agenda land use management committee€¦ · 16 cutler road, clontarf section 96 modification........

Agenda

Land Use Management Committee No t i ce i s he reby g i ven tha t a Land Use Management Commi t tee o f Counc i l w i l l be he ld a t Counc i l Chambers , 1 Be lg rave S t ree t , Man ly , on :

Monday 4 September 2006 Commenc ing a t 7:30:00 PM fo r the purpose o f cons ide r ing i tems inc luded on the Agenda .

Persons in the gal lery are advised that the proceedings of the meet ing are being taped for the purpose of ensur ing the accuracy of the Minutes. However, under the Local Government Act 1993, no other tape recording is permit ted wi thout the author i ty of the Counci l or Commit tee. Tape recording inc ludes a v ideo camera and any electronic device capable of recording speech.

Copies of business papers are avai lable at the Customer Serv ices Counter at Manly Counci l , Manly Library and Seaforth Library and are

avai lable on Counci l ’s website: www.manly.nsw.gov.au

S e a t i n g A r r a n g e m e n t s f o r M e e t i n g s

Chairperson: Clr Dr Judy Lambert Deputy Chairperson: Clr Richard Morrison

Public Gallery

Staff Staff General Manager

Staff Minute Taker

Chairperson

Clr Pat Daley

Clr David Murphy

Clr Simon Cant

Clr Dr Judy Lambert AM

Clr Adele Heasman

Clr Jean Hay AM Mayor Dr Peter Macdonald

Clr Richard Morrison

Clr Joanna Evans

Deputy Mayor Clr Barbara Aird

Clr Brad Pedersen

Clr Mark Norek

Press Press

Public Addresses

LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 4 SEPTEMBER 2006

Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page No. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The Land Use Management Committee of 7 AUGUST 2006 PUBLIC ADDRESSES SITE INSPECTIONS The following site inspections will take place on Monday, 4 September, 2006. 36 Gurney Crescent, Seaforth 8:00am 22 Seaforth Crescent, Seaforth 8:25am 26 Ethel Street, Balgowlah 8:50am 16 Cutler Road, Clontarf 9:15am 48 Pacific Parade, Manly 9:40am GENERAL MANAGERS DIVISION

General Managers Division Report No. 24 Seaforth (Former) TAFE Site - Progress Update .................................................................. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Environmental Services Division Report No. 46 36 Gurney Crescent, Seaforth .............................................................................................. 8 Environmental Services Division Report No. 47 22 Seaforth Crescent, Seaforth Section 96 Modification ....................................................................................................... 16 Environmental Services Division Report No. 48 26 Ethel Street, Balgowlah.................................................................................................. 35 Environmental Services Division Report No. 49 16 Cutler Road, Clontarf Section 96 Modification ....................................................................................................... 44 Environmental Services Division Report No. 50 48 Pacific Parade, Manly .................................................................................................... 58 Environmental Services Division Report No. 51 96 The Corso, Manly Section 96 Modification ....................................................................................................... 65 Environmental Services Division Report No. 52 102 The Corso, Manly......................................................................................................... 70



Environmental Services Division Report No. 53 2 Sydney Road, Manly Section 96 Modification ....................................................................................................... 76 Environmental Services Division Report No. 54 Development Applications Currently Being Processed....................................................... 81 Environmental Services Division Report No. 55 Appeals List for September 2006........................................................................................ 91

CLOSED COMMITTEE ITEMS

***** END OF AGENDA *****



TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: General Managers Division Report No. 24 SUBJECT: Seaforth (Former) TAFE Site - Progress Update FILE NO:

SUMMARY • A Progress Report was submitted to Council at its Planning and Strategy Committee

Meeting on 14th August, 2006. • That report gave notice to Council that a meeting of the Community Reference Group was

to take place on 17th August, 2006 to consider the Report commissioned by Council from Gabrielle Morrish (GMU Design) in relation to Draft Urban Design Guidelines for the Seaforth site.

• The recommendations of the Community Reference Group are set out in the report

hereunder. REPORT At the Community Reference Group (CRG) meeting on 17th August, 2006, Gabrielle Morrish presented the Draft Urban Design Guidelines for the former Seaforth TAFE site and surrounds. It should be noted that similar arrangements have been made for Gabrielle Morrish to present her Draft Report to Council (on 4th September, 2006) and to respond to questions in relation thereto. Following the Gabrielle Morrish presentation to the CRG, representatives of Landcom and Allen Jack and Cottier Architects demonstrated how they had responded to these Draft Guidelines in terms of the building bulk, layout, landscaping, public space allocation, plus environmental issues such as solar access, etc. Following lengthy discussion and questioning of both Gabrielle Morrish, Landcom and the Architects, the CRG adopted a series of recommendations as under:-

"1. That the Community Reference Group endorses the Draft Urban Design Guidelines prepared by Gabrielle Morrish for the purpose of exhibiting to the broader community as part of the more formalised process of adopting guidelines for the former Seaforth TAFE Site and the immediate surroundings.

2. That Landcom be requested to further investigate the possibility of additional

parking being provided as part of the project and that this parking preferably be underground, possibly within the adjoining road reserves.

3. That Council commission a Financial Report on the Economic Analysis of the

development potential of the site and the associated cost to confirm the submissions made by Landcom in this regard.

4. That in reporting the matter to Council in support of the exhibition of the guidelines

for the site, that the feedback from the Community Reference Group be incorporated in a Matrix form."

In response to these recommendations from the CRG, the following comments are made. Comments

LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 4 SEPTEMBER 2006 General Managers Division Report No. 24 (Cont’d)


1. The Urban Design Guidelines prepared by Gabrielle Morrish are in draft form and in order that they be given some formal status, the process would require that the Draft Guidelines be placed on public exhibition and that after a period of 28 days, Council consider those responses, and if deemed appropriate, to modify the Guidelines accordingly thereafter.

A further process would ensue where Council's Codes would be modified and/or a rezoning

application would be progressed. This would require another formal approval process involving both Council and the Department of Planning.

The two significant issues that were raised by the CRG were in relation to height and

parking issues. It should be noted that Part 1 of the Recommendation is intended to get a response from the community in relation to the proposed Draft Guidelines and that Part 2 of the Recommendation addresses the issue of parking.

2. Landcom has been put on notice that it is required to further investigate the possibilities for

additional parking and this process has commenced. 3. In relation to the Financial Report and Economic Analysis, Council staff met with Landcom

and a representative of the firm which was used to guide the Economic Analysis of the site. It may be necessary and appropriate that when the report is brought back to Council following exhibition of the Urban Design Guidelines that a more detailed report on the Economic Analysis be provided at that time.

A matrix which gives Council some guidance on the attitude of individual members of the CRG to the proposed Guidelines is attached for the information of Councillors. RECOMMENDATION A. That Council endorse Recommendations 1 to 3 of the Community Reference Group

Meeting of 17th August, 2006, as follows:-

1. That the Draft Urban Design Guidelines prepared by Gabrielle Morrish be endorsed for the purpose of exhibiting to the broader community as part of the more formalised process of adopting guidelines for the former Seaforth TAFE Site and the immediate surroundings.

2. That Landcom be requested to further investigate the possibility of additional parking

being provided as part of the project and that this parking preferably be underground, possibly within the adjoining road reserves.

3. That Council commission a Financial Report on the Economic Analysis of the

development potential of the site and the associated cost to confirm the submissions made by Landcom in this regard.

B. That Council resolve to exhibit the Draft Urban Design Guidelines prepared by Gabrielle

Morrish (GMU Design) for a period of 28 days. C. That a further report be presented to Council following the exhibition, including further

reports in relation to points A2 and A3 of the recommendation above. ATTACHMENTS AT- 1

Seaforth TAFE Site - Summary of Responses to Questionnaire by Community Reference Group Members

2 Pages

LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 4 SEPTEMBER 2006 General Managers Division Report No. 24 (Cont’d)


LUM040906GMO_1.doc

***** End of General Managers Division Report No. 24 *****

ATTACHMENT 1 General Managers Division Report No. 24 - Seaforth (Former) TAFE Site - Progress Update Seaforth TAFE Site - Summary of Responses to Questionnaire by Community Reference Group Members




TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 46 SUBJECT: 36 Gurney Crescent, Seaforth FILE NO: DA458/04

Application Lodged: 3 March 2006 Applicant/Owner: A & N Kirzner Estimated Cost: $700,000 Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 - Residential Within

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Surrounding Development: Two and three storey dwellings Heritage: Not applicable SUMMARY:

1. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO.458/04 FOR ERECTION OF A THREE STOREY DWELLING AND SWIMMING POOL WAS RECEIVED BY COUNCIL 15 SEPTEMBER 2004.

2. THE APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO NEARBY AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WITH ONE SUBMISSION RECEIVED.

3. THE APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT ON 8 DECEMBER 2004 AND APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

4. THE PRINCIPAL CERTIFYING AUTHORITY HAS SINCE SERVED A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING REMOVAL OF UNAUTHORISED WORKS.

5. COUNCIL IS NOW IN RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 TO MODIFY THE CONSENT.

6. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO NEARBY AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WITH NO SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE.

7. THE APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT ON 8 AUGUST 2006 WHERE IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL.

8. THE APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL’S LAND USE MANAGEMENT MEEETING AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILLOR MACDONALD.

9. A SITE INSPECTION IS RECOMMENDED. 10. THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL.

LOCALITY PLAN Shaded area is subject land.

LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 4 SEPTEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 46 (Cont’d)


REPORT Introduction The subject site is known as 36 Gurney Crescent, Seaforth and is located on the western side of Gurney Crescent, approximately 40m south of its intersection with Clavering St, Seaforth. The site is irregular in shape and has two frontages to Gurney Street, one at the higher level at RL 47.45, and then the road makes a sharp U bend to meet the other frontage at the lower level at RL 48.38 It has an area of 937.54m2. The site is approximately 42m deep and 24m wide. The site has a significant level difference of about 22m between the eastern (high side) and western (low side) side of Gurney Crescent. The site contains a new three storey dwelling house that is currently under construction and nearing completion. The locality is predominantly residential with dwelling houses on sloping sites in between dense vegetation. On 15 September 2004, Council received Development Application No.458/04 for the erection of new three storey dwelling house and swimming pool on the subject site. Following some minor changes to the proposal to reduce the floor space and delete the roof terrace, Council consented to the development application on 15 December 2004. A Construction Certificate was issued on 23 March 2005 by Building Certificates NSW Pty Ltd on 23 March 2005. On 25 January 2006 the Principal Certifying Authority appointed by the owner (Building Certificates NSW Pty Ltd) issued the owner with a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order. Generally the Notice required the following measures to remove unauthorised building work:

1. Remove windows on southern and eastern walls at the lower ground floor. 2. Remove storage rooms at the lower ground floor 3. Relocate bar area at lower ground floor to comply with consent 4. Relocate living and family room walls at ground floor to comply with consent.

In response to the above notice, the applicant lodged a Section 96 application on 10 February 2006 to modify the consent. Following a view of the Notice of Intention and further investigation of the matter Council’s Compliance officers issued a fresh Notice of Intention to Issue an Order with the following terms;

“1. You are required to vacate the premises until such time as the PCA has issued an “interim” occupation certificate or the final occupation certificate.

2. You are required to provide evidence from a Chartered Professional Engineer that the completion of drainage works as executed by drawings of the on site stormwater detention system.

3. You are required to provide evidence of an agreement with a landscape gardener that for a period of 12 months from the time the plantings have been completed landscaping will be maintained.”

This report will address the changes sought in this Section 96 application.



Development Control Plan Numerical Assessment The following is an assessment of the proposal’s compliance with the numerical standards of the D.C.P. Where a variation is proposed to the standards an assessment is included in the Planning Comments. Permitted/

Required Proposed Complies

Yes/No Floor space ratio 0.4:1 0.59:1 No Wall height N side 8.0m 10.2m No S side 8.0m 9.2m No Roof height 3.0m 1.0m Yes

(parapet) Setback Front Consistent with

streetscape 1.8m – 3.3m Yes

Setback Rear 8.0m 21.0m Yes N setback side 3.4m 2.0m No S setback side 3.0m 2.0m No Pools Side 5.0m 2.0m No Open space - total 70% 76% Yes Open space - total 656sqm 712sqm Yes Open space - soft 50% 64% Yes Number of Endemic Trees 4 4 Yes Private Open Space 18sqm 110sqm Yes Car Parking – Residents 2 2 Yes Shadow - adjacent open space

- adjoining NS orientation - exist north facing roofs

Max 1/3rd existing n/a (vacant) n/a (vacant)

<1/3rd Yes

Applicant’s Supporting Statement The applicant submitted a letter in support of the modification application, a copy of which is attached to this report. Submissions The modification application was notified to nearby and adjoining property owners from 7 April 2006 to 21 April 2006. No formal submissions in response to the notification were received. Precinct Community Forum Comments The modification application was referred to the Seaforth Precinct Community Forum with the following comment received;

“No objection, provided that the DA/LA conforms to the DCP and the BCA.” Building Comments No objections on BCA grounds.



