agenda of sutherland shire local planning panel - 4 ... · proposal the application is for...

Business Paper

Sutherland Shire Local Planning Panel

Tuesday, 4 September 2018

6:00pm

Council Chambers

4-20 Eton Street, Sutherland

Sutherland Shire Local Planning Panel 4 September 2018

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

2. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS

SSLPP014-18 ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING MOTOR

SHOWROOM

SSLPP015-18 CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL

SSLPP016-18 ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING

SSLPP017-18 ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING

SSLPP018-18 ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING AND

INGROUND SWIMMING POOL

SSLPP019-18 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES, CONSTRUCTION OF A

DWELLING, INGROUND SWIMMING POOL, BOAT SHED AND

LANDSCAPING

SSLPP020-18 CONSOLIDATION OF 3 LOTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A

RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING CONTAINING 34 DWELLINGS (AS

AMENDED)

SSLPP021-18 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT - VIEW LOSS - CONSTRUCTION OF

ADDITIONAL DWELLING TO CREATE DETACHED DUAL

OCCUPANCY


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

SSLPP014-18 PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING

MOTOR SHOWROOM

PROPERTY: LOT 1 DP 1110066 (NOS. 1-3) KIORA ROAD,

MIRANDA

APPLICANT: CENTRIC ARCHITECTS PTY LTD

FILE NUMBER: 18/0592

Attachments: Appendix A⇩ and Appendix B⇩

REASON FOR REPORT

This application is referred to the Sutherland Shire Local Planning Panel (SSLPP) because the

variation to the landscaped area development standard exceeds 10%.

PROPOSAL

The application is for alterations and additions to an existing motor showroom and signage.

THE SITE

The site is located on the south western corner of Kiora Road and The Boulevarde and legal

description of the subject site is known as Lot 1 in DP1110066. The site is irregular in shape

9884.87m2 in area and has frontages to Kiora Road, The Boulevarde and Kumbardang Avenue.

ASSESSMENT OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015,

the written submission in relation to the variation to landscaped area development standard

satisfies the relevant provisions of Clause 4.6 and is therefore supported. It is recommended

that the provisions of Clause 4.6 be invoked and that the 30% landscape area development

standard be varied to 8.8%, respect of this application.

2. That Development Application No.18/0592 for Alterations and additions to an existing motor

showroom at Lot 1 DP 1110066 1-3 Kiora Road, Miranda be approved, subject to the

conditions contained in Appendix “A” of the report.


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

ASSESSMENT OFFICER’S COMMENTARY

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

An application has been received for alterations and additions to an existing motor showroom and

signage at the above property. The alterations and signage are limited to the existing south eastern

showroom with the exception of a free standing pole sign on the eastern, Kiora Road frontage. The

signage is as follows:

1 X illuminated Mercedes Benz logo pylon sign measuring 6,100mm high X 1,200mm wide

towards Kiora Road site frontage;

1 X illuminated “Mercedes Benz” sign with white letters, 600mm high X 5,505mm wide to

eastern façade facing Kiora Road;

1 X illuminated “Tynan Motors” sign with white letters, 492mm high X 4,000mm (maximum) wide

to eastern façade facing Kiora Road; and

1 X illuminated “Vans” sign with white letters, 492mm high X 1,500mm (maximum) wide to

eastern façade facing Kiora Road.

A site plan is provided below.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCALITY

The site is located on the south western corner of Kiora Road and The Boulevarde and legal

description of the subject site is known as Lot 1 in DP1110066. The site is irregular in shape


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

9884.87m2 in area and has frontages to Kiora Road, The Boulevarde and Kumbardang Avenue. The

site is currently occupied by a motor showroom with associated mechanical workshop.

Surrounding development is a mix of low and medium density residential and a fire station.

A locality plan and an aerial photo are provided below.

BACKGROUND

A history of the development proposal is as follows:

The current application was submitted on 18 May 2018.

The application was placed on exhibition, with the last date for public submissions being 07

June 2018.

ADEQUACY OF APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION

In relation to the Statement of Environmental Effects, plans and other documentation submitted with

the application or after a request from Council, the applicant has provided adequate information to

Council to enable an assessment of this application, including a written request to vary the landscape

area development standard under Clause 4.6 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 42 of Sutherland Shire

Development Control Plan 2015 (SSDCP 2015).


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

Council notified 59 adjoining or affected owners of the proposal and nil submissions were received.

STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

The subject land is located within Zone R3 Medium Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being a motor

showroom and business identification signage, is not a permissible land use within the zone but

benefits from existing use rights, having been previously approved approximately 60 years ago and

was extended in 1994 (DA94/1659), whilst the northern part was built under DA05/0097.

The following Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs) and Development Control Plans (DCPs) are

relevant to this application:

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP 2015).

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 - Advertising and Signage.

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment.

Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015 (SSDCP 2015).

Section 94 and Section 94A

S94A 2016 Plan - Sutherland Shire

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

The compliance table below contains a summary of applicable development standards and controls

and a compliance checklist relative to these:

Standard/Control Required Proposed Complies

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015

Building Height – cl.

4.3

Max. 9m 8.7m Yes

Floor Space Ratio –

cl. 4.4

Max. 0.7:1 0.45:1 Yes

Landscaped Area –

cl. 6.14

Min. 30% 8.8%

Variation

(67%)

Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015

Wall signage Maximum 25% area above

awning level

Proposed wall signs take up less

than 25% of the façade facing

Kiora Road

Yes

Must not protrude more than

300mm from the face of the

wall

≤ 300mm Yes


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

Standard/Control Required Proposed Complies

Must not project above the

parapet of the building or that

part of the building to which

they are attached.

Will not protrude above the

parapet.

Yes

Free standing pole

Signs

a. Signs shall not exceed the

height of surrounding buildings

and/or tree canopy or 8

metres, whichever is the

lesser.

b. The sign must not protrude

above the dominant skyline

including any buildings,

structures or tree canopies

when viewed from ground level

within a visual catchment of 1

kilometre.

c. The sign shall have scale

similar to any adjacent built

development.

d. The sign, if located within

the front setback of a

development, shall not

compromise landscaping,

parking and visibility

requirements.

e. Significant trees and other

native vegetation shall not be

removed to accommodate

signage.

6.1m in height. Land uses in the

locality are permitted to 9m and

the sign also complies with the

8m height control.

As above, 6.1m height sits

below building height onsite and

of adjacent residential uses.

The sign is appropriately scaled

so as not to have any

unreasonable impacts, and is

consistent with existing

development onsite including an

existing pylon sign to Kiora

Road.

The sign is appropriately sited

and limited in scale so as not to

have any unreasonable impacts

on these considerations.

The sign is appropriately sited to

avoid the need for vegetation

removal.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

SEPP 64 – Advertising

Aims, objectives

etc.

(i) is compatible with the

desired amenity and visual

character of an area, and

(ii) provides effective

communication in suitable

locations, and

(iii) is of high quality design

and finish, and

Signage has been designed to

be compatible with the visual

character of the area. Signage is

proposed towards Kiora Road

and will not have any

unreasonable impact on nearby

properties.

Signage will be appropriately

located and will clearly convey

the use of the building.

Signage is of a high quality

design.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Schedule 1 Character of the area As mentioned above. Existing

use rights afforded the site as

well as the intersection between

2 busy roads provides a setting

in which signage is appropriate

and will not have an adverse

impact on surrounding

properties.

Yes

Special areas

Colours and materials used for

the signage will be appropriate

for and will not detract from the

amenity or visual quality of the

area.

Yes

Views and vistas Signage will not impact on views

or view corridors.

Yes

Streetscape, setting or

landscape

Refer to comments above. Yes

Site and building

Signage will be compatible with

the scale, proportion and other

characteristics of the proposed

and existing development on the

site, and will respect the

important features of the site

and the proposed development.

Yes


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

Associated devices and logos

with advertisements and

advertising structures

Signage will incorporate

business logos.

Yes

Illumination Illuminated signage will not

result in unacceptable glare or

affect the safety of pedestrians

or vehicles.

Yes

Safety Signage will not obscure

sightlines from public areas or

reduce the safety for

pedestrians, bicyclists or

motorists.

Yes

ASSESSMENT

A detailed assessment of the application has been carried out having regard to the Heads of

Consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.The

following matters are considered important to this application.

Existing Use Rights

The motor showroom was built in several stages. The southern part dates back about 60 years and

was extended in 1994 (DA94/1659), whilst the northern part was built under DA05/0097. The premises

have operated continually since that time and accordingly benefit from existing use rights. The

showroom was a permissible use under SSLEP 2000 and SSLEP 2006 as those instruments had

additional permitted uses clauses for this site. However the Department of Planning did not allow such

a clause for this site in SSLEP 2015, resulting in this site having existing use rights.

Landscaped Area

The proposal fails to comply with the development standard for landscaped area. Clause 6.14 of

SSLEP 2015 stipulates a minimum landscaped area of 30% for this site. The development proposes a

landscaped area of 8.8%, which fails to provide the minimum required by 67%.

This application is seeking alterations and additions and signage. The application does not involve any

change to the existing landscaped area of the subject site. The site presents total retention of

vegetation and urban run-off remains as existing as there is no increase in hardstand spaces. The

existing vegetation is consistent with the immediately adjoining properties in the streetscape.

The objectives of the landscaped area development standard set out in clause 6.14 of SSLEP 2015

are as follows:


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

to ensure adequate opportunities exist for the retention or provision of vegetation that

contributes to biodiversity and, in the case of trees, enhances the tree canopy of Sutherland

Shire,

to minimise urban run-off by maximising permeable areas on the sites of development,

to ensure that the visual impact of development is minimised by appropriate landscaping and

that the landscaping is maintained,

to ensure that landscaping carried out in connection with development is sufficient to

complement the scale of buildings, provide shade, screen parking areas and enhance workforce

amenities.

The proposed development is located within zone R3 Medium Density Development. The objectives of

this zone are as follows:

Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential

environment.

To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of

residents.

To encourage the supply of housing that meets the needs of the Shire’s population, particularly

housing for older people and people with a disability.

To promote a high standard of urban design and residential amenity in a high quality landscape

setting that is compatible with natural features.

To allow development that is of a scale and nature that provides an appropriate transition to

adjoining land uses.

The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the relevant objectives. The proposal does

not result in the loss of landscaped area or any vegetation. The works sought to this application

involve minor alterations to existing buildings and additions and signage. No changes are proposed to

the building footprint and the proposal will not generate an increase in gross floor area.

The applicant has lodged a written request in accordance with the requirements of Clause 4.6 of

SSLEP 2015. A full copy of this request is on the file and the most relevant section is reproduced

below:

“The variation as proposed results from an existing non-compliance with landscaped area on the site,

as previously approved. Given the limited scope of works proposed and as the existing built form and

site coverage pattern is being retained, it is considered unreasonable to require the site to comply with

the 30% landscaping requirement.


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

The site including noncompliant landscaping sits well within the locality, does not impact adjacent or

nearby residential amenity, and includes various well-tended mature landscaped gardens towards the

site boundaries which contribute to onsite and streetscape amenity.

The site benefits from existing use rights and the use onsite (vehicle sales premises) does not

demonstrate any unreasonable impacts on neighbouring or streetscape amenity, or on the locality. If

full compliance were enforced the opportunity to make minor alterations and additions to the existing

built form would be lost given compliance with the control is not aligned with the current land use

existing on site.

The approval of a variation to landscaped area to allow for minor internal reconfiguration works and

update of various facades is therefore considered beneficial with regard to the upkeep of appearance

of the site from the streetscape, and with regard to existing and future business opportunities for the

operations onsite. This is therefore considered the preferable planning outcome, particularly given the

lack of unreasonable impacts that will arise from the variation.”

The Applicant’s written submission has demonstrated that compliance with the development standard

is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, as the application only proposes a

change of use. It also demonstrates sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening

the development standard requiring the 30% landscaped area. Requiring the site to comply with the

development standard will result in a significant reconfiguration to the site.

