wilkinson Murray dated November2004, for the proposed childcare centre at the subject site. The report is comprehensive andprovides existing noise level readings currently to the front and rear of No. 38 Earl Street, withthe noise levels being governed by nearby traffic noise as there are no industrial noise sourcesperceived in the area. The rear of Earl Street recorded a background level of 39dBA and areading of 41dBA was recorded to the front of the property.

The report assessed the following noise sources, pursuant to this application, being:-

Children playing (both inside and outside); Mechanical plant (air-conditioning condenser and roof top kitchen exhaust fan); and Vehicular movements on-site.

The predicted noise levels, considering attenuation due to distance and any shielding providedby the childcare building, topography and either an additional boundary fence or an additionalsection of fence above the existing fence (assuming the fence is constructed in accordance withtheir recommendations, which are to be included as recommended conditions of consent), isconsidered to be satisfactory.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D27


Section 8, of the noise assessment report, being the conclusion of the report states thefollowing:

…Implementation of the noise controls outlined in Section 7 of this report is capable of controlling noiseassociated with the development. The noise from the traffic predicted to be generated by thedevelopment has been calculated to be within the recommended criteria for road traffic noise along alocal road.

The Section 7 recommended noise controls are as follows:-

Children Playing

With respect to the children playing noises, the existing boundary fencing must be repaired as requiredto be solid and continuous. Colourbond fencing or lapped and capped (50% overlapping) fence wouldbe acoustically suitable. In addition the western boundary fence is to be increased to be 2.2 metres inheight. The northern fencing is to be 2.4 metres in height and this treatment is to extend from thenorthwest corner for 35 metres.

Mechanical Plant

Items of mechanical plant and sound power levels no greater than detailed in Section 5 of the report,being 65dBA for the outdoor air-conditioning condenser and 55dBA for the single roof mountedexhaust fan.

The external condenser unit is to be positioned on the north-east section of the roof, approximately 5metres from the northern boundary and the roof mounted exhaust fan to be positioned above thekitchen.

Vehicular Movement On-Site

No additional ameliorations required.

Vehicular Movement along Earl Street

No additional ameliorations required.

These recommended noise controls will be included as conditions of the development consentand are considered to address all noise issues with the development.

Note: Due to visual impact concerns with the location of the condenser unit to the roof, Councilinstructed to relocate the unit to natural ground level. The unit has been located to the southern,side elevation. A condition of the recommended consent is to be included stating that theequipment is to be sited 1.5 metres from the boundary and noise emanating not to be more than5dB(A) above the ambient background level.

Parking issues

Comment: A Traffic & Parking Impact Assessment of the proposed child-care centre wasprepared by Christopher Hallam & Associates Pty Ltd and dated June 2005. The reportconcluded the following:-

The proposed parking and vehicle access arrangements will comply with AS2890.1-2004and are satisfactory.

The disabled parking space will comply with DCP No.23 design objectives and guidelines fordisabled person’s access and mobility and AS2890.1-2004 and is satisfactory.

The available on-street kerb-side parking spaces should adequately accommodate parent’sshort-term children drop-off/pick-up parking needs without causing an unacceptable adverseimpact to the street’s residential amenity on the basis of a recent NSW Land andEnvironment Court judgement (Mesabo Pty – v – Mosman Council 10166 of 2004) thataccepted similar kerb-side short term parking spaces for significantly larger child care centrefor 58 children and 8 staff.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D28


The Statement Of Environmental Effects With Respect To Parking And Traffic, Stated TheFollowing:-

Kerb-side parking arrangements have been an accepted industry practice by several Councils and theNSW Land and Environmental Court since the early 1990’s with examples being readily found at theClovel Nursery Child Care Centres at Guilford, Merrylands and Mount Pritchard, and Chester Houseand SDN at Mosman.

For further comments, refer to “Manager of Public Works and Infrastructure” comments under“Interdepartmental Comments”.

Based on the findings of the submitted traffic & parking impact assessment of the proposed child-carecentre, prepared by Christopher Hallam & Associates Pty. Ltd. and Council’s Manager of Public Worksand Infrastructure, it is considered that the proposal would not unreasonably impact upon the amenityof the area with regard to parking.

Zoning issues

Comment: The subject site is zoned residential 2(a1) (HHLEP No.1), childcare centres areidentified as a permissible use within the zone subject to Council consent.

Delivery truck impacts

Comment: The statement of environmental effects states that delivery vans will be carrying outdeliveries and not trucks. As a result the size of these vehicles are such that they can beaccommodated within the proposed parking area.

Intensification of use

Comment: As stated above, the subject site is zoned residential 2(a1) (HHLEP No.1), childcarecentres are identified as a permissible use within the zone subject to Council consent.

Parking issues. Doesn’t comply with RTA guidelines for childcare parking

Comment: The RTA guidelines for parking at child-care centres are 1 per 4 children includingstaff and the proposal would not comply with these requirements. However, based on thefindings of the submitted Traffic & Parking Impact Assessment of the proposed child-carecentre, prepared by Christopher Hallam & Associates Pty Ltd and Council’s Manager of PublicWorks and Infrastructure, it is considered that the proposal would not unreasonably impact uponthe amenity of the area with regard to parking.

Waste removal, how is it to be collected?

Comment: All daily waste from soiled linen and nappies will be removed at the end of eachworking day and general waste will be removed on a weekly basis, both by a commercialcontractor.

Deliveries, times and frequency?

Comment: The statement of environmental effects states that a separate loading/unloadingarea is not considered necessary since all weekly deliveries will be usually made on weekendswhen parking space are available for delivery van parking.


Meeting 4214 – 24 July 2006 D29


Daily deliveries will be short-term stays that can be readily accommodated within the parkingarea and it is usual business practice that the staff attend to the purchase of small sized dailyneeds from local shops that about 200m walking distance from the proposed childcare centre sothat delivery vehicles will not be needed for these types of goods.

Garden area concerns

Comment: Refer to “garden area” under ““(1)(a)(i) – The provision of any environmentalplanning instrument”.

Contamination of site due to previous use with panel beating and spray-painting

Comment: The site is zoned 2(a1) and the uses described above are not permissible.Notwithstanding this, Council records indicate that the permissible use to the area has beenresidential for a great number of years. If these works have taken place in the past it would havebeen on private cars and not operating as a business and as a result the amount of work thatwould of taken place would have been minimal and would not warrant the applicant requiring tosubmit a report, investigating the land in accordance with the contaminated land planningguidelines.

Unsympathetic building design with existing streetscape

Comment: As stated by Council’s Heritage Advisor, the front façade of the building has beendesigned in such a way that it will fit into the general “cottage” idiom of the area. It is consideredthat the proposed ‘infill’ development would not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of theEarl Street streetscape.

Terrace to impact with respect to privacy


Air-conditioning noise impacts

Comment: Refer to “Noise Issues” within this section.

Commercial development in a residential area

Comment: As stated above, the subject site is zoned residential 2(a1) (HHLEP No.1), childcarecentres are identified as a permissible use within the zone subject to Council consent.

Overshadowing

Comment: Refer to “Overshadowing” under “(1)(a)(ii)-any development control plan”.

REPORT OF DEVE

Documents

ORDINARY MEETING No. 4214 24 July 2006 7...HUNTER’S HILL COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 4214 – 24 July 2006 INDEX A – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 1. Confirmation of Minutes