Planning Comments All but one of the proposed modifications seek to address those matters covered by the Notice of Intention to issue an Order issued by the Principal Certifying Authority – Building Certificates NSW Pty Ltd as described above. The other matter sought in this application that is not covered by the Notice is the proposed addition of an external staircase (“light metal service steps”) from the uppermost balcony to the roof. All the changes sought, apart from the stairs, relate to works in the lower ground floor. The owner/applicant has excavated more into the site to add three more rooms (two shown on the modification plans as store rooms, the other not nominated for any use. The approved terrace and recreation area adjacent to the swimming pool has been enclosed to add a further two rooms (one shown as recreation area, the other not nominated for any use). The proposed bar area has been reconfigured to open into the approved lounge area. The unauthorised works has effectively created potential for a separate three-bedroom occupancy in the original lounge and rumpus room area on the lower ground floor. The dwelling was approved with a FSR of 0.48:1 which was considered reasonable in the circumstances. The DCP permits a maximum 0.4:1. The proposed modification extends the FSR to 0.59:1 which represents a significant departure from the DCP numeric requirements. The changes being additional enclosure and additional glazed surface are considered to add to the bulk and scale of the dwelling. The site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and as such Clause 17 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 requires Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the visual amenity of the area. The proposal by the provision of glazing to further enclose the approved under croft comprising terrace and recreational areas will result in additional visual bulk when viewed from the west and from the Middle Harbour and as such is not considered acceptable. The site has a steep fall from front to rear leaving little opportunity for external or open recreation area for the occupants of the dwelling. The enclosure of the recreation area at lower ground floor level further restricts useable recreation space for the occupants. The new window on the eastern elevation is to one of the unauthorised rooms. This window faces a cliff and is not visible from any public space. The new window on the southern elevation is to the second unauthorised room and is not clearly visible as it is slightly below the ground level and does not have any privacy impact on the adjoining vacant property or the public domain. The approved bar area at lower ground floor level has been enlarged and the previously approved sink, stove, dishwasher and fridge reconfigured. The additional rooms and reconfigured layout results in that part of the dwelling being designed for separate occupation with lounge room, three separate rooms, kitchen facilities and combined bathroom and laundry. It is noted that a laundry is also located at ground floor level. The site is in Density Subzone 7. The minimum subdivision size for a dwelling house in this zone is 1150m2. The area of the site is 937m2, and the site area is too small to accommodate a second dwelling in this density subzone. It is considered that as well as potential impacts from the use of the building for two occupancies, the changes sought will have additional impact on the bulk and scale of the development as viewed from the west. Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 permits Council to consider modification applications only where it is satisfied that the modification will result in substantially the same development as that previously consented to. In this regard the application is unacceptable as the modifications are change the nature of the building and its use and as such cannot be considered to be substantially the same development as that currently approved.



It is considered that the stairs to the roof as proposed should be refused in view of the history of the site. It was originally proposed to have a roof garden, but this was subsequently deleted by the applicant following concerns from Council and adjoining owners. There is no real need to provide stairs to the roof. Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 Clause 10 Objectives The following comments are made in regard to the objectives for the Residential Zone as stated in the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988; (a) to set aside land to be used for purposes of housing and associated facilities; The land is to be used for residential purposes and therefore complies with this objective. (b) to delineate, by means of development control in the supporting material, the nature and

intended future of the residential areas within the Municipality; The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant control plan and is not considered acceptable. (c) to allow a variety of housing types while maintaining the existing character of residential

areas throughout the Manly Council area; The proposal will provide variety to the existing housing stock in the area however it is not consistent with the built character of the area due to excessive bulk and scale. (d) to ensure that building form, including alterations and additions, does not degrade the

amenity of surrounding residents or the existing quality of the environment; Proposal will result in negative impacts on the amenity of surrounding residents and the quality of the environment . (e) to improve the quality of the residential areas by encouraging landscaping and permitting

greater flexibility of design in both new development and renovations; The proposed modification will not effect the existing approved landscape design for the site. (f) to allow development for purposes other than housing within the zone only if it is compatible

with the character and amenity of the locality; n/a (g) to ensure full and efficient use of existing social and physical infrastructure and the future

provisions of service and facilities to meet any increased demand; The design would allow for potential use of the building as two separate occupancies which would place additional demand on infrastructure and facilities. (h) to encourage the revitalisation of residential areas by rehabilitation and suitable

redevelopment. The proposal is not considered to be suitable development for the area. (i) to encourage the provision and retention of tourist accommodation that enhances the role of

Manly as an international tourist destination, and particularly in relation to the land to which Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 (Amendment No 57) applies.

n/a



EP&AA 1979 – section 79(C) (a) the provisions of:

(i) any environmental planning instrument (ii) any draft environmental planning instrument (iii) any development control plan (iv) the regulations

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant instruments and control plan and is not considered acceptable.

(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the

natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality The proposal is likely to result in negative impacts on the built and natural environments.

(c) the suitability of the site for the development, The proposal due to excessive visual bulk and scale is not considered to be suitable development for the site

(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, No submissions relating to planning matters have been received. (e) the public interest. Proposal is considered to be contrary to the public interest.

CONCLUSION:

The proposal has been considered pursuant to Section 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 and the Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001. It is recommended that the Section 96 application be refused.



RECOMMENDATION A. That the application to modify Development Consent No.458/04 for Erection of a Dwelling and Swimming Pool at 36 Gurney Crescent, Seaforth be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposal fails to comply with the numeric requirements and aims and objectives of

Council’s Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone in terms of floor space ratio, and presents excessive visual bulk and scale, having regard to Section 79C (1)(a)(iii), (b), (c), and (d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. The proposal does not represent substantially the same development as that currently

approved and therefore cannot be considered pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3. The proposed modifications enable the building to be used as two separate dwellings contrary

to the original consent and the density provisions of Council’s Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone, having regard to Section 79C (1)(a)(iii), (b) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

4. The proposed stair access to the roof will result in excessive impacts in terms of privacy of

adjoining residential land and will contribute to excessive visual bulk and scale of the building having an adverse effect on the visual quality of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, having regard to Section 79C (1)(a)(iii), (b), (c) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

B. That Council pursue action to have unauthorised walls and enclosures of the lower ground floor removed and have the dwelling completed in accordance with the approved plans. ATTACHMENTS AT- 1 Applicants Supporting Statement - A&N Kirzner 1 Page

LUM040906ESD_6.doc

***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 46 *****

ATTACHMENT 1 Environmental Services Division Report No. 46 - 36 Gurney Crescent, Seaforth Applicants Supporting Statement - A&N Kirzner




TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 47 SUBJECT: 22 Seaforth Crescent, Seaforth��Section 96 Modification FILE NO: DA244/04

Application Lodged: 18 April 2006 Applicant: L Josevski Owner: S & K Gjakovski Estimated Cost: $450,000 Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 - Residential Within

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Surrounding Development: Two Storey Detached Dwellings. Heritage: Not Applicable SUMMARY:

1. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 244/04 FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECTION OF A NEW TWO STOREY DWELLING WAS REFUSED BY COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT ON 22 JULY 2004.

2. COUNCIL RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 82A OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT ON 13 AUGUST 2004.

3. THE REVIEW APPLICATION WAS APPROVED ON 9 FEBRUARY 2005. 4. A SECTION 96 MODIFICATION APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE DESCRIPTION OF

THE DEVELOPMENT TO ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS, CHANGE BATHROOM WINDOWS, CHANGE IMPERVIOUS AREA AND DELETE REQUIREMENT FOR ON SITE DETENTION OF STORMWATER WAS LODGED 25 AUGUST 2005 AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT ON 29 NOVEMBER 2005.

5. FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATIONS FROM A NEARBY PROPERTY OWNER, COUNCILS COMPLIANCE OFFICERS ISSUED AN ORDER TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE WORKS BY REDUCING THE HEIGHT OF THE RIDGE LEVEL TO THAT SHOWN IN THE APPROVED PLANS.

6. ON 18 MAY 2006 COUNCIL RECEIVED THE CURRENT SECTION 96 MODIFICATION APPLICATION REQUESTING AMENDMENT TO RIDGE HEIGHTS, CONVERSION OF ARBITORY RL’S TO AHD LEVELS AND REMOVAL OF CONDITION 14 WHICH REQUIRES WORKS TO BE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH REDUCED LEVELS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLANS WITH CERTIFICATION OF SUCH BEING SUBMITTED TO THE PRINCIPAL CERTIFYING AUTHORITY DURING CONSTRUCTION.

7. THE CURRENT SECTION 96 MODIFCATION APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO NEARBY AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WITH TWO SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED.

8. THE CURRENT SECTION 96 MODIFICATION APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT ON 15 AUGUST 2006 WHERE THE APPLICATION WAS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL.

9. THE APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL’S LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILLOR MORRISON.

10. A SITE INSPECTION IS RECOMMENDED. 11. THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL.



LOCALITY PLAN Shaded area is subject site.

REPORT Introduction The subject site is located on the northern (high) side of Seaforth Crescent. The allotment is generally rectangular in configuration having a north/south orientation with open southern aspect (over existing dwellings on the opposite side of the road) to Middle Harbour. The site is 698sqm in area. The land is now developed with a two storey dwelling with detached double garage in the front yard and swimming pool in the rear yard. On 05/05/04, Council received Development Application DA 244/04 for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey dwelling house with basement car parking on the subject site. There were three objections to the proposal. Council refused the application on 22/07/04. On 13/08/04, Council received a Section 82A application for a review of the determination. The proposal was changed to alterations and additions to dwelling house with a reduced floor area and other minor changes. There were three objections to the proposal. Council finally consented to the development application on 09/02/05. As there were concerns with the impact of the additions on the rear properties in Edgecliffe Esplanade, Council specifically incorporated Condition 14 to the original consent to require all works to be strictly in accordance with the levels shown in the approved plans, with certification from the PCA during construction from a registered surveyor certifying ground and finished ridge levels. A Construction Certificate was issued for the alterations and additions by Greenfield Accredited Certifier on 20/05/05 Consultants on 2 June, 2005. On 25/08/05, Council received a Section 96 application for some changes to the proposal including addition of a family room by enclosing an outdoor area on the north-eastern side of the dwelling. The plans in the Section 96 application also showed a proposed ridge height that is higher than the approved development. This increase in the height of the dwelling that was in the plans did not form part of the application. On 29/11/05 Council consented to part of the modifications, but refused the additional floor area proposed by the enclosure. In the letter of consent, Council advised that the consent does not permit the raising of the height of the ridge of the building as shown on the drawings lodged with the Section 96 plans, and further advised that the height of the extensions must be in accordance with the approved development.



Following receipt of complaint from a nearby property owner Council Compliance Officers raised concerns with the private certifier. On 15/01/06, Council received advice from the private certifier that the height of the additions exceed the approved level of RL 51.48 and subsequently issued a Notice to Intention to serve an Order. On 28/03/06, Council served an Order (Order No 38/06) to reduce the height of the ridge level down from RL51.80 to 51.54 within 30 days. In response to the above, the applicant lodged a Section 96 application on 18/04/06 to modify the consent to allow the retention of the ridge as constructed. This Section 96 application was on notification from 02/05/06 to 16/05/06. Two objections were received. This report will address the changes sought in this Section 96 application. Development Control Plan Numerical Assessment The following is an assessment of the proposal’s compliance with the numerical standards of the D.C.P. Where a variation is proposed to the standards an assessment is included in the Planning Comments. Permitted/


Yes/No Floor space ratio 0.4:1 0.42:1 No Floor space ratio - existing n/a Wall height East side 6.8m 5.1m Yes West side 6.7m 5.1m Yes Roof height 3.0m 2.3m Yes Setback Front 6.0m 9.4m Yes Setback Rear 8.0m 13.0m Yes East setback side 2.4m 1.6m No West setback side 2.4m 2.4m Yes Setback - pool n/a -

existing Open space - total 55% 75% Yes Open space - total 383sqm 523sqm Yes Open space - soft 35% 38% Yes Number of Endemic Trees 3 3 Yes Private Open Space 18sqm 255sqm Yes Car Parking – Residents 2 2 Yes Shadow - adjacent open space


Max 1/3rd of existing 4hrs to windows living rooms. Min 10sqm solar access.

>1/3rd >4hrs >10sqm

Yes Yes yes

Applicant’s Supporting Statement The applicant submitted a detailed Planning Report including Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Mudge Property Services. The submission includes copies of letters of support for the application by owners of Nos. 20 and 24 Seaforth Crescent. A copy of the applicants submission is attached to this report.



Submissions The application was notified to adjoining and nearby property owners in accordance with Council Policy resulting in two submissions received from J C Branch on behalf of Mr & Mrs A P Cramley of 41 Edgecliff Esplanade, and Dr B Williamson and Mrs A Reay of 43 Edgecliff Esplanade raising the following concerns;

• Extensions completed with complete disregard of conditions of consent. • Excess height is not an error. • Loss of outlook/view • New roof section intrusive • Building completed is not in accordance with conditions of consent • Detrimental impact on amenity and property values

Precinct Community Forum Comments No comments received at time of writing this report. Building Comments: No objections, subject to standard conditions of consent.

Planning Comments The site is located on the northern corner of Seaforth Crescent, about 50m east of its intersection with Edgecliffe Esplanade. The locality is residential in character and the rear of the site adjoins the rear yards of the properties on Edgecliffe Esplanade. The applicant has submitted amended levels relating to the correct AHD for the existing ground floor level in the plans for this Section 96 application. As well as correcting the error in ground floor level, the plans show increases in height at various levels which depicts works as built. In summary, the levels of the extensions as built are: 1. The main (lower) roof exceeds the approved level by 660mm. 2. The level of the central (higher) roof exceeds the approved level by 780mm. The table below shows the difference in the floor levels between the approved development /Construction Certificate drawings and the building as constructed. Approved DA and CC As Built Height from top of main roof to top of ridge 1.23m 1.35m (+120mm) Height from first floor to top of main roof 3.44m 3.72m (+280mm) Height from ground floor to first floor 2.66m 3.04m (+380mm)

The above table shows that the level between the ground and first floor has been increased by 380mm, and the level between the first floor and the main roof has been increased by 280mm. The height between the main roof level and the topmost part of the sloping roof located in the centre of the dwelling has been increased by 120mm. It is noted that the Order to reduce the roof height requires a reduction from RL 51.80 to the approved height of RL 51.48 ( a reduction of 320mm). The figure RL 51.80 is that shown on the previous Modification plans and is incorrect, with the roof as built being RL 52.26 To achieve a finished RL of 51.48 it will be necessary to reduce the roof by 780mm from as built RL52.26.