The proposed variation does not raise any matters of State or regional environmental planning

significance. In addition there is no significant public benefit to maintain the landscaped area

development standard in the circumstances of this case.

In conclusion the variation to the landscaped area development standard satisfies all relevant parts of

clause 4.6 and therefore the variation can be supported.

Signage Provisions SSDCP 2016

The proposal complies with the applicable numerical controls (see above) and the objectives of

Chapter 35 Part 6 of SSDCP 2015. The existing signage was approved under DA07/1058 and

DA16/0947. The signage is located near main roads not residences and thus is not likely to cause light

spill or amenity issues. The signage integrates well with the scale / nature of the development and the

visual character of the area.

SEPP 64

The signage has been accessed under the criteria contained in Schedule 1 of the SEPP (refer above)

and is considered to satisfy those criteria. The signage does not result in visual clutter. The nature,

amount and size of the signage is appropriate to and in character and scale with the building and

streetscape. It does not affect road safety nor adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining premises.


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

A condition is imposed to ensure that illumination associated with signage on the site does not cause

a nuisance or adversely affect the amenity of any nearby residences, other form of accommodation, or

traffic movements due to unacceptable glare or light output

Acid Sulfate Soils

The subject site is identified as within ‘Class 5‘ Acid Sulfate Soils Maps and the provisions of Clause

6.1 are applicable. The objectives of this Clause are to ensure that development does not disturb,

expose or drain acid sulphate soils and cause environmental damage.

Within Class 5, the trigger under SSLEP 2015 is works within 500m of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land

that is below 5m AHD and by which the watertable is likely to lowered the water table below 1m AHD

on adjacent Class 1,2,3 or 4 ASS land. Given the nature of the proposed works, there is unlikely to be

an impact on the water table on adjacent Class 1 – 4 land.

Stormwater Management

Clause 6.4 requires Council to be satisfied of certain matters in relation to stormwater management

prior to development consent being granted. These matters include maximising permeable surfaces;

on-site stormwater retention minimising the impacts on stormwater runoff. These matters have been

addressed to Council’s satisfaction.

Energy Efficiency and sustainable building techniques

Clause 6.15 of SSLEP 2015 contains matters for consideration relating to ecologically sustainable

development and energy efficiency and sustainable building techniques. The relevant matters have

been considered as a part of the assessment of the application and the proposal is considered to be

acceptable.

Contaminated Land

A site inspection and search of Council records has revealed that the subject site is potentially

contaminated due to its past and current use however the proposal is for internal alteration and

additions and for signage and does not change exposure to soils or involve disturbance of soils nor

drainage or intensification of the approved use.

Archaeological Sensitivity

Council records indicate that the subject site is rated low in terms of Archaeological Sensitivity. A site

inspection did not reveal any evidence of shell material or significant sandstone features within the

development zone. The proposal does not warrant an Aboriginal Archaeological Study being

undertaken.


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2- Georges River Catchment

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 (GMREP2) includes a number of aims and

objectives for the environment and water quality within the catchment. Appropriate stormwater

management and water quality measures were provided in the construction of the building and there

will be minimal likely adverse impacts on water quality. The proposal is consistent with the aims and

objectives of GMREP2.

SECTION 7.12 CONTRIBUTIONS

The proposed development has a value of greater than $100,000. In order to provide high quality and

diverse public facilities, the proposed development will attract Section 7.12 Contributions in

accordance with Council’s adopted Section 94 Development Contribution Plan 2016.

This contribution is based upon the proposed cost of the development and has been calculated at

0.5% of $181,500.00 (the estimated cost of development identified on the development application

form). Therefore, Section 7.12 Levy contributions for the proposed development would be $907.50.

DECLARATIONS OF AFFILIATION, GIFTS AND POLITICAL DONATIONS

Section 10.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 requires the declaration of

donations/gifts in excess of $1000. In addition Council’s development application form requires a

general declaration of affiliation. In relation to this development application no declaration has been

made.

CONCLUSION

The subject land is located within Zone R3 Medium Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being a motor

showroom and business identification signage, is not a permissible land use within the zone but

benefits from existing use rights.

In response to public exhibition, nil submissions were received. The proposal includes a variation to

landscaped area. This variation has been discussed and is considered acceptable.

The application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 4.15

of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The application will not result in any

significant impact on the environment or the amenity of nearby residents. Following assessment,

Development Application No.18/0592 may be supported for the reasons outlined in this report.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager, Major Development

Assessment (DK) who can be contacted on 9710 0333.

File Number: DA18/0592.


SS

LP

P0

14-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

A


SS

LP

P0

14

-18 A

pp

en

dix

B


SS

LP

P0

15-1

8

SSLPP015-18 PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL

PROPERTY: LOT 7 DP 262955 (NO. 11) RELIANCE PLACE,

ILLAWONG

APPLICANT: BLUE HAVEN POOLS SOUTH PTY LTD

FILE NUMBER: DA18/0667

Attachments: Appendix A⇩ and Appendix B⇩

REASON FOR THE REPORT


landscape development standard of 40% (239.6m2), as required by the SSLEP 2015, has not been

met. The proposed landscaping is 26% (155m2). This results in a 35% contravention of the

development standard.

There are no submissions.

PROPOSAL

The application is for construction of 15,875L concrete in-ground swimming pool at the rear of the

above property.

THE SITE

The subject site is located at the south east of Reliance Place cul-de-sac, within an established low

density residential area predominantly characterised by one and two storey dwellings.


THAT:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan

2015, the written submission in relation to Clause 6.14 Landscaped Area satisfies the

relevant provisions of Clause 4.6 and is therefore supported. It is recommended that the

provisions of Clause 4.6 be invoked and that the landscaped ratio development standard be

contravened and 25.8% (155m2) be accepted in respect to this application.

2. That Development Application No. 18/0667 for Construction of a swimming pool at Lot 7 DP

262955 (No. 11) Reliance Place, Illawong be approved, subject to the conditions contained

in Appendix “A” of the report.


SS

LP

P0

15-1

8


DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

An application has been received for the construction of a 15,875L in-ground swimming pool at the

rear of the above property. The particulars of the proposal are as follows:

Pool coping 150mm above ground,

1m side and rear setback to the water line, and

Pool safety barriers that are compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992.


Figure 1. Extract from site plan (source: Blue Haven Pools & Spas)


The subject site is located at the south east of Reliance Place cul-de-sac with the nearest cross

section being Hobart Place. The site is within an established low density residential area

predominantly characterised by one and two storey dwellings. Access is available via a 4m wide right-

of-way easement that traverses the northern part of the property.

The lot has an area of 599.14m2, with dimensions 22.25m width and 27.14m average depth. The

allotment is relatively flat at the rear with a gradual fall to the front.


SS

LP

P0

15-1

8


Figure 2. Aerial imagery of the subject site (source: Geocortex)

Figure 3. Immediate locality aerial imagery (source: Geocortex)

Approximate location

of the proposed

swimming pool.


SS

LP

P0

15-1

8

BACKGROUND


The current application was submitted on 04 June 2018 .


June 2018.

Council officer requested the following additional information be provided:

- Amended plans reflecting the correct landscaped area, and

- Amended clause 4.6 variation written statement to reflect any changes to the amended

site plan.

Amended plans were submitted on 27 July 2018.




Council to enable an assessment of this application, including a written request to contravene the

Clause 6.14 Landscaped Area development standard under Clause 4.6 (Appendix “B”) of Sutherland

Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015.




Council notified 6 adjoining or affected owners of the proposal and no submissions were received.


The subject land is located within Zone E4 Environmental Living pursuant to the provisions of

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being construction of

15,875L concrete in-ground swimming pool, is a permissible land use within the zone with

development consent from Council.

The following Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs), Draft EPIs, Development Control Plans

(DCPs), Codes or Policies are relevant to this application:


State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.


S94A 2016 Plan - Sutherland Shire.


SS

LP

P0

15-1

8

COMPLIANCE




CLAUSE REQUIRED PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE NOTES

Clause 6.14 –

Landscaped Area

40% (239.6m2) 25.8% (155m

2)

No

(insufficient by

35%)

Site Area –

599.14m2

Clause 4.6 written

request submitted.

Table 1. Relevant development standard


Chapter 34 Ancillary Development

REQUIRED PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE NOTES

5.2 Controls for Location

2. Side/rear boundary setbacks – pool is <500mm

above EGL at any point:

a. 1m – no landscaping provided

b. 1m – landscaping is non-climbable

c. 1.8m – landscaping is climbable

Side – 1m

from waterline

Rear – 1.1m

from waterline

Side – No

Rear – No

Setbacks may be

varied to waterline

as pool is in-

ground.

5.4 Controls for Height

1. Pools to be as close to NGL as possible Yes Complies

5.5 Controls for Swimming Pool Barrier Fences

1. Min. heights, as indicated in Figures 1 and 2:

Figure 1: internal fence – 1.2m

Figure 2: boundary fence – 1.8m

Internal fence

– 1.2m

Boundary

fence – to

comply w/

Swimming

Pools Act

1992

Internal fence –

Yes

Boundary fence –

Yes

Complies

Complies

Table 2. Relevant development controls

ASSESSMENT


Consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The



SS

LP

P0

15-1

8

Landscaped Area

The proposed development fails to comply with the development standard for landscaped area.

Clause 6.14(3) of SSLEP 2015 stipulates a minimum landscaped area of 40%for this site. The

development proposes a landscaped area of 25.8% (155m2), and this contravenes the development

standard by 35%.

The objectives of the landscaped area development standard set out in Clause 6.14 of SSLEP 2015

are as follows:

(a) to ensure adequate opportunities exist for the retention or provision of vegetation that

contributes to biodiversity and, in the case of trees, enhances the tree canopy of

Sutherland Shire,

(b) to minimise urban run-off by maximising permeable areas on the sites of development,

(c) to ensure that the visual impact of development is minimised by appropriate landscaping

and that the landscaping is maintained,

(d) to ensure that landscaping carried out in connection with development is sufficient to

complement the scale of buildings, provide shade, screen parking areas and enhance

workforce amenities.

The proposal includes further reduction of a pre-existing non-compliant landscaped ratio. Council

notes that there is a 139m2 right of way easement that burdens the site. With the presence of the

easement on the site that provides onerous limitation to the capability of the owners of the land to

develop their property; Council is of the opinion that it is reasonable to permit the variation. In return,

council will impose a condition of planting a tree to contribute to the biodiversity and tree canopy of

Sutherland Shire.

The proposed development is located within zone E4 Environmental Living. The objectives of this

zone are as follows:

Zone E4 Environmental Living

To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological,

scientific or aesthetic values.

To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those

values.

To allow for development that preserves and enhances the natural landscape

setting of the locality.

To protect and restore trees, bushland and scenic values particularly along

ridgelines and in other areas of high visual significance.


SS

LP

P0

15-1

8

To ensure the character of the locality is not diminished by the cumulative impacts

of development.

To minimise the risk to life, property and the environment by restricting the type or

level and intensity of development on land that is subject to natural or man-made

hazards.

To allow the subdivision of land only if the size of the resulting lots makes them

capable of development that retains or restores natural features while allowing a

sufficient area for development.

To share views between new and existing development and also from public

space.

The proposal is a minor development, an in-ground swimming pool. The existing character of the

immediate locality is envisaged to not be impacted. No removal of trees is included in the proposed

works. Council is of the opinion that the proposed swimming pool satisfies the objectives of the zone,

as set out above.


SSLEP 2015.

A full copy of this request is on the file and the most relevant section is reproduced below:

“The proposed swimming pool has been positioned in order to provide adequate

supervision to children and will enhance the overall landscape design.”

“R.O.W. easement burdens the site by 135m2 making it difficult to achieve the required

40%.”

“We feel it would be unreasonable to not allow the client to put in the proposed

swimming pool as there is little else on the site…”

The site is burdened by a right of way easement which occupies 139m2 of the site. This limits the

ability of the site to successfully meet the minimum landscape area development standard. The

written request as summarised above is therefore supported. However the proposal includes further

reduction to the landscaping on the site, it is reasonable therefore to impose a condition of tree

planting on the site in order to ensure that the site meets its broader environmental biodiversity

obligations. Alternatively, the applicant may choose to enter into deed of agreement with the council to

provide tree planting in a public place instead.

The applicant’s written submission demonstrates that compliance with the landscaped area

development standard is unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. It also demonstrates

sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify varying this development standard.


SS

LP

P0

15-1

8

The proposed development is in the public interest as the proposal complies with the objectives for

both landscaped area and the E4 Environmental Living zone.

The proposed contravention does not raise any matters of State or regional environmental planning

significance. In addition there is no public benefit to maintain the landscaped area development

standard in the circumstances of this case.

In conclusion the contravention of the landscaped area development standard satisfies all relevant

parts of Clause 4.6 and therefore it can be supported.

Side and Rear Setbacks

The proposal includes a side and rear setback of 1m to the waterline from the side and rear

boundaries. The SSDCP 2015 requires side and rear setbacks to be 1m off the side and rear

boundaries, measured from the pool coping. However, as the proposed swimming pool is in-ground,

council accepts the variation of the side and rear setbacks to waterline.

Earthworks

The proposal includes earthworks and Clause 6.2 of SSLEP 2015 requires certain matters to be

considered in deciding whether to grant consent. These matters include impacts on drainage; future

development; quality and source of fill; effect on adjoining properties; destination of excavated

material; likely disturbance of relics; impacts on waterways; catchments and sensitive areas and

measures to mitigate impacts. The relevant matters have been considered and the application is

acceptable.

Urban Design (Residential Buildings)

Clauses 6.16 and 6.17 of SSLEP 2015 contain certain matters of consideration relating to urban

design. The relevant matters have been considered as a part of the assessment of the application and

the proposal is considered to be acceptable.


Council records indicate that the subject site is rated medium in terms of Archaeological Sensitivity. A

site inspection did not reveal any evidence of shell material or significant sandstone features within the


undertaken.


The construction cost of the proposal is such that it does not trigger the threshold for Section 7.11

contributions therefore these are not required.


SS

LP

P0

15-1

8





made.

CONCLUSION


Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being construction of a

concrete in-ground swimming pool, is a permissible land use within the zone with development

consent.

In response to public exhibition, no submissions were received. The matters raised in these

submissions have been dealt with by design changes or conditions of consent where appropriate.

The proposal includes a written request to contravene Clause 6.14 landscaped ratio development

standard of the SSLEP 2015. This has been discussed section 9.1 above and is considered

acceptable subject to a tree planting condition of consent.




Development Application No. 18/0667 may be supported for the reasons outlined in this report.

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager, Development Assessment &

Certification (PSa), who can be contacted on 9710.0333.

File No: DA18/0667


SS

LP

P0

15-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

A


SS

LP

P0

15-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

B


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8

SSLPP016-18 PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING

DWELLING

PROPERTY: LOT 159 DP 16481 (NO. 10) BURLEIGH AVENUE,

CARINGBAH

APPLICANT: PAUL WILSHER


Attachments: Appendix A,⇩ Appendix B⇩ and Appendix C⇩


This application is referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) because the

landscape development standard for this site is 35% (201.93m2). The development proposes 26%

(152m2). This is a contravention of the development standard by 24%.

No submissions were received for this proposal.

PROPOSAL

The application is for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at the above property. The

proposal is comprised of the following:

Ground floor addition to the front and rear of the existing dwelling, and

Covered verandah to the front.

THE SITE

The subject site is located at the south of Burleigh Avenue with the nearest intersection being Fenton

Avenue. The property is located within an established low density residential locality, predominantly

characterised by 1 to 2 storey dwellings.


THAT:


the written submission in relation to landscaped area satisfies the relevant provisions of

Clause 4.6 and is therefore supported. It is recommended that the provisions of Clause 4.6

be invoked and that the 35% landscaped area development standard be contravened and

26%, be accepted in respect to this application.


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8

2. That Development Application No. 18/0458 for alterations and additions to an existing

dwelling at Lot 159 DP 16481 (No. 10) Burleigh Avenue, Caringbah be approved, subject to

the conditions contained in Appendix “A” of the report.


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8



An application has been received for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at the above

property. The proposed development includes enclosure of an existing covered veranda at the rear

and extension of the existing dwelling house to the front with a covered veranda.

The proposed rear addition will be used as kitchen and dining area with bi-fold doors to open to the

private open space (POS). The front addition will create an additional bedroom and a living room. The

living room is orientated to the north for solar access. Part of the façade will have a covered veranda,

providing some articulation.


Figure 1. Extract of the site plan (source: Paul Wilsher Design)


The subject site is located on the south side of Burleigh Avenue with the nearest cross section being

Fenton Avenue. A 1 storey dwelling house currently occupies the site.

The site is regular in shape, with site dimensions 14m frontage width and 40m depth. The allotment

has an area of 575.4m2.



SS

LP

P0

16-1

8

Figure 2. Aerial imagery of the subject site (source: Geocortex)


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8

Figure 3. Aerial imagery of the subject site and its immediate locality (source: Geocortex)

BACKGROUND


The current application was submitted on 19 April 2018 .

The application was placed on exhibition, with the last date for public submissions being 07 May

2018.

Council officer requested the following additional information:

- Landscaped Area – to offset the new hard surface areas by removal of some existing

hard paving at the rear

- SSDCP building line non-compliance variation statement

Amended plans and documentation were submitted on 07 June 2018.

Comments from Council’s flood engineers were received on 02 July 2018.





Clause 6.14 Landscaped Area development standard under Clause 4.6 (Appendix “B”) of Sutherland

Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015.


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8






The subject land is located within Zone R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being an alterations

and additions to an existing dwelling, is a permissible land use within the zone with development

consent from Council.






S94A 2016 Plan - Sutherland Shire.

COMPLIANCE




Clause Required Proposal Compliance Notes

Clause 4.3 – Height of

Buildings

8.5m 5.45m Yes

Clause 4.4 - Floor

Space Ratio

0.55:1 (316.47m2) 0.31:1

(182.4m2)

Yes

6.14 Landscaped

Area

35% (201.39m2) 26% (152m

2) No (insufficient by

24%)

Existing

landscaped area

is 152m2

(26%),

already non-

compliant.

Proposal will not

further reduce

landscaping.


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8

Site Area –

575.4m2

Table 1. SSLEP 2015 relevant development standards

C. Dwelling Houses in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone

Requirement Proposal Compliance Notes

1. Streetscape and Building Form

5. Roof or wall cladding – must not use highly

reflective materials

Condition


2. Building Setbacks

2. Min. setbacks:

Front

7.5m OR established street setback of

adjoining dwellings

Secondary street – 3m

Internal lot – 4m

Side

Ground Floor – 0.9m

2nd

storey – 1.5m

Internal lot – 1.5m

Bushfire prone land – 1.5m

Rear

6m

internal lot – 4m

*If average setback is 2m or less, the greater or less

setback can be applied.

Front – 6.18m

Side – 0.9m

Rear – 12.6m

Front – No

Side – Yes

Rear – Yes

Some properties

along the street

have front setback

<7.5m


4. Landscaping

1. Hard surface areas:

Max. 50% - within street frontage

Remaining 50% - deep soil landscaping

>50% Yes

2. Existing canopy trees in the vicinity of side, rear &

front setbacks (incl. on adjoining land) should be

retained.

No trees

proposed to be

removed

Yes


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8


5. Building Layout, Private Open Space and Solar Access

1. Maximise the natural light penetration to indoor

areas and reduce the need for mechanical heating

and cooling by proper orientation of new

development.

The addition

comprises a

bedroom and

a living room

to be

orientated to

the North.

Yes

2. Min. 3 hours solar access to a living area within the

dwelling.

The addition

comprises a

bedroom and

a living room

to be

orientated to

the North.

Yes

3. Min. 36m2 POS (min. dimension 5m – 9m

2 must be

paved)

Yes Sufficient space at

the rear to be

POS

Table 2. SSDCP 2015 relevant development controls

SPECIALIST COMMENTS AND EXTERNAL REFERRALS

The application was referred to the following internal and external specialists for assessment and the

following comments were received:

Engineering (Assessment Team)

The application was referred to Council’s Assessment Team Engineer who provided the following

conditions to be included as part of the consent:

Design – new building materials must be flood resistant/compatible to a height of 4.0m AHD,

Requirement of Site Specific Flood Emergency Response Strategy to be submitted before issue

of Occupation Certificate, and

Ongoing requirement to store materials that may be damaged by flood at or above 4.0m AHD.

ASSESSMENT


Consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The


Landscaped Area


Clause 6.14(3) of SSLEP 2015 stipulates a minimum landscaped area of 35% for this site. The


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8

development proposes a landscaped area of 152m2 (26%), which is insufficient by 24%.

The proposed development will not further reduce the landscaped area on the site. For clarification,

the proposal includes offsetting the new covered areas by removal of some existing hard paving at the

rear of the property.

The site visit undertaken by Council revealed that there are sufficient tree planting on the site that

satisfies the tree planting requirements of the SSDCP 2015.


are as follows:


contributes to biodiversity and, in the case of trees, enhances the tree canopy of

Sutherland Shire,


(c) to ensure that the visual impact of development is minimised by appropriate landscaping

and that the landscaping is maintained,


complement the scale of buildings, provide shade, screen parking areas and enhance

workforce amenities.

Council is of the opinion that the objectives set out above will be achieved by the proposal. The

proposed works will not further reduce any existing soft landscaping on the site. The development

includes offsetting the new hard areas by removing some existing hard paving at the rear of the

subject site.

The proposed development is located within zone R2 Low Density Residential. The objectives of this


Zone R2 Low Density Residential

To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential

environment.

To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day

needs of residents.

To protect and enhance existing vegetation and other natural features and

encourage appropriate bushland restoration particularly along ridgelines and in

areas of high visual significance.

To allow the subdivision of land only if the size of the resulting lots retains natural

features and allows a sufficient area for development.

To ensure the single dwelling character, landscaped character, neighbourhood


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8

character and streetscapes of the zone are maintained over time and not

diminished by the cumulative impact of multi dwelling housing or seniors housing.

Council is of the opinion that the objectives of the zone set out above will be satisfied by the proposed

development. Council has provided balance between the property owners’ right to develop his land to

provide for their housing needs and protecting the natural features of the land by requesting to offset

the proposed new covered areas by removal of some existing hard paving. Moreover, in order for

Council to support the application, a condition will be imposed to include appropriate street tree

planting.


SSLEP 2015.


“The existing site is currently non-compliant with the control...”

“Most of the building’s additional footprint will cover existing decking or concrete hard

surfaces”

“…no loss of landscaping or outdoor recreation area at the rear of the dwelling”

“No additional overshadowing…”

“No loss of trees”

“No loss of Private Open Space”

In consideration of the reasons above, it is deemed unreasonable for Council to request the owners of

the subject site to provide more landscaping in this development application that proposes no further

reduction of existing landscaped area. Furthermore, Council envisages that the nature of the proposed

development is minimal and will have no adverse environmental impact.


development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. It also

demonstrates sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of this development

standard.


both landscaped area and the R2 Low Density Residential zone.





SS

LP

P0

16-1

8

In conclusion the contravention of the landscaped area development standard satisfies all relevant

parts of Clause 4.6 and therefore can be supported.

Front Building Line

The proposal includes a building line setback approximately 6.18m from the front boundary. This

variation is for an open form verandah, the front wall of the addition is compliant. Existing dwelling

houses along Burleigh Avenue having a front setback less than 7.5m, as such the variation is not out

of character, accordingly the variation to the front setback by the proposed development may be

supported.