Concerns in relation to view loss from owners of properties adjoining to the rear are considered valid, in particular the intrusion of the uppermost skylight projection into views of Middle harbour and the associated foreshore. The first floor addition as approved already impacted on the views of the rear properties on Edgecliff Esplanade, particularly the building to the immediate north of the subject site at No 43 Edgecliff Esplanade. Council specifically incorporated Condition 14 to the original consent to require all works to be strictly in accordance with the approved plans, with certification from the PCA during construction from a registered surveyor certifying ground and finished ridge levels. It is not reasonable for the rear properties to suffer further loss of views as a result of the unauthorised works. In view of the above, it is recommended that Council pursue action to have the overall height of the building reduced to the height shown in the approved plans. If Council were to pursue compliance with floor levels as shown on the consent plans, the owner will have to demolish at least to the ground floor level to fully comply. However it is possible to reduce the overall height of the building by lowering the roof components accordingly. Manly Local Environmental Plan Clause 10 Objectives The following comments are made in relation to the objectives for the Residential Zone as stated in Clause 10 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan. (a) to set aside land to be used for purposes of housing and associated facilities; The land is used for residential purposes and therefore complies with this objective. (b) to delineate, by means of development control in the supporting material, the nature and

intended future of the residential areas within the Municipality; The proposal has been assess having regard to the relevant control plan and is considered unacceptable in terms of its impacts on adjoining land. (c) to allow a variety of housing types while maintaining the existing character of residential

areas throughout the Manly Council area; The existing residential character of the area will not be impacted by this application. (d) to ensure that building form, including alterations and additions, does not degrade the

amenity of surrounding residents or the existing quality of the environment; Proposal will degrade the amenity of surrounding residents and the existing quality of the environment. The additional height, bulk and scale of the dwelling as a result of the non-conforming additions will have an unreasonable impact on the streetscape and in particular on the views enjoyed by the rear properties on Edgecliffe Esplanade, particularly the building to the immediate north of the subject site at No 43 Edgecliffe Esplanade. (e) to improve the quality of the residential areas by encouraging landscaping and permitting

greater flexibility of design in both new development and renovations; The quality of the residential area will be degraded by this proposal. (f) to allow development for purposes other than housing within the zone only if it is compatible with the character and amenity of the locality; n/a (g) to ensure full and efficient use of existing social and physical infrastructure and the future

provisions of service and facilities to meet any increased demand; The occupants of the dwelling will continue to utilise existing social and physical infrastructure. There will be no identifiable increase in demand on infrastructure or services.



(h) to encourage the revitalisation of residential areas by rehabilitation and suitable

redevelopment. The proposal due to its unacceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties is not considered to be suitable redevelopment. (i) to encourage the provision and retention of tourist accommodation that enhances the role

of Manly as an international tourist destination, and particularly in relation to the land to which Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 (Amendment No 57) applies.

n/a Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 The following comments are made in respect of the relevant considerations listed in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(a) the provisions of:


The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant Instruments and Controls and is not considered satisfactory under the provisions of the Manly Local Environmental Plan and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone (Amendment 1) (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the

natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality The proposal will have a detrimental impact on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality (c) the suitability of the site for the development, The site is in a residential zone and therefore a dwelling house is a suitable development. However, the unauthorised increase to the approved building height of the building is not an appropriate development.

(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, Three submissions were received in response to the notification of the application. The submissions are considered valid in terms of amenity impacts. (e) the public interest. Proposal is contrary to the public interest. CONCLUSION: The proposal has been considered pursuant to Section 79C and Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988, and the Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001 and is considered to be unsatisfactory.



RECOMMENDATION That the application to modify Development Consent No. 244/04 for Alterations and Additions to the Dwelling at No. 22 Seaforth Crescent Seaforth be refused for the following reasons; 1. The height of the building results in excessive amenity impacts in terms of view loss from

adjoining and nearby properties, having regard to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. The proposal is contrary to the view sharing provisions as stated in Clause 3.8 of Council’s

Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone (Amendment 1), having regard to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3. The proposal is contrary to the public interest in that it will set an undesirable precedent for

future development in the area, having regard to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

4. The proposal has not satisfactorily addressed the submissions received, having regard to

Section 79C (1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. ATTACHMENTS AT- 1 Applicants Supporting Statement - Mudge Property Services 12 Pages

LUM040906ESD_1.doc


ATTACHMENT 1 Environmental Services Division Report No. 47 - 22 Seaforth Crescent, Seaforth �Section 96 Modification Applicants Supporting Statement - Mudge Property Services




TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 48 SUBJECT: 26 Ethel Street, Balgowlah FILE NO: DA121/05

Application Lodged: 10 April 2006 Applicant/Owner: H S Brigden Estimated Cost: $350,000 Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 - Residential Surrounding Development: One and two storey dwellings Heritage: Not applicable SUMMARY:

1. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO.121/05 FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING DWELLING INCLUDING A NEW FIRST FLOOR LEVEL WAS RECEIVED BY COUNCIL 1 MARCH 2005.

2. THE APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO NEARBY AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WITH ONE SUBMISSION RECEIVED.

3. THE APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT ON 21 JULY 2005 AND APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

4. COUNCIL IS NOW IN RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 TO MODIFY THE CONSENT BY DELETION OF CONDITION NO.5.

5. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO ADJOINING AND NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS WITH NO SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED.

6. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION WAS REPORTED TO COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING OF 15 AUGUST 2006 WHERE IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL.

7. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL’S LAND USE MANAGEMENT MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILLOR MACDONALD.

8. A SITE INSPECTION IS RECOMMENDED. 9. REFUSAL OF THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED.




REPORT Introduction The subject site is located on the northern side of Ethel Street one allotment to the east of the intersection of Whittle Avenue and Ethel Street. The site is rectangular in configuration, having a north/south orientation and a site area of 483sqm. The land is currently developed with a single storey dwelling with detached double garage in the rear yard. On 27/07/05 Council approved Development Application No.121/05 for alterations and additions to dwelling house, including a first floor addition and new swimming pool in the rear yard. The application was approved subject to conditions including Condition 5 which states:

“ 5. The east setback at first floor level is to be a minimum of 1.5m from the boundary, with

eave/gutter overhang of a maximum of 0.45m. The floor plans are to be amended accordingly. Amended plans are to be submitted to Council/Accredited Certifier prior to issue of Construction certificate.”

Council is now in receipt of an application under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify the consent by deleting Condition 5. Development Control Plan Numerical Assessment The following is an assessment of the proposal’s compliance with the numerical standards of the D.C.P. Where a variation is proposed to the standards an assessment is included in the Planning Comments. Permitted/


Yes/No Floor space ratio 0.5:1 0.5:1 Yes Floor space ratio - existing 0.3:1 Yes Wall height E side 6.5m 5.1m Yes W side 6.8m 6.0m Yes Roof height 3.0m 2.6m Yes Fence height 1.5m 1.7m Yes Setback Front 6.0m 6.2m Yes Setback Rear 8.0m 14m Yes E setback side 1.7m 0.9m No W setback side 2.0m 2.18m Yes Pools Side concourse Side water

1.0m 1.5m

0.6m 1.5m

No Yes

Open space - total 55% 56% Yes Open space - total 265sqm 271sqm Yes Open space - soft 35% 51% Yes Number of Endemic Trees 3 3 Yes Private Open Space 18sqm 187sqm Yes Car Parking – Residents 2 2 Yes Shadow -adjacent open space

adjoining NS orientation exist north facing roofs

Max 1/3rd existing Min 4hrs living rooms Min 10sqm

<1/3rd <4hrs >10sqm

Yes Yes Yes

Applicant’s Supporting Statement The applicant submitted a statement of modification in support of the application, a copy of which is attached to this report.



Submissions The modification application was notified to nearby and adjoining property owners in accordance with Council Policy with no submissions received. Precinct Community Forum Comments The Committee advised that the setback control in the DCP will be breached if this application is approved. The Committee noted that “the existing setback is 900mm, and the meeting felt that requiring a 1500mm setback on the top floor was not reasonable in this case, especially as the neighbour has no objection”. The Precinct advised therefore that it has no comment on this application. Building Comments No objection subject to wall and eave/roof construction complying with the construction requirements of the Building Code of Australia. Planning Comments

The current Section 96 application was lodged on 11/04/06 seeking the deletion of condition 5. The setback from the eastern boundary sought in this Section 96 application is for that submitted in the original development application. In support of this application, the applicant has provided a detailed written statement supporting the proposal to vary the east side setback from 1.5m to 0.9m. It is noted that the minimum setback permitted under Section 3.5.2 (ii) of Council’s Development Control Plan for a wall of this height is 1.7m. The applicant advised that the proposal as originally submitted would have the following implications:

1. No impact on privacy 2. No objections from neighbours. 3. No additional overshadowing 4. Improve economic efficiency 5. Improve internal amenity of dwelling and ability to comply with BCA. 6. Improved architectural appearance, balance, scale and composition. 7. Improved aesthetic impact, particularly to streetscape 8. Compatibility with existing precedents in the street.

The following comments are made in response to the applicants submission;

1. It is agreed that there is no impact on privacy.

2. As previously stated there are no formal submissions from neighbours in relation to the current modification application.

3. Consideration of the shadow diagrams provided shows that the proposed variation to the east side setback would make no difference to the extent of overshadowing to the adjoining property to the east No 24 Ethel Street. This is a result of the roof configuration which presents a high skillion over the western portion of the roof which, at the 3.00pm period casts a shadow beyond that of the eastern portion of the proposed roof.

4. Economic efficiency is not a necessary consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Internal amenity for future occupants and BCA compliance can be achieved by rearrangement of the internal floor plan.



6. The required setback will introduce a step in the eastern façade. Issues of architectural appearance are subjective and when weighed against concerns of building bulk in close proximity to side the boundary the applicants argument cannot be sustained.

7. As per 6 above.

8. It is noted that one of the precedents cited is a Land and Environment Court approval and the second is for a development of significantly less area. Both examples illustrate the adverse impact resulting from this type of development.

It is considered that there is already little separation between the two dwellings at No 24 and 26 Ethel Street. The proposed first floor addition being so close to the eastern boundary with the eave and gutter being approximately 100mm from the boundary at a height of 5.1m will create an overbearing impact on No 24 and will have a detrimental impact on the streetscape. The proposal will not comply with the objectives in regard to setback as stated in Clause 3.5 of the Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone in that it does not enhance the streetscape and does not provide equitable access to light and sunshine. Therefore it is considered that Condition No 5 is reasonable and necessary and should not be deleted.

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 permits Council to consider modification applications only where it is satisfied that the modification will result in substantially the same development as that previously consented to. In this regard the application is acceptable as the modifications are minor and will result in substantially the same development as that currently approved. Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 Clause 10 Objectives The following are comments in regard to the objectives as stated in Clause 10 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988. a) to set aside land to be used for the purposes of housing and associated facilities; The site is used for residential purposes and is consistent with this objective. b) to delineate, by means of development control in the supporting material, the nature and

intended future of the residential areas within the Municipality; The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant control plan and is considered unacceptable. c) to allow a variety of housing types while maintaining the existing character of residential

areas throughout the Manly Council area; The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the character of the residential area. d) to ensure that building form, including alterations and additions, does not degrade the

amenity of surrounding residents or the existing quality of the environment; The proposed modification will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area, the streetscape, and quality of the environment. e) to improve the quality of the residential areas by encouraging landscaping and permitting

greater flexibility of design in both new development and renovations; n/a. f) to allow development for purposes other than housing within the zone only if it is compatible

with the character and amenity of the locality n/a g) to ensure full and efficient use of existing social and physical infrastructure and the future

provisions of service and facilities to meet any increased demand; Occupants of the dwelling will continue to utilise existing social and physical infrastructure.



h) to encourage the revitalisation of residential areas by rehabilitation and suitable

redevelopment. The proposal is not considered to constitute suitable redevelopment. i) to encourage the provision and retention of tourist accommodation that enhances the role of

Manly as an international tourist destination, and particularly in relation to the land to which Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 (Amendment No 57) applies;

n/a EP&AA 1979 – section 79(c) (a) the provisions of:


The proposal has been assessed above in accordance with the Manly Local environmental Plan 1988 and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone (Amendment 1) applicable to the development. The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives and controls. (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural

and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality The impacts of the proposed development have been considered and found to result in a negative effect on the locality. (c) the suitability of the site for the development, The site is suitable for the proposed development with the setbacks as approved. (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy. There were no submissions received. (e) the public interest. The proposal is contrary to the public interest.

CONCLUSION: The application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone (Amendment 1) and is considered to be unsatisfactory.



RECOMMENDATION That the application to modify Development Consent No. 121/05 for Alterations and Additions to the Existing Dwelling at No.26 Ethel street Balgowlah be refused for the following reasons;

1. The proposal fails to comply with the numeric provisions and the objectives in respect of side boundary setbacks as stated in the Manly Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone (Amendment 1), having regard to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. The proposed additions in close proximity to the side boundary will result in adverse

impacts on the amenity of the adjoining property to the east, having regard to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3. The proposed additions in close proximity to the side boundary will result in excessive built

form and adverse impacts on the streetscape having regard to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii), (b) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

4. The proposal will set an undesirable precedent and will be contrary to the public interest,

having regard to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii), (b) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

ATTACHMENTS AT- 1 Applicants Support Statement - Harry Brigden 3 Pages

LUM040906ESD_5.doc


ATTACHMENT 1 Environmental Services Division Report No. 48 - 26 Ethel Street, Balgowlah Applicants Support Statement - Harry Brigden




TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 49 SUBJECT: 16 Cutler Road, Clontarf ��Section 96 Modification FILE NO: DA17/05

Application Lodged: 28 April 2006 Applicant: K R Nash & Associates Pty Ltd Owner: C & S Bowhill Estimated Cost: $150,000 Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 - Residential Within

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Surrounding Development: Two Storey Dwellings Heritage: Not Applicable SUMMARY:

1. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO.17/05 FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING DWELLING INCLUDING ADDITONS AT FIRST FLOOR LEVEL WAS RECEIVED BY COUNCIL 17 DECEMBER 2004.