Acid Sulfate Soils




Within Class 5, the trigger under SSLEP 2015 is works within 500m of adjacent Class 1,2,3 or 4 land


on adjacent Class 1,2,3 or 4 ASS land.

Given the nature of the proposed works, being alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, there

is unlikely to be an impact on the water table on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Flood Planning

The proposal is located on land which is potentially affected by flooding. Clause 6.3 requires Council

to be satisfied of certain matters prior to development consent being granted. These matters include

compatibility; with the flood risk; impact on flooding behaviour; measures to manage risk to life; impact

on the environment; and social and economic costs. Council’s Flood Engineers provided conditions

that will be included as part of the consent.











SS

LP

P0

16-1

8


Council records indicate that the subject site is rated high in terms of Archaeological Sensitivity. A site



undertaken.





This contribution is based upon the proposed cost of the development and has been calculated at 1%

of $268,400.00. Therefore, Section 7.12 Levy contributions for the proposed development would be

$2,684.00.





made.

CONCLUSION

The subject land is located within Zone R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being an alterations

and additions to existing dwelling, is a permissible land use within the zone with development consent.

In response to public exhibition, no submissions were received. The matters raised in these


The proposal includes a request to contravene the landscaped area development standard. This has

been discussed and is considered acceptable subject to design changes and/or conditions of consent.

No further reduction of the landscaped ratio on the site is part of the proposal, and a condition to

provide street tree planting to compensate for the landscaping non-compliance shall be imposed.






SS

LP

P0

16-1

8


Certification (PSa), who can be contacted on 9710.0333.

File No. DA18/0458


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

A


SS

LP

P0

16-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

B


SS

LP

P0

16

-18 A

pp

en

dix

C


SS

LP

P0

17-1

8


DWELLING

PROPERTY: LOT 1 DP 516783 (NO. 240) ATTUNGA ROAD, YOWIE

BAY

APPLICANT: PHIL O'DONNELL ARCHITECTS



REASON FOR REPORT


proposal involves a pre-existing landscape noncompliance greater than 10%.

The existing landscaped area on site is 27.4% (247.9m2). While there is no change this represents a

deficiency of 32% to the minimum requirement of 40% (361.68m2).

There are no submissions.

PROPOSAL

The application is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at the above property. The

proposal comprises of the following:

the enclosing of part of the existing front terrace to create an ensuite and pantry on the ground

floor; and

the replacement of the existing attached garage roller shutter with a new external wall to allow

for an office room on the lower ground floor.

THE SITE

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Attunga Road in Yowie Bay and slopes to the rear.


THAT:


the written submission in relation to the contravention of the minimum landscaped area satisfies

the relevant provisions of Clause 4.6 and is therefore supported. It is recommended that the

provisions of Clause 4.6 be invoked and that the minimum landscaped area development

standard be contravened and 27.4% be accepted in respect to this application.


SS

LP

P0

17-1

8

2. That Development Application No. 18/0773 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling

at Lot 1 DP 516783 (No. )240 Attunga Road, Yowie Bay be approved, subject to the conditions

contained in Appendix “A” of the report.


SS

LP

P0

17-1

8



An application has been received for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at the above

property. The proposal comprises of the following:

the enclosing of part of the existing front terrace to create an ensuite and pantry on the ground

floor; and

the replacement of the existing attached garage roller shutter with a new external wall to allow

for an office room on the lower ground floor.

The proposal does not impact the existing setbacks, which are 12.4m from the street (front); side

setbacks of 6.1m (north) and 9.9m (south) and the rear setback of 32.4m.


Figure 1: Site plan indicating the location of proposed development.


The subject site is located on the eastern side of Attunga Road in Yowie Bay and slopes to the rear.

The site is irregular in shape with a front boundary width of 18.288m and a site area of 904.2m2.

Existing on the site is a two storey dwelling house, carport and swimming pool.

The site is surrounded by predominately low density housing consisting of single and two storey

dwellings with brick and rendered concrete finishes. Adjoining development consists of two storey

dwellings to the northern and southern sides.


SS

LP

P0

17-1

8

An aerial photo is provided below.

Figure 2: Aerial photo of the subject site and its surrounds.

BACKGROUND


The current application was submitted on 29 June 2018.

The application was placed on exhibition, with the last date for public submissions being 23 July

2018.

Amended plans and a Clause 4.6 variation statement (Appendix B) were lodged on 8 August

2018 in response to a request to provide a landscaped area plan.





minimum landscaped area development standard under Clause 4.6 of Sutherland Shire Local

Environmental Plan 2015.


SS

LP

P0

17-1

8




Council notified 8 adjoining or affected owners of the proposal and zero submissions were received.


The subject land is located within Zone E3 Environmental Management pursuant to the provisions of

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being alterations and

additions to an existing dwelling house, is a permissible land use within the zone with development

consent from Council.





COMPLIANCE





Clause 4.3 – Height

of Buildings

Maximum 8.5m

6.665m YES

Clause 4.4 - Floor

Space Ratio

Maximum 0.50:1

452.1m2

0.22:1

199.6m2

YES

Clause 6.14 -

Landscape Area

Minimum 40%

361.68m2

27.4%

247.9m2

NO

32% variation

Variation is

pre-

existing;

No change

to existing

landscaped

area.


SS

LP

P0

17-1

8

CHAPTER 2:

A. Dwellings Houses in the E3 Environmental Management Zone



1.2 Streetscape and Building form

1.2.3. Limited to two storeys in

height….. basements not

permitted, development must be

stepped down a steep slope.

The proposed addition is limited

to two storeys in height.

YES

1.2.5. Two or three storey

development is only permitted on

the front of an allotment and may

extend to a maximum of 60%.

YES

1.2.7. Limit highly reflective

materials for roof or wall cladding.

Proposed works will match the

existing non-reflective finishes.

YES

1.2.8. Maintain existing view

corridors.

YES

2.2 Building Setbacks

2.2.2:

Street setback:

7.5m or the established street

setback

3.0m (Secondary street)

4.0m (Internal lot)

Side Setback:

1.5m

Rear Setback:

6.0m

4.0m (Internal lot)

Street setback

12.4m

Side setback

6.1m (north)

9.9m (south)

Rear setback

32.4m

YES

6.2 Visual and Acoustic Privacy

6.2.1. Locate, orientate and design

new development to ensure visual

privacy between buildings, and

between buildings and adjacent

POS areas.

Privacy will be maintained as the

lower floor office window will

face a hedge and the upper floor

ensuite window is facing the

street.

YES


SS

LP

P0

17-1

8

6.2.2. Use building design to

increase privacy without

compromising access to light and

air.

YES

7.2 Vehicular Access, Parking and Circulation

7.2.1. Two parking spaces behind

the building line.

The two carport parking spaces

will remain.

YES

ASSESSMENT


Consideration under Section 4.15 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The


Landscaped Area


Clause 6.14 (3) of SSLEP 2015 stipulates a minimum landscaped area of 40% or 361.68m2 for this

site.

The development proposes a landscaped area of 27.4% or 247.9m2 which fails to provide the

minimum required by approximately 12.6% or 113.93m2.


are as follows:

to ensure adequate opportunities exist for the retention or provision of vegetation that


Shire,

to minimise urban run-off by maximising permeable areas on the sites of development,

to ensure that the visual impact of development is minimised by appropriate landscaping and


to ensure that landscaping carried out in connection with development is sufficient to


amenities.

In consideration of these objectives, the proposed development retains the existing vegetation with no

further reduction in landscaped area. Additionally, the proposed enclosing of part of the existing front

terrace will reduce urban run-off by capturing and disposing of stormwater which would otherwise fall

on the existing terrace and contribute to the site’s run-off.

Despite the landscaped area remaining unchanged, the proposal demonstrates a net improvement in

the site’s ability to achieve the objectives of Clause 6.14 of SSLEP 2015.


SS

LP

P0

17-1

8

The proposed development is located within zone E3 Environmental Management. The objectives of

this zone are as follows:

To protect, manage and restore areas with special ecological, scientific, cultural or

aesthetic values.

To provide for a limited range of development that does not have an adverse effect on

those values.

To allow development of a scale and nature that maintains the predominantly natural

landscape setting of the locality, and protects and conserves existing vegetation and

other natural features of the locality.

To limit development in the vicinity of the waterfront so that the locality’s natural qualities

can dominate.

To allow the subdivision of land only if the size of the resulting lots makes them capable

of development that will not compromise the sensitive nature of the environment.

To share views between new and existing development and also from public space.

As the proposal is only minor, it manages to retain the existing landscaped area and character of the

locality. The deficient landscaped area does not prevent the existing dwelling from meeting the

relevant objectives above.


SSLEP 2015.


“The proposed work is for alterations and additions within the existing footprint of the

dwelling and involves enclosing part of the front verandah to create an ensuite to the

main bedroom and a pantry to the kitchen. There are no changes proposed to the

current landscaped area.”


development standard is unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. It also demonstrates

sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify varying this development standard.


both landscaped area and the E3 Environmental Management zone.





SS

LP

P0

17-1

8

In conclusion the written request to contravene the landscaped area development standard satisfies

all relevant parts of Clause 4.6 and therefore it can be supported.

Acid Sulfate Soils





that is below 5m AHD and by which the watertable is likely to lower the water table below 1m AHD on

adjacent Class 1,2,3 or 4 ASS land.

Given the nature of the proposed works not involving any excavation there is unlikely to be an impact

on the water table on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3, or 4.










Greenweb

The subject site is identified within Council’s Greenweb strategy. The Greenweb is a strategy to

conserve and enhance Sutherland Shire’s bushland and biodiversity by identifying and appropriately

managing key areas of bushland habitat and establishing and maintaining interconnecting linkages

and corridors.

The subject site is identified as a Greenweb support area.

Having regard for the nature of the proposed development, it is considered unreasonable to require

additional plantings.





SS

LP

P0

17-1

8


undertaken.


Due to the minor nature of the application, it does not have a construction value sufficient to trigger the

requirement of Section 7.12 Contributions. Accordingly, none are generated.




general declaration of affiliation. In relation to this development application a declaration has been

made that there is no affiliation.

CONCLUSION

The subject land is located within Zone E3 Environmental Management pursuant to the provisions of


additions to an existing dwelling house, is a permissible land use within the zone with development

consent.

In response to public exhibition, zero submissions were received. The matters raised in these


The proposal includes a contravention to the development standard for landscaped area. This has

been discussed and is considered acceptable.





RESPONSIBLE OFFICER


Certification (SPl), who can be contacted on 9710 0333.

File Number: DA18/0773


SS

LP

P0

17-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

A


SS

LP

P0

17-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

B


SS

LP

P0

17

-18 A

pp

en

dix

C


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8


DWELLING AND INGROUND SWIMMING POOL

PROPERTY: LOT 1021 DP 1131832, (NO. 78) GRIFFIN PARADE,

ILLAWONG

APPLICANT: CHARBEL HANNA



REASON FOR REPORT

This application is referred to the Sutherland Shire Local Planning Panel because the development

site has a pre-existing landscaped area non-compliance greater than 10%.

The existing landscaped area onsite is 2.6% (15.17m2). The proposed works will provide a net

increase of 123m2 of landscaped area, resulting in the proposal attaining a total landscaped area of

24% (138.17m2). This equates to a deficiency of 16% (92.11m

2) with the applicable landscaped area

standard, being 40% (230.28m2).

There are two submissions from one neighbouring property.

PROPOSAL

The application is for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling footprint and construction of an

in-ground swimming pool at the above property.

THE SITE

The subject site is located on the southern side of Griffin Parade, Illawong.