2. THE APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO NEARBY AND ADJOINING OWNERS WITH TWO SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED.

3. THE APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT ON 26 APRIL 2005 AND APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

4. COUNCIL IS NOW IN RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 96 TO MODIFY THE CONSENT BY DELETING CONDITIION 2.

5. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO NEARBY AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WITH ONE SUBMISSION RECEIVED.

6. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED BY COUNCOIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT ON 15 AUGUST WHERE THE APPLICATION WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

7. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL’S LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILLOR MACDONALD.

8. A SITE INSPECTION IS RECOMMENDED. 9. APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED.




REPORT Introduction The subject site is located on the eastern (high) side of Cutler Road and is generally rectangular in configuration with a site area of 576.9sqm. The land has a moderate fall from the rear boundary toward the street and is currently developed with a two storey dwelling with garage under and swimming pool in the front yard. Development Application No.17/05 for alterations and additions including additions at first floor level was approved by Council’s Development Assessment Unit on 26 April 2005. Council is now in receipt of an application under Section 96 to modify the consent by deletion of Condition No.2. Condition no.2 states; “2. Deletion of the study from the first floor to reduce floor space ratio and bring the proposal

closer to compliance with the Development Control Plan. Plans being amended accordingly prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.”

Development Control Plan Numerical Assessment The following is an assessment of the proposal’s compliance with the numerical standards of the D.C.P. Where a variation is proposed to the standards an assessment is included in the Planning Comments. Permitted/


Yes/No Floor space ratio 0.4:1 0.53:1 No Wall height N side 8.0m 7.5m Yes S side 8.0m 5.5m Yes Roof height 3.0m 0.75m Yes Setback Front 6.0m 9.0m Yes Setback Rear 8.0m 8.0m Yes North setback side 2.5m 1.0m ground floor

2.8m first floor

No (existing) Yes

South setback side 1.83m 1.0m – 1.6m No (existing)

Open space - total 70% 81% Yes Open space - total 403sqm 467sqm Yes Open space - soft 50% 58% Yes Number of Endemic Trees 3 3 Yes Private Open Space 18sqm 168sqm Yes Car Parking – Residents 2 2 Yes Shadow - adjacent open space

- adjoining EW orientation - exist north facing roofs

Max 1/3rd existing Min 2hrs to living room windows Min 10sqm

<1/3rd >2hrs >10sqm

Yes Yes Yes

Applicant’s Supporting Statement The applicant has submitted a detailed Statement of Modification by Town Planning consultants K R Nash & Associates Pty Ltd in support of the application. The consultants have also submitted a response to neighbour objection, copies of these submissions are attached to this report.



Submissions The Modification application was notified to nearby and adjoining owners with one (1) submission received from Mr S Panetta of 18 Cutler Road, Clontarf raising the following concerns;

• Privacy – all north facing windows overlook our backyard and recreational pool area. • The balcony at the front of the house does not comply as no privacy screening has been

installed and still overlooks into our main bedroom. • Owners have continually ignored Council Orders to reinstate screening.

Precinct Community Forum Comments No comments received at the time of writing this report. Building Comments No objection subject to original building conditions. Planning Comments The modification application seeks deletion of Condition No.2 of the Consent issued b y Council on 5 May 2005. Condition no.2 states; “2. Deletion of the study from the first floor to reduce floor space ratio and bring the proposal

closer to compliance with the Development Control Plan. Plans being amended accordingly prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.”

The maximum permitted Floor Space ratio for the site is 0.4:1. The existing dwelling has a FSR of 0.39:1. The original application proposed additions which would result in a FSR of 0.53:1. The condition to delete the proposed study would reduce the proposed FSR to 0.51:1. The applicant has submitted a detailed statement from K R Nash and Associates in support of the proposed modification. The submission draws attention to the area of the site which is approximately 50% less than the minimum required in the DCP (taking into account the slope of the land which is greater than 1 in 4 ) 1150sqm. The applicant request consideration under Clause 3.3.2(b) of the DCP which allows Council to consider a variation under these circumstances. The DCP objectives in respect of FSR are commented on as follows; (a) to control the bulk of buildings. The building is located on the high side of Cutler Road and is positioned amongst substantial dwellings in a general landscaped setting. The adjoining properties to the rear are at a higher level and overlook the subject land. The proposed study area is located 2.6m from the north side boundary and will not have any significant visual impact as viewed from the adjoining property to the north. The study will not be visible from the adjoining property to the south. The proposal is consistent with this objective. (b) To ensure the scale of development does not obscure important landscape features. The study component is relatively small being 2.2m by 5.0m and as such will not obscure important landscape features. (c) To be consistent with the existing and desired character of the residential areas. The proposal will result in a development which is consistent with the character of the surrounding residential area.



(d) To minimise disruption to views, loss of privacy and loss of sunlight to existing residential development as well as the proposed development.

The proposal will have minimal impact on existing views from adjoining residential properties. As the study is located on the northern side of the site there will be no overshadowing issues arising. Adequate measures to minimise privacy impacts from the additional rooms have been included in the plans with fixed obscure glass to new windows where less than 1.6m above floor level. The proposed deck at first floor level will not result in any significant loss of privacy to the adjoining property. Privacy issues raised by the adjoining owner to the north relating to the existing ground floor level deck are discussed later in this report. (e) To provide sunlight access to private open spaces within the development and maintain

adequate sunlight access to private open spaces and habitable rooms of adjacent dwellings. This matter is discussed previously in this report. The proposal complies with this objective. Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 permits Council to consider modification applications only where it is satisfied that the modification will result in substantially the same development as that previously consented to. In this regard the application is acceptable as the modifications are minor and will result in substantially the same development as that currently approved. The site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and as such Clause 17 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 requires Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the visual amenity of the area. The proposal is considered acceptable in this regard. Concerns raised by the adjoining property owner to the north regarding removal of a privacy screen at the north end of the ground floor balcony are noted. A check of Council records shows DA178/95 approving the 3.6m wide ground floor deck showed a vertical louver privacy screen extending 1.8m along its northern end with the remaining portion glazed balustrade. Inspection shows the screen is not in place. Council’s Compliance officers wrote to the owners in April 2005 requesting the screen be installed as per the 1995 approved drawings. The owners of the subject property advised by email dated 10 May 2005 that since their ownership of the property (three years) there has been no privacy screen however a hedge had blown down and requested that they be permitted to look at the screen as part of the whole renovation project. Planning consultants for the applicant now state that the screen is not part of the Section 96 application and is therefore not a relevant consideration. The current approved plans show provision of a timber batten screen over the balustrade portion and over the existing roof support columns. This is a design/decorative treatment only and will not serve as an effective privacy screen. Having regard to the close proximity of the deck with the adjoining dwelling, it is considered that a privacy screen to a height of 1.65m to the full width of the north end of the deck is appropriate in the circumstances and that such a screen could be incorporated into the timber batten screening to the balustrade without unduly effecting the use or amenity of the deck for the occupants. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation in this regard. Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 Clause 10 Objectives The following comments are made in regard to the objectives for the Residential Zone as stated in Clause 10 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988; (a) to set aside land to be used for purposes of housing and associated facilities; The proposal meets this objective.



(b) to delineate, by means of development control in the supporting material, the nature and

intended future of the residential areas within the Municipality; The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant control plan and is considered acceptable. (c) to allow a variety of housing types while maintaining the existing character of residential

areas throughout the Manly Council area; The proposal will add variety to existing housing types and will maintain the overall residential character of the area. (d) to ensure that building form, including alterations and additions, does not degrade the

amenity of surrounding residents or the existing quality of the environment; The proposal subject to recommended conditions will have no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties. The quality of the environment will be maintained. (e) to improve the quality of the residential areas by encouraging landscaping and permitting

greater flexibility of design in both new development and renovations; The proposal will have no impact on the landscaped open space existing on site. (f) to allow development for purposes other than housing within the zone only if it is compatible

with the character and amenity of the locality; n/a (g) to ensure full and efficient use of existing social and physical infrastructure and the future

provisions of service and facilities to meet any increased demand; Occupants of the dwelling will continue to utilise existing social and physical infrastructure. (h) to encourage the revitalisation of residential areas by rehabilitation and suitable

redevelopment. The proposal is considered to be suitable development for the area. (i) to encourage the provision and retention of tourist accommodation that enhances the role

of Manly as an international tourist destination, and particularly in relation to the land to which Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 (Amendment No 57) applies.

n/a EP&AA 1979 – section 79(c) (a) the provisions of:


The application has been assessed having regard to the Manly LEP 1988 and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone (Amendment 1) and subject to recommended conditions is considered acceptable. (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the

natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality The proposal subject to recommended conditions is considered acceptable in terms of it’s impacts on the natural and built environments. There will be no identifiable effects on social or economic conditions. (c) the suitability of the site for the development, The site is zoned Residential and as such is suitable for the proposed development.



(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, The concerns raised in the submissions have been noted and privacy concerns in respect of the ground floor level deck are valid. In order to address these concerns appropriate conditions of consent are included in the recommendation. (e) the public interest. The proposal is not considered to be contrary to the public interest. CONCLUSION: The application has been considered having regard to section 79C and Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Residential zone (Amendment 1) and is considered satisfactory subject to conditions included in the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION That Development Consent No.17/05 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including first floor level extensions and alteration to roofline be modified with Condition 1 amended, Condition No. 2 deleted and the addition of new condition No.36 as follows;

1. This approval relates to drawings/plans Nos. DA01 – DA08 dated 11 August 2004 and received by Council 17 December 2004, except as amended by drawings/plans Nos. DA04B and DA07B dated 17 April 2006 and received by Council 28 April 2006.

2. Deleted

36. Provision of a 1.65m high privacy screen to the northern end of the ground floor deck, to

maintain visual privacy between the subject property and the adjoining property to the north, plans being suitably amended prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

ATTACHMENTS AT- 1 Applicants Supporting Statement - KR Nash & Associates 6 Pages AT- 2 Response to Submissions - KR Nash & Associates 2 Pages

LUM040906ESD_4.doc


ATTACHMENT 1 Environmental Services Division Report No. 49 - 16 Cutler Road, Clontarf �Section 96 Modification Applicants Supporting Statement - KR Nash & Associates


ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Services Division Report No. 49 - 16 Cutler Road, Clontarf �Section 96 Modification Response to Submissions - KR Nash & Associates




TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 50 SUBJECT: 48 Pacific Parade, Manly FILE NO: DA229/06

Application Lodged: 6 June 2006 Applicant: Manuel Talbert Owner: Tracey Talbert Estimated Cost: $250,000 Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 - Residential Surrounding Development: Residential Heritage: Yes stone kerbs and street trees in Pacific Street SUMMARY: 1. THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR ALTERATIONS AND FIRST-FLOOR ADDITIONS TO AN

EXISTING SEMI DETACHED DWELLING. 2. THE PROPOSAL WAS NOTIFIED TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOURS AND THE

PRECINCT, AND NO SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED. 3. THE PROPOSAL HAS NON-COMPLIANCES IN RELATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT

CONTROL PLAN. 4. THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM THE HERITAGE

COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL'S HERITAGE ADVISER. 5. THE APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

MEETING ON 22ND AUGUST 2006 WHERE IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL. 6. THE APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL'S LAND USE MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILLORS HAY AND MACDONALD. 7. A SITE INSPECTION IS RECOMMENDED. 8. REFUSAL OF THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED. LOCALITY PLA N Shaded area is subject land.

REPORT Introduction This is a proposal for alterations and first-floor additions to the existing semi detached dwelling. The existing dwelling is single storey and contains two bedrooms, lounge, kitchen laundry bathroom and dining room. The proposal is to demolish all of the internal and some external walls to the rear in order to reconfigure this ground floor to contain the living area, dining, kitchen, WC and laundry area with a new deck to the rear off the living area. The proposed first floor level



contains three bedrooms an en-suite dressing area, bathroom and a roof deck towards the Pacific Parade contained within the roof form. Development Control Plan Numerical Assessment The following is an assessment of the proposal’s compliance with the numerical standards of the D.C.P. Where a variation is proposed to the standards an assessment is included in the Planning Comments. Permitted/


Yes/No Floor space ratio 0.6 :1 0.78:1 No Floor space ratio - existing 0.6:1 0.4:1 Yes Wall height East side Common wall semi 6.3 Existing West side 6.7 6.3 Yes Roof height 3.0m 0 Yes Fence height 1.0 1.2 and 1.8 No Setback Front 5.2 5.2 Existing Setback Rear 8.0m 12m Yes E setback side n/a

(semi) W setback side 2.1 .989 , 1.759 No Wall on boundary height 3.0 6.3 No Wall on boundary length 12.8 23.2 No Open space - total 55% 60% No Open space - total 122.6 95.23 No Open space - soft 35% 68% Yes Private Open Space 18sqm 73sqm Yes Car Parking – Residents 2 0 No Shadow - adjacent open space


Max 1/3rd existing Min 4hrs living room windows Min 10sqm

1/3rd >4hrs >10sqm

Yes Yes Yes

Applicant’s Supporting Statement The applicant submitted a detailed statement of environmental effects, including a heritage assessment and this is available on file Submissions No submissions were received in relation to this application Precinct Community Forum Comments No comments were received from the precinct. Building Comments No objections to the proposed additions and alterations to a Class 1(a) dwelling subject to the inclusion of conditions in any consent. l Landscape Architects Comments No objection subject to conditions