MAIN ISSUES

The main issues in the assessment of this application are:

Landscaped Area non-compliance

THREE Storeys

Front setback


THAT:


the written submission in relation to landscaped area satisfies the relevant provisions of

Clause 4.6 and is therefore supported. It is recommended that the provisions of Clause 4.6 be


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

invoked and that the 40% minimum landscaped area development standard be contravened

and 24% be accepted in respect to this application.

2. That Development Application No. 18/0418 for alterations and additions to existing dwelling at

Lot 1021 DP 1131832 78 Griffin Parade, Illawong be approved subject to the conditions

contained at Appendix “A” of the report.


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8



An application has been received for alterations and additions to existing dwelling at the above

property.

The Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying the application describes the extent of works

as follows:

Partial demolition of existing dwelling house

Ground floor

Extension of living room into existing front balcony, internal changes comprising of new pantry and

expansion of family room;

First floor

Extension of bedroom 2, new ensuite, walk in room and balcony;

Swimming pool

In ground swimming pool within rear south-east corner dimensions 5m x 4m with a ranging depth of

1.2m – 2m”.


The subject site is located on the southern side of Griffin Parade, Illawong. The site has an outlook to

the Georges River and Lugarno beyond. Albert De Lardes Reserve, a bushland reserve is located

directly opposite the site and extends along the edge of the river and includes a carpark and

playground.

The lot forms an irregular allotment shape with a north facing aspect and site area of 575.7m2. The

site slopes from the rear (south) to the front (north). The subject site previously formed one allotment

of 1532m2 with the vacant elevated lot above. In 2003, under DA03/0948, approval was granted for

the subdivision of one lot into 2 residential lots with the retention of the subject dwelling. The site is

burdened by a right of way (ROW) which includes a drainage easement and easement for services

which traverses along the width of the frontage and the western side boundary. An easement for

support is located in the SE corner of the lot. The original two storey dwelling is centrally located on

site with a hardstand paved area located within the rear yard.

The street is predominantly characterised by large two to three storey dwellings. The land abutting the

site to the south is densely vegetated and remains vacant. Immediately to the east of the site is a

three storey rendered brick and tile dwelling and a two storey dwelling adjoins the site to the west. A

cluster housing development consisting of 12 x two storey units is located further west of the site.


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

Photograph of the subject dwelling at 78 Griffin Place, Illawong is provided below:

An aerial photo is provided below.

BACKGROUND


The current application was submitted on 12 April 2018.

The application was placed on exhibition, with the last date for public submissions being 4 May

2018.

Amended plans deleting the awning encroaching over the ROW, a new landscape concept plan

and clause 4.6 request to contravene landscaped area were submitted on 10 July 2018.


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8





landscaped area development standard under Clause 4.6 (Appendix “B”) of Sutherland Shire Local

Environmental Plan 2015.




Council notified 4 adjoining or affected owners of the proposal and two submissions were received

from one household at No. 78A Griffin Parade, Illawong in emails dated 30 April 2018.

The main issues identified are as follows:

Issue 1: Three storeys

Comment: Refer to assessment section of the report.

Issue 2: Structures encroaching Right of Carriageway

(i) Proposed Window Awning

This matter has been addressed by amended plans deleting the awning to bedroom 5.

(ii) Existing Laundry wall

This matter is outside the scope of the development application.

Issue 3: Street Setback DCP non compliance


Issue 4: Side and Rear Setback non compliance


Issue 5: Pool Setback and associated impacts to land stability

Comment: This matter is dealt with via a condition of consent (see condition 8)

Issue 6: Pool setback to easement

Comment: The proposed pool is sufficiently setback from the exposed rock. A condition of consent

has been imposed to minimise vibration damage and loss of support to buildings / structures and

properties in close proximity to the development site (see condition 8)


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

Revised Plans

The applicant lodged revised plans on 10 July 2018. In accordance with the requirements of

SSDCP2015 these plans were not publicly exhibited as, in the opinion of Council, the changes being

sought did not intensify or change the external impact of the development to the extent that

neighbours ought to be given the opportunity to comment.

Submission Review

The matters raised in the submissions have been dealt with by design changes or conditions of

consent where appropriate.




additions to a dwelling and a new in-ground pool, is a permissible land use within the zone with

development consent from Council.





Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment.


State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management 2018).

S94A 2016 Plan - Sutherland Shire

COMPLIANCE





Clause 4.3 –

Height of

Buildings

Maximum 8.5m

7.8m Yes

Clause 4.4 -

Floor Space

Ratio

Maximum 0.50:1

(287.85m2/575.7m

2)

0.41:1 (237.15m2) Yes


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

Clause 6.14 -

Landscape Area

Minimum 40%

(230.28m2/575.7m

2)

Existing landscaped

area 15.17m2

Additional

landscaped area

proposed 123m2

Total proposed

landscaped area

24% (138.17m2)

No, 16%

(92.11m2)

Clause 4.6

request

provided

CHAPTER 2:

B. Dwellings Houses in the E4 Environmental Living Zone




1.2.1. Dwelling sited so minimal

disturbance to the natural landscape

Extent of works limited to

existing hard surfaces

Yes

1.2.2. Take into consideration the

bushfire risk

To be conditioned to comply with

recommendations of bushfire

report

Yes

1.2.3. Development limited to two

storeys in height

3 Storeys No, 50%

variation

1.2.5. Two or three storey

development is only permitted on

the front of an allotment and may

extend to a maximum of 60%.

Existing non-compliant

New works confined to front of

lot

No

Yes


2.2.2:

Street setback:


setback

Side Setback:

1.5m

Rear Setback:

6.0m

3.9m min to existing garage

5.1m min to FF Balcony

4.7m min East to FF balcony

Nil existing laundry

No, 48%

No, 32%

Yes

No

Pre-existing

New works

Pre-existing


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

3.2 Landform

3.2.2. Max. cut/fill of 1m from

existing ground level, except for

basements.

N/A - Alterations and confined to

existing building footprint

4.2 Landscaping

4.2.1. Max. 50% hard surfaces

within front setback, remaining

area to be deep soil.

Pre-existing non compliance No

4.2.2. Development should be

designed to retain existing canopy

trees

N/A

5.2 Building Layout, Private Open Space and Solar Access

5.2.1. Orientate new development

to maximise natural light (to indoor

areas) and reduce need for

mechanical heating and cooling.

Additions include windows and

bi-fold doors on the north

elevation to maximise solar

access

Yes

5.2.2. Min. 3 hours direct sunlight

between 9am-3pm in midwinter to

a living area.

3hrs solar access achieved Yes

5.2.3. Min. 36m2 (with a min.

dimension of 5m) private open

space at or near ground level. 9m2

must be paved.

Min 36m2 POS in rear yard with

min 9m2 paving

Yes

5.2.6. For the proposed dwelling:

a) orientate the area of private

open space to take advantage

of the northern solar access,

b) ensure 10m2 of POS has 3hrs

of solar access between 9am

and 3pm at the winter solstice

(21 June),

c) overshadowing by vegetation

should be ignored,

d) overshadowing by fences, roof

overhangs and changes in level

should be taken into

consideration.

POS unchanged at rear of site

Min 10m2

of rear yard receives

3hrs solar access from 9am

Achieved


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

5.2.7. For the neighbouring

dwellings:

a) ensure 10m2 of POS has 3hrs

of solar access between 9am

and 3pm at the winter solstice

(21 June),

b) ensure windows of living areas

have 3hrs of solar access

between 9am and 3pm at the

winter solstice (21 June).

c) consideration will be given to

reduced solar access where the

proposed dwelling is generally

compliant with all development

standards and controls, and the

extent of impact is the result of

orientation, site constraints, and

or existing built forms.

d) overshadowing by vegetation

should be ignored,

e) overshadowing by fences, roof

overhangs and changes in level

should be taken into

consideration.

North – South orientation allows

for min 3hrs solar access to

adjoining properties

Achieved

Achieved






POS areas.

Additions to dwelling are to the

front boundary

Achieved

6.2.2. Use building design to

increase privacy without

compromising access to light and

air.

Floor plan layout and separation

distance minimise privacy

impacts

Yes

6.2.3. Living, dining and kitchen

windows with direct outlook to an

adjacent property which leads to a

loss of amenity, needs to consider

the following:

The proposed extension to the

living room including bi-fold

doors are orientated north

towards the street minimising

any privacy impacts

Yes


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

a) Offset edge of one window to

edge of other window to limit

the views into adjacent

windows, or

b) Provide 1.6m sill height

c) Have fixed obscure glazing in

any part of the window below

1.6m; or

d) Direct outlooks from all living

rooms/bedrooms/kitchen/studie

s towards street, POS on site,

public open space and

waterways.

e) Where overlooking unavoidable

then suitable screening required

(louvres, obscured glass)

6.2.4. All noise generating

equipment must be acoustically

screened and designed to protect

acoustic privacy of residents and

neighbours. The noise level

generated by any equipment must

not exceed an LAeq (15min) of

5dB(A) above background noise at

the property boundary.

Pool pump to comply with

conditions of consent



the building line.

Existing double garage to

remain unchanged

Yes

8.2 Waste Management Requirements

8.2.1. Each dwelling must be

capable of accommodating:

a) 120L garbage bin

b) 240L recycling bin

c) 240L green waste bin.

Can be accommodated within

side access

Yes


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

CHAPTER 34: ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT

A. General Ancillary Development

Sutherland Shire Draft Development Control Plan 2015

5 – Swimming Pools in the E3 and E4 zones

5.2 – Controls for Location

B.5.2.1. Pools shall be located

and designed to:

a) to minimise disturbance to the

natural landscape with

existing significant, healthy

trees and vegetation retained

and enhanced

b) minimise any impact on

native vegetation from

excavation

c) minimise any alterations to

the natural topography.

Pool to be located in the SE

corner of rear yard which

comprises existing hardstand

area

Yes

B.5.2.3. Pool to be sited and

designed to retain natural land

forms and protect the integrity

and stability of geological

elements in the vicinity.

N/A

B.5.2.4. Where a pool is located

in close proximity to an existing

tree, the pool surround/decking

shall be of isolated pier and

beam construction to prevent

tree root damage.

N/A

B.5.2.5. Pool to be separated

from ancillary development. Non-

pool structures to be outside the

pool area enclosure.

Pool isolated in rear yard Yes

B.5.2.6. The enclosed pool area

is to be located and designed so

that access between the

residence and the waterway,

street or adjoining public open

space is outside the pool

Pool isolated in rear yard Yes


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

enclosure and not through the

pool area.

B.5.2.7. The pool and surrounds

must be designed such that

splash, drainage and spill water

does not adversely affect

waterways and other sensitive

natural features, or adjoining

properties.

Pool overflow to sewer Yes

B.5.2.8. Pool and associated

structures to be located clear of

drainage easement.

Clear of drainage easement Yes

5.3 – Controls for Setbacks

B.5.3.2. Side/rear setback from

outside edge of pool

coping/decking/paving where

pool is not more than 500mm

above ground:

a) 1m – where no landscaping

b) 1m – where landscaping is

non-climbable

c) 1.8m where landscaping is

climbable

Nil

No, 100%

variation

5.4 – Controls for Height

B.5.4.4. Top of pool to be as

close as possible to existing

ground.

Pool as close to ground level as

possible

Yes

B.5.4.2. Further to the above

clause, the following controls

apply:

a) a pool must not extend more

than 300mm above existing

ground level (at any point), if

located within the primary or

secondary street setback;

b) an in ground pool located

outside the street setbacks

must not extend more than

500mm above existing ground

N/A

80mm max

Yes


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

level (at any point).

c) a demountable pool located

outside the street setbacks

must not extend more than

1m above existing ground

level (at any point).

N/A

5.5 – Controls for Swimming Pool Barrier Fences

B.5.5.1. Swimming pool barrier

fences are to meet minimum

heights:

Internal = 1.2m

Boundary = 1.8m

1.2m

1.8m

Yes

Yes

ASSESSMENT




Landscaped Area


Clause 6.14(3) of SSLEP 2015 stipulates a minimum landscaped area of 40% (230.28m2) for this site.