Heritage Comments The existing single storey semi-detached building is situated on the northern side of Pacific Parade. Pacific Parade is a highly cohesive and aesthetic streetscape representative of substantially intact dwellings mainly dating from 1908 to the First World War. No 48 Pacific Parade is a substantially intact semi-detached Federation style bungalow of brick construction on a sandstone base. Facework on the front façades of the two cottages is red brick polychrome with face quality commons on the sides. The roof is formed by a rough cast rendered gable facing the side passages that extends over the verandahs. Small return hips are on either side of the verandahs. The verandah posts are decorated with Art Nouveau inspired timber brackets. The symmetry of the cottages is enhanced by the central gable that forms the entry to the two identical cottages. The proposal is for:

• demolition of the existing rear wing and internal demolition in the original section of the house • construction of a new two storey residential addition • construction of new internal alterations in the main portion of the house • repair and maintenance of the front and sides of the cottage exterior as required

Heritage Impact Assessment Demolition of the existing rear wing and internal demolition in the original section of the house Comment There are no objections to the proposed demolition of the rear extension of the dwelling and rear corner portion of the original dwelling. However it is considered that the external elements of the original dwelling such as the chimney and the side window be retained. The retention of the chimney between the two existing bedrooms has not been detailed on the plans. Chimneys are elements that contribute to the visual character of the area and the removal will have a detrimental impact on the architectural integrity of the pair of semi-detached cottages. To ensure the character of the building and the area is maintained it is recommended that the chimney is retained even in circumstances where it is no longer used. It is proposed to brick up the side ground floor window. It is recommended that the original southern side window should be blocked and feature a 100mm external reveal to retain evidence of the opening as well as manage the joint between new and existing fabric. The proposed demolition of all the internal walls without due consideration of the room layouts of the original cottage is not supported. Slight alterations to the proposed internal ground floor layout of the original cottage such as: retaining the existing passage wall as part of the stair wall; providing an opening from the entry to the northern edge of the existing Bed 1 door; retaining nibs to the dividing wall between the two bedrooms; and moving the return wall for the laundry in the position of the existing northern wall of Bed 2 would provide sufficient interpretation of the original room layouts. Construction of a new two storey residential addition Comment The proposed two storey addition is located behind the existing ridge line of the main roof and stepped back from the main eaves in order to retain the integrity of the existing side gable. This approach whereby the principle form of the building is not destroyed is supported. There are no objections to the proposed contemporary additions to the rear.



Although the proposal to convert the roof space into a habitable area is supported it is essential that the principle roof form of the building is retained and that the adjoining semi-detached cottage is not compromised. Therefore it is recommended that the balcony located in the visual centre of the front elevation be deleted and that the principle front roof plane is retained. Restoration of the front façade Comment The Heritage report has indicated that ‘as part of the development it is intended to fully restore and repair the fabric of the front and repaint it a traditional heritage colour scheme based on an interpretation of actual on-site scraping test.’ This is supported as it will be positive to the cultural heritage of the street and the federation style bungalow. Recommendations The following amendments to the proposal are recommended; • Retain the existing passage wall as part of the stair wall; provide an opening from the entry to

the northern edge of the existing Bed 1 door; retain nibs to the dividing wall between the two bedrooms; and move the return wall for the laundry to the position of the existing northern wall of Bed 2 to provide sufficient interpretation of the original room layouts. Submit amended plans to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

• The original southern side window should be blocked and feature a 100mm external reveal to retain evidence of the opening as well as manage the joint between new and existing fabric.

• Retain the chimney between the two existing bedrooms to maintain the architectural integrity of the bungalow and submit amended plans to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

• Delete the alterations and additions to the principle front roof plane and submit amended plans indicating the retention of the original front roof plane to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

• Restore and repair the original fabric as indicated in the heritage report. This is to include: the verandah floor; the front gable; the window sashes; cracks in the timber joinery and the rot on the verandah posts

• An external colour and finishes schedule based on an interpretation of actual on-site scraping test shall be submitted to Council and approved prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. Note: face brickwork and commons to the original external walls of the cottage are not to be painted or rendered

• The design and material of the fence shall be sympathetic to the character of the existing house. The front elevation is to be submitted to Council for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

Heritage Development Sub-Committee Comments The application was discussed by the Heritage sub-committee on 2nd August 2006 where it was resolved.

1. The proposal is a massive over development of a semi that forms part of a streetscape recommended for Heritage listing. (Pacific Parade/Alexander Street).

2. It indicates a gabled recessed balcony facing Pacific Parade that is out of character with the streetscape.

3. The floor space ratio greatly exceeds the permissible floor space ratio of the site by some 30% established establishing an undesirable precedent for the street



Planning Comments Manly LEP 1988 The site is located in Zone No.2 – The Residential Zone which permits dwelling houses with the consent of Council. The proposed first floor addition to the semi detached dwelling is permissible with consent in the zone. The proposal is considered unsatisfactory in recognition that this is half of a semi detached building, and that the imposition of significant works on the front of the roof form is at odds with the building. The site is located within a streetscape identified as having landscape significance under the LEP. The proposed additions are not considered sympathetic to the streetscape, due to the way the front bedroom comes forward opening onto a roof deck contained within the existing roof form and the way this presents to the streetscape. Council’s Heritage Officer has also commented that the dwelling is an item of ‘potential heritage’ and conditions are recommended in support of an amended proposal Council’s Heritage sub-committee however does not support the proposal citing overdevelopment (excess FSR), streetscape (out of character balcony). While this advice has no statutory effect Council's Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone also requires consideration of streetscape and blending the development with the existing streetscape. Floor Space Ratio The existing dwelling has an FSR of 0.4:1. The proposed additions result in an FSR of 0.78:1 whereas the limit is 0.6:1. The resulting departure is 37m2 which is considered significant. It is considered that the bulk of the any additions should be located within and behind the roof such that they will not be visible in the streetscape. It is however, concluded that any significant reduction of the floor space will require a redesign and could not be achieved by conditions of consent. Side setback The western side wall of the first storey addition has a staggered side set back of 989mm – 1.759m whereas a minimum of 2.0m – 2.1m required. The proposed additions result in direct overlooking to the western neighbour contrary to the DCP objectives. Parking The existing dwelling does not have any on-site parking. Whilst 2 spaces are required, imposing this requirement is not supported in this case due to the narrow site width and small area of the front garden. On site parking at this location would adversely affect the streetscape of the dwelling. Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 - Clause 10 Objectives The following comments are made in regard to the objectives for the Residential Zone as stated in Clause 10 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988. (a) to set aside land to be used for purposes of housing and associated facilities; The site is currently used for residential and will retain its residential use.

(b) to delineate, by means of development control in the supporting material, the nature and

intended future of the residential areas within the Municipality; Council’s Residential DCP has been considered in the assessment of the proposal, with the proposal assessed as unsatisfactory on merit in response to the DCP’s provisions and design objectives.



(c) to allow a variety of housing types while maintaining the existing character of residential

areas throughout the Manly Council area; It is considered that the proposal will have an adverse effect on the character of Pacific Parade, having regard to the proposed works to the existing front roof form that will be visible from the street (d) to ensure that building form, including alterations and additions, does not degrade the

amenity of surrounding residents or the existing quality of the environment; The design of the development is considered to have an adverse effect on the neighbour’s amenity in terms of privacy. (e) to improve the quality of the residential areas by encouraging landscaping and permitting

greater flexibility of design in both new development and renovations; The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Landscaping Officer as being acceptable, with new tree planting in place of trees requiring removal. (f) to allow development for purposes other than housing within the zone only if it is compatible

with the character and amenity of the locality; This objective does not apply. (g) to ensure full and efficient use of existing social and physical infrastructure and the future

provisions of service and facilities to meet any increased demand; The proposal results in a minor increase in demand on services and facilities. (h) to encourage the revitalisation of residential areas by rehabilitation and suitable

redevelopment. The proposed development will result in a revitalisation of this dwelling however, the nature of this proposal will not result in suitable redevelopment for this area. (i) to encourage the provision and retention of tourist accommodation that enhances the role of

Manly as an international tourist destination, and particularly in relation to the land to which Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 (Amendment No 57) applies.

This objective does not apply.

EP&AA 1979 – Section 79(C) (a) the provisions of:


The proposed use is permissible in the zone however it does not comply with some of the controls in the Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001 Amendment 1 which were discussed above. (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the

natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality It is considered that the proposal will have an adverse effect on the general built environment by degrading the appearance of the building as seen from the street. It is also considered that the lack of setbacks and the proposed window treatment will adversely impact on privacy.



(c) the suitability of the site for the development, The site is suitable for additions to the existing semi detached dwelling however, it is considered that the degree of additions to this development is excessive, and that the extension of the additions forward thereby interfering with the existing roof form of the front of the building is contrary to the Heritage advice received by Council and is not considered appropriate. It is also considered that the relationship between the proposed windows and those on the adjacent dwelling will result in a loss of mutual privacy. (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, Council received no submissions in relation to the notification of this application. (e) the public interest. It is considered that would not been the public interest to allow this development, which encroaches into the roof form facing Pacific Parade, which will detract from the architectural presentation of this building as part of a semi detached dwelling. CONCLUSION: The proposal has been considered pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 and the Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001 (Amendment 1). From this assessment the proposal is considered an over development of the site with non-compliance with the Development Control Plan provisions for Floor Space Ratio and side setback and adverse impacts to privacy and to the streetscape with issues raised by the Heritage Committee and the Council's heritage adviser RECOMMENDATION That Development Application 229/06 for alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling at 48 Pacific Parade Manly be refused for the following reasons 1. The proposal will have an adverse impact on the streetscape of Pacific Parade, having

regard to Section 79 C.(1)(a) (b) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. The proposal will have an adverse impact on the symmetrical nature of the semi detached

development having regard to Section 79 C.(1)(b) and(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3. The proposal results in excess of floor space ratio having regard to Section 79 C.(1)(a)(iii) of

the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 4. The proposal will result in noncompliant side boundary setbacks having regard to Section

79C.(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report.

LUM040906ESD_7.doc




TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 51 SUBJECT: 96 The Corso, Manly��Section 96 Modification FILE NO: DA222/81

SUMMARY Application Lodged: 14/7/2006 Applicant: Shahin Kasiri Owner: Gwynvill Properties P/L Estimated Cost: N/A Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 – Business Zone Surrounding Development: 2 – 3 storey commercial – shops, offices, cafes Heritage: The Corso and its associated development are listed SUMMARY: 1. THIS SECTION 96 APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF CONSENT SEEKS

EXTENSION OF APPROVED TRADING HOURS OF THE TAKEAWAY FOOD SHOP FROM 8AM-12AM TO 4:00AM (MONDAY – THURSDAY), 4:30AM (FRIDAY & SATURDAY) AND 1:00AM (SUNDAY).

2. THE EXISTING PREMISES IS THE SUBJECT OF AN APPROVAL FROM 1981 FOR A TAKEAWAY FOOD BUSINESS (BBQ CHICKEN SHOP) WITH THE ASSESSMENT NOTING OPERATING HOURS OF 11AM – 8PM DAILY. THE OPERATING HOURS WERE NOT STATED ON THE CONSENT. A BUILDING APPLICATION APPROVAL WAS APPROVED SEPARATELY IN 1985 (BA 139/85) ALONG WITH A 2ND DA (DA 1503/85) FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE PREMISES.

3. IN RECENT YEARS IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT TRADING IS CONTINUING UNTIL 4:30AM.

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION RESULTED IN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFUSAL TO COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT CITING INCONSISTENCY WITH COUNCIL’S DCP FOR LATE NIGHT VENUES.

5. THE DAU DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION HOWEVER SOME COMPROMISE IS RECOMMENDED PERMITTING EXTENSION OF TRADING HOURS UNTIL 3:00AM SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT SIGNING A DEED OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND COUNCIL REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN SUITABLE MEASURES TO MINIMISE ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR OF PEOPLE ATTRACTED TO THE LOCATION OF THE PREMISES.

6. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AT TE REQUEST OF THE GENERAL MANAGER AND COUNCILLOR LAMBERT.

7. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEED OF AGREEMENT AND OTHER CONDITIONS.




REPORT Introduction This Section 96 modification of consent seeks extension of approved trading hours of the existing takeaway food shop from 8am-12am to:

Monday – Thursday 8:00am – 4:00am Friday & Saturday 8:00am – 4:30am Sunday 8:00am – 1:00am

In recent years late night trading hours have gradually increased without Consent extending up until 4:30am as sought by this application.

Submissions No submissions have been received in response for this S.96 application to extend late night trading hours, however concerns previously expressed by the Manly Police Crime Prevention Unit should be considered to assess social impacts. Several submissions from the Police raised concerns over the proposal for extension of late night trading for fast food premises, with this promoting loitering and associated anti-social behavior. Precinct Community Forum Comments Motion stated that The Corso Community Forum support the Section 96 Modification of trading hours in relation to DA222/81. Planning Comments Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 The use of the premises as a takeaway food shop is permissible with consent in the zone. With respect to the objectives of the Business zone, the proposed extension of trading hours is considered unfavorable by increasing incremental impacts on the amenity of neighbouring areas. This is evidenced through the business previously operating until up to 4:30am without consent, with trading after midnight increasing incidences of anti-social behavior including loitering, littering and excessive crowd noise. This was confirmed from evidence provided in statements from the Manly Police Crime Prevention Unit and Council’s Manager Regulatory Services. The proposed extension of trading hours is substantially inconsistent with the closing time limit as imposed by the DCP for Late Night Venues, and this application does not provide any justification for this inconsistency. Consequently recommendations are made that the approved hours of operation be limited to 8am – 1:00am. The only variation that may be acceptable to this is if the applicant agrees to enter into a Deed of Agreement with Council requiring the applicant to implement and maintain controls to minimise anti social behavior of patrons and others attracted to the location of the premises.

The site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal seeks no new works, therefore, it will result in no change in effect to the foreshore scenic protection area. With respect to heritage, the site is located within the Town Centre Conservation Area. The proposed hours do not affect the façade, therefore, no heritage impacts will result. Any new signage proposed would require separate Development Consent.



Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 Clause 10 Objectives The following are comments in regard to the objects for the business zone as set out in Clause 10 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 a) to provide for and encourage the development and expansion of business activities which will

contribute to the economic growth and employment opportunities within the Manly Council area.

The proposal is consistent with this objective.

b) to accommodate retail, commercial and professional services in established locations in the residential neighbourhoods where such development is compatible with the amenity of the area.

n/a. c) to ensure there is adequate provision for car parking in future development in the business

areas. Due to the nature of the site it is not possible to provide on site car parking. d) to minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular movement systems within business

areas. Subject to the controls contained in the recommendation the proposal will be consistent with this objective. Manly DCP for Late Night Venues The DCP (formerly “Manly After Midnight”) requires takeaway food premises to close no later than 1:00am. The proposal to permit trading up to 4am Monday – Thursday, 4:30am Friday and Saturday and 1am Sunday seeks a substantial variation to the 1:00am closing time and is not supported. It is noted that the Land and Environment Court has considered an equivalent application for the nearby takeaway food shop at 102 The Corso, with the Court granting Consent for closing time of 1:30am subject to a number of strict conditions to address concerns regarding potential anti social behavior. Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (a) the provisions of:


The proposal has been assessed having regard to the Manly Local environmental Plan 1988 and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Business Zone. Subject to controls detailed in the recommended conditions the proposal is acceptable. (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural

and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality The impacts of the proposed development have been considered and subject to recommended conditions will not to result in any significant negative effects on the locality. (c) the suitability of the site for the development, The site is within the Business Zone and as such the proposal subject to recommended conditions is suitable development.



(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy with no submissions received. (e) the public interest. The proposal, subject to conditions as contained in the recommendation is not contrary to the public interest. CONCLUSION: The application has been assessed pursuant to Section 79C and 96 of the EP&A Act, the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Business Zone and the Manly Development Control Plan for Late Night Venues. The only variation that may be acceptable to the existing 1:00am closing time this is if the applicant agrees to enter into a Deed of Agreement with Council requiring the applicant to implement and maintain controls to minimise anti social behavior of patrons and others attracted to the location of the premises. RECOMMENDATION That the application to modify Development Consent No.221/81 at 96 The Corso, Manly be approved, subject to the original conditions of consent with Condition Nos. 6, 7 and 8 added as follows: 6. The hours of operation not to exceed 8:00am to 1:00am (next day) Monday to Sunday,

without the prior consent of Council. 7. Trading between the hours of 1:00am and 3:00am (Friday and Saturday only) may be

permitted provided an annual Deed of Agreement is entered into, between the Applicant/Proprietor and Council, encompassing the following:-

• The shopfront is to be secured and a door is to be provided for customers to enter

and leave the premises. The door is to be controlled by security personnel and no more than 10 customers are permitted to be inside the premises at any given time (between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 3:00am next day).

• Any queues forming to enter the premises must not be more than ten (10) customers. Any number greater than ten (10) must be requested not to join the queue and move-on.

• Security Cameras must be installed to operate 24 hours, both inside and outside, the premises. The cameras are to be installed in consultation with Council. Signage advising patrons of the cameras shall be installed in at least three (3) prominent positions.

• The applicant/proprietor shall be responsible for the cleanliness of the areas at least to the centerline of the road and at least two (2) blocks on either side of the property.

• One security personnel shall be on-duty between the hours of 11:00am and 3:15am (next day).

• A common security radio frequency is to be implemented by Council and/or Relevant Authority. The applicant's security personnel must utilize the common frequency to communicate with the other security arrangements in The Corso.

• The Deed of Agreement is to be renewed every 12 months. 8. The applicant/proprietor will be required to be a signatory to the Manly Late Night Food

Accord, 2006, to be established to manage the requirements of this Deed, referred to in Condition No. 2, above.

ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report.



LUM040906ESD_8.doc




TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 52 SUBJECT: 102 The Corso, Manly FILE NO: DA287/06

Application Lodged: 13/7/2006 Applicant: M Arslan Owner: Estimated Cost: N/A Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 – Business Zone Surrounding Development: 2 – 3 storey commercial – shops, offices, cafes Heritage: The Corso and its associated development are listed SUMMARY: 1. THIS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SEEKS EXTENSION OF TRADING HOURS OF THE

TAKEAWAY FOOD SHOP FROM 8AM-12AM TO 4:00AM (MONDAY – THURSDAY), 4:30AM (FRIDAY & SATURDAY) AND 1:00AM (SUNDAY).

2. A PREVIOUS CONSENT (DA 255/04) WAS GRANTED DATED 12 AUGUST 2004 WITH A 6 MONTH TRIAL PERMITTING TRADE UNTIL 2AM, WITH THIS REVERTING TO 12AM UNLESS MODIFIED BY CONDITION OF CONSENT DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER CONDITIONS OF CONSENT. THIS DA HAD SOUGHT CONSENT FOR OPENING UNTIL 4:30AM.

3. OTHER CONDITIONS INCLUDED THAT THE DOORS TO THE PREMISES INCLUDING THE EXTERNAL TAKEAWAY COUNTER BE CLOSED AT MIDNIGHT, THEREBY REQUIRING CUSTOMERS TO ENTER THE PREMISES TO BE SERVED; THAT THE FRONT OF THE PREMISES BE KEPT CLEAN OF LITTER AND THAT A SECURITY GUARD BE EMPLOYED ON THE PREMISES FROM 10PM TO 2AM.

4. SINCE THE TRIAL CONSENT 255/04 WAS GRANTED TRADING HAS CONTINUED IN BREACH OF CONSENT UNTIL 4:30AM, RESULTING IN COUNCIL PURSUING A CLASS 4 APPEAL IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT, WITH THE COURT DETERMINING 1:30AM AS THE LATEST CLOSING TIME.

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE DA RESULTED IN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFUSAL TO COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT CITING INCONSISTENCY WITH COUNCIL’S DCP FOR LATE NIGHT VENUES.

6. THE DAU DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION HOWEVER SOME COMPROMISE IS RECOMMENDED PERMITTING EXTENSION OF TRADING HOURS UNTIL 3:00AM SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT SIGNING A DEED OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND COUNCIL REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN SUITABLE MEASURES TO MINIMISE ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR OF PEOPLE ATTRACTED TO THE LOCATION OF THE PREMISES.

7. THE APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AT THE REQUEST OF THE GENERAL MANAGER AND COUNCILLOR LAMBERT.

8. THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEED OF AGREEMENT AND OTHER CONDITIONS.




REPORT Introduction This application seeks extension of trading hours of takeaway food shop from 8am-12am to:


Note - these are the hours applied for in the DA application form and the subject of this assessment, however the applicant’s covering letter is inconsistent to the extent of stating 8:00am – 3:00am Monday – Thursday. Background The existing food takeaway business was the subject of a 6 month trial approval for extension of trading hours under DA 255/04. This sought consent for opening until 4:30am. A consent was granted dated 12 August 2004 with a 6 month trial permitting trade until 2am, with this reverting to 12am unless modified by condition of consent demonstrating compliance with other conditions of consent. Other conditions included:

# 4 That the doors to the premises including the external takeaway counter be closed at midnight, thereby requiring customers to enter the premises to be served, # 5 That the front of the premises be cleaned, # 6 That a security guard be employed on the premises from 10pm to 2am.

The intention of these conditions was to ensure that the business would not attract late night loitering and reduce incidences of anti social behavior and littering associated with the takeaway business. Since the consent has been granted it has been reported that the above conditions of consent have not be complied with, whereby trading is continuing until 4:30am as originally sought. Since the 6 month trial has expired (from 12 February 2005) the business has continued to trade on this basis. Class 1 and Class 4 proceedings have been determined in the Land and Environment Court.



The Class 4 proceedings were initiated by Council seeking an injunction to the breaches of consent under DA 255/04, with Council’s appeal being upheld and the applicant ordered to comply with the conditions of consent. The Class 1 proceedings were initiated by the applicant, seeking to appeal against the conditions of consent and operating hours as described above. The Class 1 appeal was upheld by the Court, subject to a closure time of no later than 1:30am. Submissions

Based on previous notification of the proposed extension of hours, the Manly Police Crime Prevention Unit made several submissions raising concerns over the proposed extension of hours. In response a Senior Constable of the Unit reported that the applicant had not complied with the above mentioned conditions consent. On this basis the Crime Prevention Unit made recommendations that the approved hours of operation remain at 8:00am until 12:00 midnight. Given that the current proposal again requests an extension of trading hours, the submissions and previous advice provided by the Police remain to be considered in assessing this proposal. On the basis of their previous advice, the proposal for trading up until 4:00am weeknights / 4:30am weekends is not supported. Precinct Community Forum Comments Motion stated that The Corso Community Forum support the Section 96 Modification of trading hours in relation to DA287/06. Planning Comments Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 The use of the premises as a takeaway food shop is permissible with consent in the zone. With respect to the objectives of the Business zone, the proposed extension of trading hours is considered unfavorable by increasing incremental impacts on the amenity of neighbouring areas. This is evidenced through the business previously operating until up to 4:30am without consent, with trading after midnight increasing incidences of anti-social behavior including loitering, littering and excessive crowd noise. This was confirmed from evidence provided in statements from the Manly Police Crime Prevention Unit and Council’s Manager Regulatory Services. The proposed extension of trading hours is substantially inconsistent with the closing time limit as imposed by the DCP for Late Night Venues, and this application does not provide any justification for this inconsistency. Consequently recommendations are made that the approved hours of operation be limited to 8am – 1:00am. The only variation that may be acceptable to this is if the applicant agrees to enter into a Deed of Agreement with Council requiring the applicant to implement and maintain controls to minimise anti social behavior of patrons and others attracted to the location of the premises.

The site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal seeks no new works, therefore, it will result in no change in effect to the foreshore scenic protection area. With respect to heritage, the site is located within the Town Centre Conservation Area. The proposed hours do not affect the façade, therefore no heritage impacts will result. Any new signage proposed would require separate Development Consent.



Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 Clause 10 Objectives The following are comments in regard to the objects for the business zone as set out in Clause 10 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 a) to provide for and encourage the development and expansion of business activities which will


The proposal is consistent with this objective. b) to accommodate retail, commercial and professional services in established locations in the

residential neighbourhoods where such development is compatible with the amenity of the area.



areas. Subject to the controls contained in the recommendation the proposal will be consistent with this objective. Manly DCP for Late Night Venues The DCP (formerly “Manly After Midnight”) permits takeaway food premises to trade up to 1:00am. The proposal to permit trading up to 4am Monday – Thursday, 4:30am Friday and Saturday and 1am Sunday is a substantial variation to the 1:00am closing time and is not supported. Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (a) the provisions of:


The proposal has been assessed having regard to the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Business Zone. Subject to controls detailed in the recommended conditions the proposal is acceptable. (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural

and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality The impacts of the proposed development have been considered and subject to recommended conditions will not to result in any significant negative effects on the locality. (c) the suitability of the site for the development, The site is within the Business Zone and as such the proposal, subject to recommended conditions is suitable development. (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy with no submissions received.



(e) the public interest. The proposal, subject to conditions as contained in the recommendation is not contrary to the public interest. CONCLUSION: The application has been assessed pursuant to Section 79C of the EP&A Act, the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Business Zone and the Manly Development Control Plan for Late Night Venues. The only variation that may be acceptable to the 1:00am closing time is if the applicant agrees to enter into a Deed of Agreement with Council requiring the applicant to implement and maintain controls to minimise anti social behavior of patrons and others attracted to the location of the premises. RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No.287/06 to extend trading hours at No.102 The Corso, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation not to exceed 8:00am to 1:00am (next day) Monday to Sunday,


permitted provided an annual Deed of Agreement is entered into, between the applicant/Proprietor and Council, encompassing the following:-











LUM040906ESD_9.doc



TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 53 SUBJECT: 2 Sydney Road, Manly��Section 96 Modification FILE NO: 135/95

Application Lodged: 25/7/2006 Applicant: Zuberde Demirbag Owner: Thousand Miles Pty Ltd Estimated Cost: N/A Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 – Business Zone Surrounding Development: 2 – 3 storey commercial – shops, offices, cafes Heritage: The Corso and its associated development are listed SUMMARY: 1. THIS SECTION 96 APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF CONSENT SEEKS

EXTENSION OF APPROVED TRADING HOURS OF THE TAKEAWAY FOOD SHOP FROM 8AM-12AM TO 4:00AM (MONDAY – THURSDAY), 4:30AM (FRIDAY & SATURDAY) AND 1:00AM (SUNDAY).

2. THE EXISTING PREMISES IS THE SUBJECT OF AN APPROVAL FROM 1995 FOR A TAKEAWAY FOOD SHOP. APPROVED HOURS WERE 8AM – 12AM / MIDNIGHT.

3. IN RECENT YEARS IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT TRADING IS CONTINUING UNTIL 4:30AM.

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE DA RESULTED IN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFUSAL TO COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT CITING INCONSISTENCY WITH COUNCIL’S DCP FOR LATE NIGHT VENUES.

5. THE DAU DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED HOURS HOWEVER SOME COMPROMISE IS RECOMMENDED PERMITTING EXTENSION OF TRADING HOURS UNTIL 3:00AM SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT SIGNING A DEED OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND COUNCIL REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN SUITABLE MEASURES TO MINIMISE ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR OF PEOPLE ATTRACTED TO THE LOCATION OF THE PREMISES.

6. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AT THE REQUEST OF THE GENERAL MANAGER AND COUNCILLOR LAMBERT.

7. THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEED OF AGREEMENT AND OTHER CONDITIONS.




REPORT Introduction This Section 96 modification of consent seeks extension of approved trading hours of the existing takeaway food shop from 8am-12am to:


In recent years late night trading hours have gradually increased without consent extending up until 4:30am as sought by this application. Background

• The existing food takeaway business was granted operating hours of 8am – 12am under the existing consent on 4 July 1995.