The development proposes a landscaped area of 24% (138.17m2), which fails to provide the minimum

required by approximately 16% (92.11m2). The total area of the site is 575.7m

2 of which

approximately 129m2 forms part of the right of way, resulting in significant challenges to comply with

the development standard. The subject site is an established residential property which is currently

deficient in landscaping. The proposed development will provide a net increase of 24% (138.17m2) to

landscaped area by removal of hardstand area in the rear yard and adjacent to the western side

boundary to be replaced with deep soil landscaped area.


are as follows:



Shire,


(c) to ensure that the visual impact of development is minimised by appropriate landscaping and




SS

LP

P0

18-1

8


amenities.

The development accords with the relevant objectives above for the following reasons:

The proposal seeks to substantially increase landscaped area throughout the site which will

assist in balancing the built form and contribute to biodiversity;

The increase to the amount of landscaped areas will assist in minimising impacts on the existing

stormwater management of the subject site

The proposed development is located within zone E4 Environmental Living. The objectives of this


To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological,

scientific or aesthetic values.

To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those

values.

To allow for development that preserves and enhances the natural landscape setting of

the locality.

To protect and restore trees, bushland and scenic values particularly along ridgelines

and in other areas of high visual significance.

To ensure the character of the locality is not diminished by the cumulative impacts of

development.

To minimise the risk to life, property and the environment by restricting the type or level

and intensity of development on land that is subject to natural or man-made hazards.

To allow the subdivision of land only if the size of the resulting lots makes them capable

of development that retains or restores natural features while allowing a sufficient area

for development.

To share views between new and existing development and also from public space.

The objectives of this zone are satisfied as the proposal is consistent with the character and setting of

the locality and do not result in any detrimental impacts to views, natural features or ecological

qualities of the immediate locality.


SSLEP 2015.


The proposal seeks a variation to this control at 24%.


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

This is considered to be negligible and does not detract from the public domain, streetscape or

amenity of occupants.

The proposal has sought to provide a substantial in increase landscaped area from that of the

existing.

The proposed shortfall in landscaped area is not considered to result in an undesirable

precedent and is considered worthy of support on planning merit.

The right of way which is located within the front setback and western side setback significantly

contribute to the shortfall of landscaping however this is required to provide suitable access.

The extent of the resultant landscaped area would be comparable to that of Complying

Development Certificate at 20% (site areas between 450sqm – 600sqm with a minimum

dimension of 1.5m).”

The proposed contravention of the minimum landscaped area development standard will result in a

net improvement to landscape area on the site to appropriately soften the built form. Whilst the

proposal fails to strictly comply with the development standard, it has been adequately demonstrated

that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. It

also demonstrates sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify a contravention to this

development standard.


both landscaped area and the E4 Environmental Living zone.




In conclusion the contravention to the landscaped area development standard satisfies all relevant

parts of clause 4.6 and therefore it can be supported.

Development within the Coastal Zone

The subject site is located within the ‘proximity area for coastal wetlands’ under the State

Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018. Within the ‘proximity area for coastal

wetlands’, a consent authority must be satisfied that the proposed development will not significantly

impact on the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral

rainforest; or the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the adjacent

coastal wetland or littoral rainforest. A condition of consent for stormwater management has been

imposed on the development so that surface runoff will be appropriately managed. Further, the

subject site is situated more than 20m from the coastal wetland. This separation minimises potential

risk to elements comprising of a sensitive coastal environment.


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

Within the ‘Coastal Use Area’, a consent authority must be satisfied that the proposed development is

not likely to cause an adverse impact to safe public access to the foreshore, overshadowing, wind

funnelling and loss of views from public places or create poor visual amenity and scenic qualities of

the coast. The proposal does not directly adjoin the foreshore and is situated on the opposite side of

Griffin Parade. Public access to the foreshore is not obstructed by the development. Further, at no

time does the proposal overshadow any public space, obstruct or reduce public views or cause wind

funnelling. As such, the proposal fulfils the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy

(Coastal Management) 2018

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2

Georges River Catchment Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 (GMREP2)

includes a number of aims and objectives for the environment and water quality within the catchment.

Appropriate stormwater management and water quality measures are proposed and there are minimal

likely adverse impacts on existing coastal processes anticipated. Council is of the view that with the

implementation of the recommended conditions of consent the proposal would be consistent with the

aims and objectives of GMREP2.

Acid Sulfate Soils

The subject site is identified as within ‘Class 5’ Acid Sulfate Soils Maps and the provisions of Clause






Given the nature of the proposed works, being alterations and additions to a dwelling and construction

of a new in-ground pool, there is unlikely to be an impact on the water table on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3,

or 4.

Earthworks






acceptable.


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8










Number of Storeys

The proposal seeks to vary the control which limits development to two storeys in height above

existing ground level. The three storey element is confined to the front of the dwelling where the

ground floor living room and first floor bedroom 2 are to be extended over the existing double garage.

The proposed first floor and west elevation plans are provided below:


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

The applicant has provided the following justification for the variation:

“The third storey addition does not adversely result in any visual bulk, privacy, view impact of the like,

The proposal has been designed to comply with height, floorspace and setbacks and result in an

addition which is compatible to the immediate context.

As stated above, the proposal by virtue of the design is considered to be compatible with the existing

housing built forms which are described as being generally large dwelling houses on sloping sites. The

proposal is not considered to detract from the streetscape or environmental landscape setting”.

A variation to the two storey height limit is permitted where:

a. The third storey or basement does not result in the building having an adverse visual impact

when viewed from the public domain, waterway or open space; and

b. The basement or third storey does not result in a building that is incompatible with the

established scale or character of the immediate locality or adversely affect the amenity,

streetscape and landscape setting;

The maximum height of the overall dwelling will not change and the works will not add to the existing

footprint of the building. The scope of the development is not likely to pose any significant impacts on

the adjoining properties as the works are confined to the front of the dwelling. The three storey

element is minor with the proposal suitably articulated effectively minimising the visual bulk of the

building. The proposal is compatible with the established character of the immediate locality, and will

not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining neighbours in terms of views, privacy and

overshadowing. The street contains numerous examples of dwellings with three levels including the

immediately adjacent dwelling to the east which is also 3 storeys. The established character of the

area is being maintained and the proposal is consistent with the scale of development when viewed

from the waterway.


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

60% Lot Depth

The existing dwelling fails to technically comply with the development control which limits two and

three storey development to the front of an allotment to a maximum of 60% of the depth of site

measured from the property boundary. The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling are

confined to the front of the dwelling within the parameters of the existing dwelling footprint. The non-

compliance is pre-existing and new works are compatible within the streetscape and do not adversely

impact the amenity of adjoining development.

Street Setback

A minimum 7.5m street setback or the established street is required for dwelling houses within the

zone. The proposed addition has a minimum setback of 7.5m from the wall of the upper floor bedroom

and lower floor extension to the front boundary and a minimum setback of 5.1m from the first floor

balcony to the street which strictly fails to comply with the control.

A variation to the established street setback may be approved where:

a. the setback proposed does not have adverse consequences for the landscape quality of the

streetscape, and

b. the proposed variation does not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties in terms of solar

access, visual intrusion, view loss or privacy.

The existing dwelling is located on a reduced setback and it is noted that the adjoining dwelling to the

east is located on a similar reduced setback. The proposed encroachments are open form balconies

thereby minimising the bulk impact of the building. The additions are confined to the NE corner of the

dwelling within the building footprint with the existing front entry and master bedroom stepped back

providing a suitable transition between the varying setbacks of each adjoining property. The proposal

will not have any adverse impact on the streetscape or the amenity of the adjoining neighbouring

properties. In this regard the proposed variation is considered worthy of support in this circumstance.

Rear Setback

A minimum setback of 6m is required to the rear boundary. The existing dwelling has a varied rear

setback ranging from 8.7m to the wall of the dwelling to a nil setback to the laundry. The non-

compliance is pre-existing and has resulted from the line of subdivision whereby one lot was

subdivided into 2 residential lots with the retention of the subject dwelling. The additions are confined

to the front of the dwelling within the building footprint and do not encroach further into the rear

setback.

Landscaping within front setback

The proposal fails to strictly comply with the control which limits hard surface areas within the street

frontage to be limited to a maximum of 50% of the area of the front setback, with the remaining 50%


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8

occupied by deep soil landscaping. The extent of hardstand area within the front setback is pre-

existing and is a result of the existing driveway access and the ROW that burdens the site. The

proposed front additions are over the existing ground floor balcony and therefore the amount of

landscaped area within the front setback remains unchanged.

Pool Setback

The proposed pool is located in the SE corner of the rear yard with a nil setback from the pool

surrounds to the rear boundary which strictly fails to comply with the development control. The

topography of the adjoining lot to the south is elevated more than 5 metres above the rear yard of the

subject site. A cement rendered wall extending over 5 metres in height divides the lot boundaries and

adjoins the proposed location of the pool. The pool has been designed to be as close to natural

ground level as possible and the surrounding topography minimises amenity impacts to the adjoining

rear lot.

Bushfire

Council records indicate that the site is bushfire prone land. The applicant has included a Bushfire

Hazard Assessment prepared by Bushfire Planning & Design with their development application.

A bushfire assessment has been undertaken of the proposed development. The application has been

conditioned to comply with Section 9 (BAL 19 (west, north, east elevations) and BAL 12.5 (South

elevation) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 ‘Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas’ and

Appendix 5 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’.

Greenweb




and corridors.

The subject site is identified as a Greenweb support area.

Having regard for the nature of the proposed development and the proposed increase to available

deep soil planting onsite, it is not considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact on wildlife

corridors or the biodiversity of the area





undertaken.


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8






0.5% of $191400 (the estimated cost of development identified on the development application form).

Therefore, Section 7.12 Levy contributions for the proposed development would be $957.00.





made.

CONCLUSION



additions to a dwelling and construction of an in-ground pool, is a permissible land use within the zone

with development consent.

In response to public exhibition, 1 submission was received. The matters raised in the submission

have been dealt with by design changes or conditions of consent where appropriate.

The proposal includes a contravention to the landscaped area development standard and a variation

to the controls for number of storeys, 60% lot depth, street setback, rear setback, landscaping within

the front setback and pool setback. These have been discussed and are considered acceptable as

they do not present any unreasonable streetscape or amenity impacts.






Certification (JCau), who can be contacted on 9710 0333.



SS

LP

P0

18-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

A


SS

LP

P0

18-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

B


SS

LP

P0

18

-18 A

pp

en

dix

C


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

SSLPP019-18 PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES,

CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING, INGROUND

SWIMMING POOL, BOAT SHED AND LANDSCAPING

PROPERTY: LOT 13 DP 6593 (NO. 2) BULLS ROAD, BURRANEER

APPLICANT: JWSMITH DESIGN PTY LTD



REASON FOR REPORT


proposed dwelling and some ancillary works contravene a non-numerical development standard as

the dwelling and its associated works contain elements that are situated below the foreshore building

line (FBL). The application is supported.

There are 2 submissions.

PROPOSAL

The application is for the demolition of an existing dwelling and ancillary structures and construction of

a new dwelling house, inground swimming pool, boat shed and landscaping at the above property.

THE SITE

The subject site is located off the eastern side of Bulls Road and has deep water frontage to

Gunnamatta Bay. The property is irregular in shape with a site area of approximately 660m2. The site

has a relatively moderate slope from west to east from the street side to the Mean High Water Mark

(MHWM).


THAT:


the written submission in relation to the contravention of Clause 6.9(2) satisfies the relevant

provisions of Clause 4.6 and is therefore supported. It is recommended that the provisions of

Clause 4.6 be invoked and that the foreshore building line development standard be

contravened in respect to this application.