• A S.96 application for modification of consent to the approved hours was lodged in December 2002, seeking an extension of hours to 4:30am close Mon – Thurs, 5:00am close Fri & Sat, and 1am close Sunday, and refused on 29 October 2003.

• Reasons for refusal raised issues of influencing late night anti-social behavior and inconsistency with Council’s plan to reduce hours of late night business operations after midnight.

• A class 1 appeal was lodged with the Land and Environment Court by the applicant on 11 March 2004,

• A resolution of Council from 17 May 2004 gave support to consent orders for trading hours with closing hours of 3:30am Monday – Thursday, 4:30am Friday & Saturday, and 1am Sundays, with a 12 month trial of this.

• LEC appeal withdrawn in June 2004, consequently consent orders as supported by Council did not take effect.

• A S.82A Application for review of determination was lodged on 3 February 2004 and was refused by Council on 4 March 2004 for the same reasons as stated to the refusal of the DA.

Submissions

No submissions have been received in response for this S.96 application to extend late night trading hours, however concerns previously expressed by the Manly Police Crime Prevention Unit should be considered to assess social impacts. Several submissions from the Police raised concerns over the proposal for extension of late night trading for fast food premises, with this promoting loitering of patrons leaving local pubs after midnight and anti-social behavior. Precinct Community Forum Comments Motion stated that The Corso Community Forum support the Section 96 Modification of trading hours in relation to DA135/95. Planning Comments Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 The use of the premises as a takeaway food shop is permissible with consent in the zone. With respect to the objectives of the Business zone, the proposed extension of trading hours is considered unfavorable by increasing incremental impacts on the amenity of neighbouring areas.



Increased amenity impacts are evidenced through the business previously operating until up to 4:30am without consent, with trading after midnight increasing incidences of anti-social behavior including loitering, littering and excessive crowd noise. This was confirmed from evidence provided in statements from the Manly Police Crime Prevention Unit and Council’s Manager Regulatory Services. The proposed extension of trading hours is substantially inconsistent with the closing time limit as imposed by the DCP for Late Night Venues, and does not provide any justification for this inconsistency. Consequently recommendations are made that the approved hours of operation be limited to 8am – 1:00am. The only variation that may be acceptable to this is if the applicant agrees to enter into a Deed of Agreement with Council requiring the applicant to implement and maintain controls to minimise anti social behavior of patrons and others attracted to the location of the premises.

The site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal seeks no new works, therefore, it will result in no change in effect to the foreshore scenic protection area. With respect to heritage, the site is located within the Town Centre Conservation Area. The proposed hours do not affect the façade, therefore, no heritage impacts will result. Any new signage proposed would require separate Development Consent. Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 Clause 10 Objectives The following are comments in regard to the objects for the business zone as set out in Clause 10 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 a) to provide for and encourage the development and expansion of business activities which will


The proposal is consistent with this objective. b) to accommodate retail, commercial and professional services in established locations in the

residential neighbourhoods where such development is compatible with the amenity of the area.



areas. Subject to the controls contained in the recommendation the proposal will be consistent with this objective. Manly DCP for Late Night Venues The DCP (formerly “Manly After Midnight”) requires takeaway food premises to close no later than 1:00am. The proposal to permit trading up to 4am Monday – Thursday, 4:30am Friday and Saturday and 1am Sunday seeks a substantial variation to the 1:00am closing time and is not supported. It is noted that the Land and Environment Court has considered an equivalent application for the nearby takeaway food shop at 102 The Corso, with the Court granting Consent for closing time of 1.30am subject to a number of strict conditions to address concerns regarding potential anti social behavior.



Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (a) the provisions of:


The proposal has been assessed having regard to the Manly Local environmental Plan 1988 and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Business Zone. Subject to controls detailed in the recommended conditions the proposal is acceptable. (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural

and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality The impacts of the proposed development have been considered and subject to recommended conditions will not to result in any significant negative effects on the locality. (c) the suitability of the site for the development, The site is within the Business Zone and as such the proposal subject to recommended conditions is suitable development. (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy with no submissions received. (e) the public interest. The proposal, subject to conditions as contained in the recommendation is not contrary to the public interest. CONCLUSION: The application has been assessed pursuant to Section 79C and 96 of the EP&A Act, the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 and the Manly Development Control Plan for the Business Zone and the Manly Development Control Plan for Late Night Venues. The only variation that may be acceptable to the existing 1:00am closing time this is if the applicant agrees to enter into a Deed of Agreement with Council requiring the applicant to implement and maintain controls to minimise anti social behavior of patrons and others attracted to the location of the premises.



RECOMMENDATION That the application to modify Development Consent No.135/95 be approved, subject to original conditions of consent with Condition Nos. 14, 15 and 16 added as follows: 14. The hours of operation not to exceed 9:00am to 1:00am (next day) Monday to Sunday,


permitted provided an annual Deed of Agreement is entered into, between the applicant/Proprietor and Council, encompassing the following:-











LUM040906ESD_10.doc




TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 54 SUBJECT: Development Applications Currently Being Processed FILE NO:

SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CURRENTLY BEING PROCESSED DURING SEPTEMBER, 2006. REPORT The following applications are currently being processed by council’s Development Assessment Section.

DA#

Date Rec by

Council Site Address Proposal Target Date

DEL DAU LUM

DA319/03 16-Jul-03 14 Kempbridge Avenue Alterations and Additions 12-Sep-06 DAU

DA587/02 03-May-05 14 Reddall Street Section 96 Modification 14-Sep-06 DAU

DA423/05 29-Sep-05 59 Ethel Street Erection of Mixed Use Development 12-Sep-06 DAU

DA426/05 01-Oct-05 43 Bower Street Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information

DA428/05 21-Oct-05 7 Pacific Parade

Demolition & Erection of new Dwelling, Parking & Pool 12-Sep-06 DAU

DA506/05 06-Nov-05 3 Pacific Parade Alterations & Additions to Residential Flat Building

Awaiting Information

DA469/05 11-Nov-05 45 Gurney Crescent Demolition, New Dwelling 14-Sep-06 DAU

DA521/05 30-Nov-05 151 Darley Rd Lot 12 3 Storey Dwelling & Pool 03-Oct-06 DAU

DA350/05 05-Dec-05 92 Bower Street Section 96 Modification 12-Sep-06 DAU

DA536/05 12-Dec-05 133-136 North Steyne Demolition of Buildings 07-Sep-06 DAU

DA60/06 21-Jan-06 16 Jellicoe Street Demolition & Erection of Duplex RFB


DA56/06 27-Jan-06 133-136 North Steyne

Demolition & RFB with Basement Parking & Strata Subdivision


DA118/06 20-Feb-06 17 Rosedale Avenue Pool & Garage Awaiting

Information

DA91/06 21-Feb-06 44 Dudley Street Erect 2 Dwellings 12-Sep-06 DAU DA90/06 24-Feb-06 92 Bower Street 3 Lot Subdivision 12-Sep-06 DAU

DA94/06 02-Mar-06 9 Sangrado Street Alterations & Additions & Garage


DA552/05 02-Mar-06 20 Magarra Place Amended Plans 14-Sep-06 DAU DA312/05 27-Mar-06 29A Quinton Road 82A Review 19-Sep-06 DAU



DA384/05 28-Mar-06 81 Fairlight Street 82A Review 21-Sep-06 DAU

DA126/06 04-Apr-06 61 Peacock Street Seaforth

Alterations & Additions; new deck, fence & driveway 19-Sep-06 DAU

DA135/06 04-Apr-06 2 Abernethy Street Subdivision & New House 19-Sep-06 DAU

DA468/02 10-Apr-06 32 Kitchener Street Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA121/05 11-Apr-06 26 Ethel Street Section 96 Modification 21-Sep-06 DAU

DA327/06 12-Apr-06 20 Castel Circuit Pool Awaiting

Information

DA318/05 20-Apr-06 2A Beatty Street Section 96 Modification 28-Sep-06 DAU

DA433/05 21-Apr-06 30 Pacific Parade Amended Plans Alterations & Additions to Dwelling 07-Sep-06 DAU

DA46/04 22-Apr-06 36 South Steyne Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA187/06 03-May-06 4 Carlton Street Alterations & Additions to RFB 31-Aug-06 DAU

DA326/06 03-May-06 5 College Street Demolition, New Dwelling & Pool


DA545/05 04-May-06 16 Rosedale Avenue 82A Review 26-Sep-06 DAU

DA179/06 04-May-06 32 Arthur Street Demolition & New Dwelling 12-Sep-06 DAU

DA201/06 05-May-06 18 Lauderdale Avenue

Alterations & Additions to Semi 21-Sep-06 DAU

DA223/06 05-May-06 27 Hope Street Demolition, Duplex and Subdivision 26-Sep-06 DAU

DA186/06 12-May-06 17 Carlton Street Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information

DA381/05 18-May-06 18 Collingwood Street 82A Review 26-Sep-06 DAU

DA217/06 23-May-06 38 Denison Street Alterations & Additions 26-Sep-06 DAU DA424/05 24-May-06 13 Nield Avenue 82A Review 28-Sep-06 DAU

DA218/06 25-May-06 2 North Harbour Excavation & Pool 12-Sep-06 DAU

DA214/06 30-May-06 5 Peronne Avenue Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information

DA224/06 31-May-06 79 New Street Alterations & Additions 05-Sep-06 DEL

DA234/06 31-May-06 23 Kirkwood Street Alterations & Additions & Pool 10-Sep-06 DAU

DA532/02 05-Jun-06 8 Peronne Avenue Section 96 Modification 28-Sep-06 DAU

DA232/06 06-Jun-06 1 Fromelles Avenue Alterations & Additions 28-Sep-06 DAU

DA228/06 06-Jun-06 4 Melbourne Street Pool Awaiting

Information



DA231/06 06-Jun-06 31 The Corso Alterations & Additions to Ivanhoe Hotel


DA233/06 08-Jun-06 15 The Crescent

Alterations & Additions, Strata Subdivision & Carparking


DA238/06 09-Jun-06 40 Beatty Street Demolition, Alterations & Additions, Pool & Garage 14-Sep-06 DAU

DA265/05 09-Jun-06 55 Woodland Street 82A Review 12-Sep-06 DAU

DA235/06 09-Jun-06 52-54 Wanganella Street

Administration Building & School 12-Sep-06 DAU

DA25/05 13-Jun-06 12 Cecil Street 82A Review 07-Sep-06 DAU

DA236/06 13-Jun-06 159 Woodland Street

Demolition & Land Subdivision & 2 New Dwellings 14-Sep-06 DAU

DA241/06 14-Jun-06 61 Beatrice Street Alterations & Additions & Pool 19-Sep-06 DAU

DA229/06 14-Jun-06 48 Pacific Parade Alterations and Additions to Semi


DA529/04 15-Jun-06 38a Rignold Street Section 96 Modification 14-Sep-06 DAU

DA237/06 15-Jun-06 51 Bower Street Alterations & Additions, Pool & Studio


DA239/06 16-Jun-06 11 Nield Avenue Convert to Single Dwelling & Garage 21-Sep-06 DAU

DA246/06 16-Jun-06 25 Heathcliff Crescent Pool 08-Sep-06 DAU

DA244/06 16-Jun-06 29 The Crescent Alterations & Additions to RFB


DA247/06 19-Jun-06 13 Phillip Avenue Alterations & Additions 14-Sep-06 DAU

DA498/05 19-Jun-06 15 Alexander Street 82A Review 19-Sep-06 DAU

DA489/04 20-Jun-06 32 Cutler Road Section 96 Modification 21-Sep-06 DAU

DA243/06 20-Jun-06 45 Beatty Street

Partial Demolition, Alterations & Additions, basement Car parking and Landscaping 12-Sep-06 DAU

DA252/06 21-Jun-06 38 Kempbridge Avenue

Alterations & 1st Floor Additions 19-Sep-06 DAU

DA248/06 21-Jun-06 37 White Street Change of Use to place of Worship 14-Sep-06 DAU

DA245/06 21-Jun-06 20 Marshall Street Alterations & Additions, Deck & Garage 10-Sep-06 DEL

DA251/06 21-Jun-06 31 Kangaroo Street Alterations & Additions to Semi


DA539/03 23-Jun-06 54 Golf Parade Section 96 Modification 19-Sep-06 DAU

DA250/06 23-Jun-06 74 Bower Street Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information



DA255/06 23-Jun-06 241-243 Sydney Road New 2 Storey Dwelling


DA261/06 23-Jun-06 4 Kangaroo Street Alterations & Additions, Onsite Parking


DA271/06 26-Jun-06 85 West Street Demolition & New RFB 19-Sep-06 DAU

DA263/06 26-Jun-06 25 Bligh Crescent Pool & Cabana Awaiting

Information

DA278/06 26-Jun-06 1/124 Addison Road Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information

DA354/05 27-Jun-06 2 Coral Street Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA265/06 28-Jun-06 56 Fromelles Crescent Alterations & Additions


DA267/06 29-Jun-06 27 Lodge Street Pool, deck, retaining walls and stairs 12-Sep-06 DEL

DA266/06 29-Jun-06 75 Boyle Street Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information

DA469/05 29-Jun-06 45 Gurney Crescent 82A Review Awaiting

Information

DA269/06 30-Jun-06 13 Stuart Street Replace Wall and Fence Awaiting

Information

DA270/06 30-Jun-06 5 Bower Street Demolition, New Dwelling & Pool


DA273/06 30-Jun-06 1 Beatty Street Alterations & Additions & New Garage


DA286/06 01-Jul-06 7 Pickworth Avenue Pool Awaiting

Information

DA430/05 04-Jul-06 Carey Street - Remedial Works Section 96 Modification


DA292/06 05-Jul-06 84 Peacock Street Demolition, new Dwelling, Pool, Cabana & Fencing


DA276/06 06-Jul-06 35 Ponsonby Parade Alterations & Additions & Pool


DA296/06 06-Jul-06 2 Camera Street Alterations & Additions to Duplex


DA284/06 07-Jul-06 2 Lawson Place Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information

DA294/06 07-Jul-06 1 Krui Street Carport & Fence Awaiting

Information

DA297/06 10-Jul-06 25 Fairlight Crescent 3 Storey RFB Converted to Single Dwelling


DA300/06 10-Jul-06 189 Woodland Street Alterations & Additions & New Garage


DA14/05 11-Jul-06 54 Beatrice Street Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA285/06 11-Jul-06 61 Alexander Street Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information



DA298/06 11-Jul-06 18 Golf parade Pool, Shed & Deck Awaiting

Information

DA305/06 11-Jul-06 26 High Street Pool Awaiting

Information

DA72/06 11-Jul-06 29 Bungaloe Avenue Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

Da283/06 12-Jul-06 27 Cutler Road Dwelling & Pool Awaiting

Information

DA55/05 12-Jul-06 76 Birkley Road Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA287/06 13-Jul-06 102 The Corso Extension of Hours Awaiting

Information

DA291/06 13-Jul-06 10 Peronne Avenue Pool Awaiting

Information

DA302/06 13-Jul-06 20 Bungaloe Avenue Pool Awaiting

Information

DA304/06 13-Jul-06 22 Collingwood Avenue Pool


DA288/06 14-Jul-06 360 Sydney Road Change of Use Awaiting

Information

DA306/06 14-Jul-06 39 Francis Street Alterations & Additions, Carport & Front Fence


DA295/06 18-Jul-06 21 Kempbridge Avenue Carport & Fence


DA299/06 18-Jul-06 2 Bligh Street Pool Awaiting

Information

DA310/06 19-Jul-06 7 Edgecliff Esplanade Widen Drive & Access Awaiting

Information

DA311/06 19-Jul-06 20 Curban Street Pool Awaiting

Information

DA547/04 20-Jul-06 46-48 Balgowlah road Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA64/79 20-Jul-06 33 Belgrave Street Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA303/06 21-Jul-06 11 Cove Avenue Pool Awaiting

Information

DA307/06 21-Jul-06 21 Central Avenue Alterations & Additions to Commercial Space


DA319/06 21-Jul-06 17 Harvey Street Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information

DA315/06 24-Jul-06 37 Bungaloe Avenue Pool & Deck Awaiting

Information

DA135/95 25-Jul-06 2 Sydney Road Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA222/81 25-Jul-06 96 The Corso Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA312/06 25-Jul-06 31 Arthur Street Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information

DA67/06 25-Jul-06 61 Eurobin Avenue Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA317/06 27-Jul-06 19 Lauderdale Avenue Strata Subdivision


DA318/06 27-Jul-06 5/4 Quinton Road Alterations & Additions Awaiting

Information



DA322/06 28-Jul-06 42 Malvern Avenue Alterations & Additions, Garage & Loft


DA325/06 31-Jul-06 122 Wanganella Street Cabana & Storage


DA200/06 01-Aug-06 43-45 North Steyne Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA321/06 02-Aug-06 Wharves & Jetties Change of Use Awaiting

Information

DA10/06 04-Aug-06 4 Daintrey Street Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA331/06 04-Aug-06 15 Redman Street 2 Storey Dwelling Awaiting

Information

DA216/06 07-Aug-06 31 Alan Avenue Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA335/06 09-Aug-06 68 Ponsonby Parade Upper Floor Deck Awaiting

Information

DA35/05 11-Aug-06 81 Curban Street Section 96 Modification Awaiting

Information

DA329/06 31/047/03 95 Lauderdale Avenue Strata Subdivision


DA72/06 29 Bungaloe Avenue Section 96 Modification 21-Sep-06 DAU

DA524/04 7 South Steyne Section 96 Modification 21-Sep-06 DAU The following applications are currently with Council’s Lodgment & Quality Assurance being advertised, notified or referred to appropriate parties. 21/06/2006 245/2006 20 Marshall Street, MANLY 2095 Alterations & additions to an existing dwelling including new deck & alterations to garage 28/06/2006 253/2006 59 Seaforth Crescent, SEAFORTH 2092 Demolition of steps & erection of retaining walls & new paths 30/06/2006 277/2006 23 Ocean Road, MANLY 2095 Alterations & Additions to semi-detached Dwelling 3/07/2006 259/2006 26 Boronia Lane, SEAFORTH 2092 Demolition of garage & erection of new structure containing parking, entertaining area, bedrooms, bath, bar & decks 259/2006 5 Sandra Place, SEAFORTH 2092 Demolition of garage & erection of new structure containing parking, entertaining area, bedrooms, bath, bar & decks 7/07/2006 280/2006 13 The Crescent, MANLY 2095 Demolish & Construct a Residential Flat Building & Strata Subdivision



10/07/2006 274/2006 44 Quinton Road, MANLY 2095 Alterations & Additions to Dwelling house and swimming pool 11/07/2006 301/2006 8B Beatty Street BALGOWLAH 2093 Alterations & Additions to existing boatshed, new pool, deck & stairs 17/07/2006 293/2006 15 Amiens Road, CLONTARF 2093 Land Subdivision and Boundary Re-alignment to create four (4) lots 293/2006 13 Amiens Road, CLONTARF 2093 Land Subdivision and Boundary Re-alignment to create four (4) lots 293/2006 1B Monash Crescent, CLONTARF 2093 Land Subdivision and Boundary Re-alignment to create four (4) lots 18/07/2006 309/2006 16 Eurobin Avenue MANLY 2095 Demolish and construct new two (2) storey Dwelling house 19/07/2006 314/2006 110 Bower Street, MANLY 2095 Demolition and Construction of a new Residential Flat Building containing four (4) units 21/07/2006 316/2006 2 Bligh Crescent, SEAFORTH 2092 Alterations & Additions to an existing Dwelling 26/07/2006 313/2006 21 Fairy Bower Road, MANLY 2095 Alts & Adds to existing dwelling in respect of window relocation & bed 1 ensuite 28/07/2006 323/2006 15 Wanganella Street, BALGOWLAH 2093 Alterations & Additions to an existing Dwelling 31/07/2006 324/2006 8 Kangaroo Street, MANLY 2095 Alterations and Additions to dwelling including First Floor Addition 1/08/2006 330/2006 76 Bower Street, MANLY 2095 Alteration & Additions to existing Dwelling including additional level 320/2006 15 Oyama Avenue, MANLY 2095 Remedial works comprising of underpinning, pointing and reconstruction of the foundations and/or walls, and amendments to stormwater discharge 3/08/2006 22/2006 26 Ogilvy Road, CLONTARF 2093 Sec.96 to modify approved demolition & construction of dwelling & pool



1230/1998 44 Ellery Parade, SEAFORTH 2092 Section 96 to modify approved Demolition of existing Dwelling and Construction of New Residence 7/08/2006 328/2006 8 Paris Street, BALGOWLAH 2093 Demolition and construction of two attached dwellings 8/08/2006 69/2006 22 Acacia Road, SEAFORTH 2092 Section 96 to modify approved New two (2) Storey Dwelling 69/2006 16 Castle Circuit, SEAFORTH 2092 Section 96 to modify approved New two (2) Storey Dwelling 338/2006 92 Clontarf Street, SEAFORTH 2092 Demolish and Construct new two (2) storey Dwelling house 9/08/2006 344/2006 11 Fairlight Crescent, FAIRLIGHT 2094 Excavation and Construction of a swimming pool, plant rooms, storage and landscaping 332/2006 2 High Street, MANLY 2095 New swimming pool at rear of property 533/2004 11 Jamieson Avenue, FAIRLIGHT 2094 Section 96 to modify approved Alterations & Additions to Dwelling including first floor addition, pool and garage 333/2006 12 Adrian Place, BALGOWLAH HEIGHTS 2093 Alterations & Additions to existing Dwelling 11/08/2006 343/2006 63 Lauderdale Avenue, FAIRLIGHT 2094 Alterations & Additions to Dwelling including new basement room and new garage with turntable access 334/2006 7 Dobroyd Road, BALGOWLAH HEIGHTS 2093 Alterations & Additions to an existing dwelling 14/08/2006 127/2006 67 Seaforth Crescent, SEAFORTH 2092 AMENDED PLANS-Demolition, new dwelling house, garage, inclinator & landscaping 14/2006 33 Alexander Street, MANLY 2095 S96 to modify approved plans: Construct Swimming Pool, deck & greywater re-use tank 15/08/2006 337/2006 262 Pittwater Road, MANLY 2095 Unit 3 - Erection of awning & landscaping works 16/08/2006 339/2006 35 Amiens Rd, CLONTARF 2093 Demolition & Erection of dwelling & swimming pool. Alterations & Additions to existing carport & cabana



346/2006 81 North Steyne, MANLY 2095 Strata Subdivision of a Residential Flat Building into Seven (7) Units 517/2001 81 North Steyne, MANLY 2095 Section 96 to modify approved Demolition of existing Residential Flat Building, Construction of four storey Residential Flat Building containing seven (7) unit & car parking 517/2001 81 North Steyne, MANLY 2095 Section 96 to modify approved Demolition of existing Residential Flat Building, Construction of four storey Residential Flat Building containing seven (7) unit & car parking 340/2006 11-27 Wentworth Street, MANLY 2095 Rectify Exterior, render cracks and repainting of existing Residential Flat Building 6/2003 25 Fromelles Av, SEAFORTH 2092 Section 96 to modify approved Alterations & Additions to Dwelling and Adds to Carport and expansion of Day Care Places from 15 to 23 in the Jacarandra Center 115/2006 58 Seaview Street, BALGOWLAH 2093 S96 to modify approved plans: Alterations & Additions to an existing semi detached dwelling 342/2006 11-27 Wentworth Street, MANLY 2095 Erection of Site Administration office, rooftop plant & equipment enclosures 17/08/2006 341/2006 14 Boronia Lane, SEAFORTH 2092 Erection of dwelling house 18/08/2006 154/2006 47 Rickard Street, BALGOWLAH 2093 Section 96 Modification to approved erection of detached outbuilding for 'study/storage' 21/08/2006 345/2006 13 Golf Parade, MANLY 2095 Alterations & Additions to existing semi-detached dwelling 349/2006 71 Castle Circuit, SEAFORTH 2092 Alterations & Additions to an existing Dwelling 22/08/2006 347/2006 24 Condamine Street, BALGOWLAH 2093 Alterations & Additions to existing dwelling house & garage 23/08/2006 351/2006 33 Alan Avenue, SEAFORTH 2092 Alterations & Additions to rear of an existing Dwelling 348/2006 25-27 South Steyne, MANLY 2095 Change of Use to Convenience Store including souvenir/gifts & signage 24/08/2006 353/2006 140 Woodland Street, BALGOWLAH 2093 Alterations & Additions to an existing Dwelling



264/2006 21 Eurobin Avenue, MANLY 2095 Alterations & Additions to an existing Dwelling 107/2006 19 Maretimo Street, BALGOWLAH 2093 Section 96 to modify approved Construction of in-ground Swimming Pool and gazebo 25/08/2006 350/2006 25 Austin Street, FAIRLIGHT 2094 Alterations & Additions to Dwelling including new vehicular hardstand area 28/08/2006 352/2006 36-38 South Steyne, MANLY 2095 Erection of Advertising Structures consisting of new fascia and flush wall signage 29/08/2006 354/2006 1/121 Sydney Road, MANLY 2095 Construction of Garbage enclosure and fencing 96/2006 3 Kamiri Street, SEAFORTH 2092 Section 96 to modify approved plans: Alterations & Additions to dwelling including 1st floor, carport and pool

RECOMMENDATION THAT THE INFORMATION BE NOTED. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report.

LUM040906ESD_2.doc




TO: Land Use Management Committee - 4 September 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 55 SUBJECT: Appeals List for September 2006 FILE NO:

SUMMARY LIST OF APPEALS RECEIVED AND THEIR CURRENT STATUS FOR COUNCILLORS INFORMATION. REPORT DA# L&E

Appeal Reference

House #

Address Date Appeal Lodged

Solicitor Company

Current Status

DA401/04 41145/05 87-95 Balgowlah Road, Balgowlah (Manly Golf Club)

14/10/05 Abbott Tout

Judgement Reserved 29/08/06

DA97/04 10592/05 2 Clontarf St, Seaforth 15/03/05 Abbott Tout

Judgement Reserved 14/08/06

DA28/06 10108/06 29 Edgecliffe Esplanade, Seaforth

15/02/2006 Pike Pike & Fenwick

Callover 19/09/06

DA250/04 10321/06 51 Stuart Street, Manly 18/04/2006 Pike Pike & Fenwick

Callover 01/09/06

DA389/05 10392/06 9 Smith Street, Manly 19/05/2006 Abbott Tout

Hearing 20/09/06

DA196/05 10413/06 10 Salisbury Square, Seaforth


Discontinued

DA43/06 10444/06 56 Alexander Street, Manly


Hearing 29/09/06

DA278/03 11050/04 27-29 Victoria Parade, Manly


Dismissed 04/0806

DA164/06 10527/06 5 Sandy Bay Road 23/06/2006 Abbott Tout

Hearing 10/10/06

DA85/06 10583/06 164 Pittwater Road, Manly


Hearing 18/10/06

DA292/05 10584/06 107 Frenchs Forest Road, Seaforth


Callover 08/09/06

DA278/05 10571/06 42 North Steyne, Manly 11/07/2006 Abbott Tout

Hearing 27/10/06



RECOMMENDATION THAT THE INFORMATION BE NOTED. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report.

LUM040906ESD_3.doc

***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 55 ***** .

agenda land use management committee€¦ · 16 cutler road, clontarf section 96 modification........

Documents