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

2. That Development Application No.17/1700 for demolition of existing structures, construction

of a dwelling, inground swimming pool, boat shed and landscaping at Lot 13 DP 6593 (No. 2)

Bulls Road, Burraneer be approve subject to the conditions contained in Appendix “A” of the

report.


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8


DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The proposal includes the demolition of all existing structures, construction of a 2 storey split level

dwelling containing 4 bedrooms, an office and open floor plan kitchen/dining/living area with

associated basement areas and car parking stacker arrangement. The proposal also includes the

construction of an inground swimming pool/spa and boat shed below the foreshore building line. No

new works are proposed further forward of the Mean High Water Mark. The works are outlined on the

site plan, shown as figure 1.

Figure 1 – Site Layout


The subject site is located on the eastern side of Bulls Road, Burraneer with accessed gained directly

from this road reserve (see figure 2). The property is irregular in shape with a site area of

approximately 660m2. The site has a relatively moderate slope from west to east from the street side

to the Mean High Water Mark (MHWM). An existing 2 storey / split level dwelling currently sits on the

site. The street scene in the immediate vicinity is characterised by established low density of varying

architectural styles and finishes, set in proximity to a sensitive coastal location.


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

Figure 2 – Locality Plan


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

Figure 3 illustrates the existing dwelling and locality in relation to the Foreshore Building Line

(pink)

BACKGROUND


The application was submitted on 08 December 2017.


January 2018. 2 submissions were received.

An initial request for additional information was made on the 21 March 2018 and in the main

included:-

- The foreshore building line works consisting of the access stairs and plant room adjoining

the boat shed be deleted from the plans as they are not permissible forms of

development within the foreshore area.

- All other foreshore works required to be supported by associated Clause 4.6 variation

statement

- The side setback of the master bedroom and green wall on the southern side of the

ground floor required to be a minimum of 1.5 metres.

- The proposed boat shed be modified as follows:-

o Be designed to minimise excavation, the proposed 3 metre excavation was

unacceptable

o The maximum floor level of the boat shed must be RL1.44 AHD, not the initially

proposed RL2.3 AHD.

o The boat shed to incorporate a pitched roof that reflects the traditional character of

boat sheds within the context of the area, not the flat roof initially proposed.

Further, as the boat shed is not ancillary to the dwelling, the use of the roof as a

sundeck patio or the like was not supported.


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

- All works further forward of the Mean High Water Mark (MHWM) require separate

landholder consent from The Crown. As this had not been provided, it was requested that

these be deleted from the plans, with a separate application lodged at a future time.

After several discussions, plans and documentation reflecting the changes were submitted in

the whole on 22 June 2018.




Council to enable an assessment of this application, including a written request to contravenen Clause

6.9 development standard under Clause 4.6 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015.




Council notified 4 adjoining or affected owners of the proposal and 2 submissions were received from

the following addresses with the associated issues listed:

Address Date of Letters Issues

1 Bulls Road, BURRANEER 2 January 2018 Views, Privacy

4 Bulls Road, BURRANEER 23 April 2018 Construction Issues, boat shed location

Issue 1: Views / Privacy

Comment: The objector from 1 Bulls Road, Burraneer raised the issue that the proposed new roof

forms would unduly impact on privacy and would encourage a trafficable area as it is shown as a

‘green roof’ arrangement, and would thereby impact the views if additional structures were to be

added to the roof form.

The objector was later notified that the landscaping component was implemented to soften the

structure from the road frontage and the roof would remain a non-trafficable space, and would be

conditioned to ensure that the roof remains non-trafficable. Given this, and the location of the

proposed development being set further back from the water than the existing structure, view loss was

considered to be minimal.

Issue 2: Construction Management

Comment: The objector from 4 Bulls Road, Burraneer provided a submission post the formal

notification period and raised the issue that the works as proposed would impact on the structural

integrity of the existing dwelling and structures on said property. Council’s engineering clinic later

provided strict conditions of consent to mitigate any issues for the construction phase of the dwelling


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

and its associated structures (including the boatshed), inclusive of the basement carpark, drainage,

vibration damage. All issues mentioned are to be appropriately certified by a suitably qualified

engineer. A dilapidation report is also required.

Issue 3: Boat Shed Location

Comment: The objector from 4 Bulls Road, Burraneer provided a submission post the formal

notification period and raised the issue that the relocation of the boatshed and access arrangements

would impact on the amenity gained from said property. The boat shed as amended was reduced from

the MHWM and all works below the MHWM were not supported as part of this proposal. The boat

shed as amended is now more in line with existing structures on adjoining properties. Any slip rails

and associated works below the MHWM are to be lodged as a separate application.

Revised Plans

In accordance with the requirements of SSDCP2015 these plans were not publicly exhibited as, in the

opinion of Council, the changes being sought did not intensify or change the external impact of the

development to the extent that neighbours ought to be given the opportunity to comment.



Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being the demolition of

existing structures, construction of a dwelling, inground swimming pool, boat shed and landscaping, is

a permissible land use within the zone with development consent from Council.






State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management 2018).

S94A 2016 Plan – Sutherland Shire.

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE





Clause 4.3 –

Height of

Buildings

Maximum 8.5m

8.4m Yes


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

Clause 4.4 -

Floor Space

Ratio

0.50:1 (330m2)

Basement –

(-31.35sqm parking

allowance)

Parking:

48.3sqm

Water tanks:

13.7sqm

PDW/LDR:

16.3sqm

Boat Shed: 21.5sqm

Ground Floor:

171.4sqm

Office:

13.6sqm

FF: 75.4sqm

GFA: 328.85sqm

FSR: 0.49:1

Yes Basement

level >1m

above NGL

(turning bay)

Cellar &

Plant room

below NGL

excluded

from calc

Clause 6.14 -

Landscape Area

40% (263m2)

40% (263m2) Yes

CHAPTER 2:

B. Dwellings Houses in the E4 Environmental Living Zone




1.2.1. Dwelling sited so minimal

disturbance to the natural landscape

Significant excavation proposed No Refer

SSDCP2015

variation

under

‘Assessment’

1.2.3.Excluding Greenhills Beach,

development limited to two storeys

Basement proposed –

development steps down site


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

in height….. basements not

permitted development must be

stepped down a steep slope..

1.2.4. Despite 3, basement or third

storey above NGL permitted

where:

a) It will not result in adverse

visual impacts

b) It will not result in a

development which is

incompatible with existing

development and streetscape.

c) Design of driveway and

basement will achieve a quality

landscape setting

d) Design of driveway and

basement does not detract from

the presentation of the dwelling

to the street and retains natural

features

Basement arrangement is

considered to be satisfactory

considering that the location is

well behind the foreshore

building line, and has been

designed to provide minimal (as

possible) disturbance to the

natural ground level. its location

does not detract from the

presentation of the street and is

unable to be directly viewed from

Bulls Road

Yes

1.2.5. Except for Greenhills Beach,

two or three storey development is

only permitted on the front of an

allotment and may extend to a

maximum of 60%.

5.5m variation to upper floor No Refer

SSDCP2015

variation

under

‘Assessment’

1.2.6. Excluding Greenhills Beach,

two storey in the rear portion of the

dwelling may be considered

subject to the topography,

orientation or context of the site.

Refer SSDCP2015 variation

under ‘Assessment’

1.2.8. Maintain existing view

corridors.

View corridors envisaged to be

maintained as per amendments

Yes


2.2.2:

Street setback:


setback

7.5m min.

Yes


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

Side Setback:

1.5m

Rear Setback:

6.0m

0.9m-1.5m

10m (to extent of dwelling)

No – Master

bed 1.2m

(20%

Variation)

No –

Balcony/terra

ce on

northern side

1.1m (27%

Variation)

Yes

Refer

SSDCP2015

variation

under

‘Assessment’

2.2.4. Garages to be setback 7.5m. >7.5m Yes

2.2.7. Second storey exceeding

15m continuous length to be

setback a further 500m from the

side. Where proposed setback

results in significant

overshadowing and/or visual

intrusion, the side setback is to be

increased.

Adequate articulation provided

for first storey arrangement

Yes

3.2 Landform

3.2.2. Max. cut/fill of 1m from

existing ground level, except for

basements.

5.2m of excavation required for

basement

4.59 cut for cellar

3m cut for boat shed

3.2.3. Cut/fill greater than 1m

considered where:

a) No feasible solution to

excavation is available, and

b) there is unlikely to be

disruption, or detrimental

effects on existing drainage

patterns, vegetation,

sedimentation and soil stability

in the locality, and

The cut of the property to suit

the dwelling footprtint is

appropriate in the circumstances

of the case.

No Refer

SSDCP2015

variation

under

‘Assessment’


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

c) It will not exacerbate amenity

impacts on neighbouring

dwellings.

3.2.4. Development to be designed

and sited within the natural slope

of the land.

Steep site – development design

to step down site and respond to

topography

Yes

3.2.6. NGL surrounding the

development and at properties

boundaries must be retained or

reinstated prior to the completion

of works.

NGL to be retained Yes

4.2 Landscaping

4.2.1. Max. 50% hard surfaces

within front setback, remaining

area to be deep soil.

>50% landscaping Yes

5.2 Building Layout, Private Open Space and Solar Access

5.2.1. Orientate new development

to maximise natural light (to indoor

areas) and reduce need for

mechanical heating and cooling.

Living areas & POS oriented to

maximise natural light

Yes

5.2.2. Min. 3 hours direct sunlight

between 9am-3pm in midwinter to

a living area.

Min 3hrs Yes

5.2.3. Min. 36m2 (with a min.

dimension of 5m) private open

space at or near ground level. 9m2

must be paved.

Provided Yes

5.2.6. For the proposed dwelling:

a) orientate the area of private

open space to take advantage

of the northern solar access,

b) ensure 10m2 of private open

space has 3 (4) hours of solar

access between 9:00am

and 3:00pm at the winter solstice

(21 June),

Min 3 hours to POS and Living

areas

Yes

5.2.7. For the neighbouring

dwellings:

a) ensure 10m2 of private open

Min 3 hours to POS and Living

areas

Yes


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

space has 3 (4) hours of solar

access between 9:00am and

3:00pm at the winter solstice

(21 June),

b) ensure windows of living areas

have 3 hours of solar access

between 9:00am and 3:00pm at

the winter solstice (21 June).

c) consideration will be given to

reduced solar access where the

proposed dwelling is generally

compliant with all development

standards and controls, and the

extent of impact is the result of

orientation, site constraints, and

or existing built forms.






POS areas.

Dwelling and POS oriented

towards Gunnamatta Bay

Screening and Highlight

windows used to minimise

privacy impacts

Yes



the building line.

4 spaces – car stacker proposed Yes

7.2.3. Only two single garage

doors, each with a maximum of 3m

width; or one double garage door,

with a maximum width of 6m, is to

face the street.

Garage door not visible from

street

Yes

7.2.6. Max. width of driveway is 6m

at front boundary

3.5m Yes

8.2 Waste Management Requirements

8.2.1. Each dwelling must be

capable of accommodating:

a) 120L garbage bin

b) 240L recycling bin

c) 240L green waste bin.

Provided Yes


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

Ch. 34 – Swimming Pools

Where a pool / surrounds is not

more than 500mm above existing

ground at any point, the minimum

setback from the outside edge of

pool coping / pool decking / paving

to the side and/or rear boundary is:

a. 1m where no landscaping will be

provided b. 1m where landscaping

is non-climbable c. 1.8m where

landscaping is climbable.

1.35m side setback

4.6m rear setback

Yes

Yes

SSLEP clause 6.9 prohibits pools

located between the Foreshore

Building Line (FBL) and Mean High

Water Mark (MHWM) exceeding a

height of 300mm above existing

ground level (at any point).

300mm max. Yes

Ch. 11 – Boat Sheds W2 Recreational Waterways

Man-made structures must not

cumulatively occupy more than 10

metres or 50% (whichever is the

lesser) of the land-water interface,

measured along the MHWM, of

each property.

<50% Yes

Boatsheds must not be the visually

dominant element of the foreshore

area of any property. The

remainder of the foreshore area

should: a. retain its natural

landform, b. be landscaped with

indigenous species chosen from

Council’s Native Plant Selector

available on Council’s website.

Existing boatshed to be

demolished

Condition plantings

Yes

The use of boat sheds must be

limited to the storage of boats and

boating equipment.

Condition use Yes,

conditioned

accordingly


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

Boatsheds must have a direct

relationship with the water, with

openings and main boat access

facing the water. Side elevations

are not to include large areas of

glazing and/or large sliding doors.

Opening facing water Yes

Boat sheds must be designed to

minimise excavation and fill. Sites

which require excavation into a cliff

or rock face to achieve sufficient

depth for a boat or which require fill

or reclamation to provide a building

platform are unsuitable locations

for boat sheds.

Significant excavation proposed

– 3m

No Refer

SSDCP2015

variation

under

‘Assessment’

Boat sheds must be designed and

constructed so that they do not

cause damage, or have the

potential to cause damage

(including shading) to marine

vegetation, macroalgae, seagrass

or mangroves.

Environmental Science

commentary

Please refer

subsection

‘specialist

comments’

Boat sheds must be single storey. Single storey Yes

Boat sheds can have a maximum

length of 7m, a maximum width of

4m, and a maximum of 3m to the

eaves or ceiling of the elevation/s

facing the water and a maximum

height of 5m to the highest part of

the roof. The use of lofts or similar

design concepts shall not be

permitted.

6.5m

4m width

2.7m ceiling

Yes

The maximum floor level of the

boatshed must be 1.44m AHD.

RL 1.78m No - 340mm

variation

(123%

Variation)

Refer

SSDCP2015

variation

under

‘Assessment’

Boat sheds should incorporate a

pitched roof that reflects the

traditional character of boat sheds

in the waterway. The roof pitch

Flat roof. No trafficable areas on

top of the flat roof arrangement,

has been landscaped

accordingly to reduce potential

No Refer

SSDCP2015

variation

under


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

should not exceed 35 degrees and

should be gabled. The use of roofs

as sundecks, patios or the like is

not permitted.

trafficable space ‘Assessment’

Roofs must be of corrugated metal,

tile or other approved low-reflective

materials.

Green roof proposed Yes

Highly reflective materials or

finishes must not be used.

Can be conditioned if necessary,

however, boatshed is primarily

recessed and the roof form has

been appropriately screened

with vegetation

Yes

Excessive glazing is not permitted. Minimal glazing Yes

Boatsheds above MHWM must be

set back a minimum 1.5 m from the

side boundary. A variation may be

considered where there is:

a. No detrimental impact on the

view from the waterway by virtue of

excessive bulk of the building,

b. No loss of an existing view to the

water from adjoining lands to the

waterway,

c. An acceptable relationship

between buildings along the

waterfront, and

d. A need to accommodate any

significant vegetation or site

features.

1.5m side setback Yes

Where a proposed boatshed will

straddle the MHWM, the boatshed

must be setback a minimum of

2.5m from the side boundary and

the prolongation of the common lot

boundary.

The boatshed as amended has

been setback approximately

1.79m from the MHWM, no

additional side setback required

Yes


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8


The application was referred to the following internal specialists for assessment and the following

comments were received:-

Environmental Health & Building (Tree Compliance)

The application was referred to Council’s Tree Compliance officers who provided the following

comments:-

The proposal is envisaged to have little impact on the Eucalyptus tereticornis within the street

and the Strelitzia Nicolai clump located on the adjoining property to the south

The proposal requires the removal of the Acer palmatum

The consent was conditioned accordingly for tree removal and tree replacement.

Engineering (Assessment Team Clinic)

The application was referred to Council’s engineering clinic who provided the following comments:-

The applicant was to apply for frontage works to ensure that the driveway grade complies with

AS2890.1

The internal driveway was unsatisfactory – a driveway long section was required and to show

compliance with AS2890.1

The car parking arrangements were subsequently unsatisfactory.

Multiple conditions were to be included to mitigate structural issues associated with the

boatshed and basement car parking construction. A dilapidation report is also to be provided

demonstrating the impacts to the adjoining property to the south.

Following re-referral to the engineering the following comments were received:-

The changes to the grades and car parking demonstrated compliance with AS2890.1 and were

satisfactory. The application for frontage works were lodged and approved with the grades

matching the works within the subject site.

The above matters considered have been conditioned to suit.

Environmental Science Team

The application was referred to Council’s environmental science team who provided the following

comments:-

Acid Sulfate Soils:- the works as proposed (and amended) are unlikely to lower the water table

by one metre and therefore a full assessment is not required.

Boat Shed:- concerns have been raised regarding the location of the boat shed and access for

any watercraft. The impacts are associated with neighbouring properties and their future use of

the waterway. No endangered ecological communities are located on the proposed

development footprint. The boat shed will not directly impact any seagrasses, mangroves or


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

other marine vegetation.

Any issues surrounding excavation and impacts to an associated area of Posidonia australis are to

be mitigated through the inclusion of appropriate conditions.

The development consent was conditioned to suit.

ASSESSMENT




Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015 (SSDCP2015) non-compliances

Landform

The proposed development fails to comply with the landform controls for dwelling houses under clause

1.2 and 3.2 of Chapter 2 of SSDCP2015. The basement parking/dwelling component and part of the

foreshore works have excavation that exceeds the controls and objectives outlined under

SSDCP2015. In consideration of this non-compliance, it should be noted that the allotment itself and

its contour to the mean high watermark does not allow for reasonable compliance above the ground

level. If the dwelling and its structures were to be designed wholly above the ground level (or close to),

multiple other controls and objectives would likely be compromised as a result. The physical and

visual impact of the landform works have attempted to be minimised through the actual design of the

dwelling. The dwelling is appropriately stepped down the site with the basement garage component

screened from both the street and the foreshore areas, with access gained from the northern

elevation. In this regard, the proposal (as amended) has attempted to reduce the impact by moulding

with the existing topography. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of

this clause and the variation to the above control is supported.

60% Depth of Site

The proposed development fails to comply with the maximum 60% depth of site requirement for 2 and

3 storey dwellings under Clause 1.2.5 of Chapter 2 of SSDCP2015. First floor works inclusive of a

bedroom, balcony and part of a casual living area extend beyond the 60% depth by 5.5m. The

variation is considered to be minor in this instance with these areas considered to be low trafficable

spaces. On both the north and south elevations, highlight windows and screened design features for

the balcony component have been included to mitigate any privacy intrusion. The dwelling itself and

these first floor features are consistent with surrounding development and compliance with the control

would not achieve a more favourable outcome. In fact the dwelling represents a net improvement

away from the rear boundary compared to the existing dwelling. The proposed development is

consistent with the objectives of this clause and the variation to the above control is supported.


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

Side Setbacks (master bedroom & powder room/stairwell on southern elevation, terrace/covered open

area on northern elevation)

The proposed development fails to comply with the minimum side setbacks under Clause 2.2.2 of

SSDCP2015. The master bedroom on the ground floor on the southern elevation has been amended

from the originally proposed 900mm to 1200mm, which does not comply with the standard 1500mm.

While still non-compliant, the room is considered low trafficable and is suitably separated from private

open space and internal areas of the adjoining dwelling to the south. The inclusion of a privacy screen

that covers both window openings for the stairwell and powder room serve to satisfactorily limit

impacts on privacy.

The ground floor covered terrace and lower room open area on the northern elevation setback are

setback 1000mm from the side boundary, which does not comply with the standard 1500mm. in this

regard, both outdoor areas have been screened appropriately with full length privacy screens. The

adjoining property to the north is not considered to be overly affected by this non-compliance.

Considering the above, the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of this clause and

the variation to the above controls is supported.

Boat Shed (maximum RL AHD, roof form, minimise excavation)

The proposed boat shed fails to comply with minimising excavation under clause 2.5 of Chapter 11 of

SSDCP2015. The boat shed provides up to 3 metres in excavation for its location. In consideration of

this non-compliance, the extent of excavation actually allows a visually logical outcome with the boat

shed to be further recessed into the contour of the allotment. The existing boatshed is actually located

below the MHWM and is a more prominent structure then what is being proposed under this

application.

The proposed boat shed fails to comply with the maximum reduced level (RL) of boat sheds under

clause 2.9 of Chapter 11 of SSDCP2015 is 1.44 AHD. The proposed level is 1.78m AHD, which has

been a response to increasing levels at high tide. The existing boat shed has a level of 1.36 AHD and

is not suitable due to water damage impacts. The level of 1.78m AHD ensures against future flooding

impacts.

The proposed boat shed fails to comply with the roof type under clause 2.10 of Chapter 11 of

SSDCP2015, which states that a boat shed should be designed with a pitched roof to reflect the

traditional character of boat sheds on the waterway in the Sutherland Shire region. It is noted that the

boat shed is recessed into the existing contour of the property with the roof to be landscaped to further

reduce the visual impact of the structure, again providing a complementary outcome for the waterway.

Development within the Coastal Zone

The subject site is located within the Coastal Management area and the provisions of Clause 5.5 of

SSLEP 2015 are applicable. The objectives of this Clause are to provide for the protection of the


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

coastal environment of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations through

promoting the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and to implement the principles in

the NSW Coastal Policy.

Clause 5.5 requires certain matters to be considered prior to the granting of development consent.

These matters include pedestrian access to the foreshore; natural scenic quality; impacts on the

amenity of the coastal foreshore; impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems as well as any cumulative

impacts. The relevant matters have been considered as part of the assessment of this application and

the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

Clause 5.5 also requires Council to be satisfied of certain matters prior to development consent being

granted. These matters include public access; effluent disposal, stormwater disposal and coastal

hazards. These matters have been addressed to Council’s satisfaction.

Acid Sulfate Soils







Given the nature of the proposed works, there is unlikely to be an impact on the water table on

adjacent Class 1, 2, 3, or 4. As discussed earlier in the report the proposal was referred to Council’s

Environmental Scientist for comment, who considered the proposed development against these

matters, and require a condition regarding unexpected finds to be included.

Earthworks






acceptable.







SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

Terrestrial biodiversity

The subject land is identified as “Biodiversity” on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map and the provisions of

Clause 6.5 are applicable.

Clause 6.5 requires Council’s assessment to consider certain matters. Council must consider the

impact of the development on flora; fauna; vegetation; biodiversity and habitat and any appropriate

mitigation measures. The relevant matters have been considered as part of the assessment of this

application and the proposal is acceptable in this regard. Further commentary on the potential impacts

has been discussed under ‘specialist comments’.

Further, Clause 6.5 requires Council to be satisfied of certain matters prior to development consent

being granted. These matters include the design of the development to avoid or minimise impact;

management to minimise the impact if it cannot be avoided and mitigation if the impact cannot be

minimised. These matters have been addressed to Council’s satisfaction.

Riparian land watercourses

The subject land is identified as “Environmentally Sensitive Land” on the Riparian Land and

Watercourses Map and the provisions of Clause 6.7 are applicable.

Clause 6.7 requires Council’s assessment to consider certain matters. Council must consider impacts

on water quality, water flows, aquatic and riparian species, habitats, ecosystems, stability of the bed,

free passage of fish and other aquatic organisms, and future rehabilitation. Council must also consider

developments impact on water extraction and appropriate measures to avoid, minimise or mitigate the

impacts. The relevant matters have been considered as part of the assessment of this application and

the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

Further, Clause 6.7 requires Council to be satisfied of certain matters prior to development consent

being granted. These matters include the design of the development to avoid or minimise impact;

management to minimise the impact if it cannot be avoided and mitigation if the impact cannot be

minimised. These matters have been addressed to Council’s satisfaction.

Limited Development on Foreshore Area

The proposed development fails to comply with the foreshore building line (FBL) development

standard under Clause 6.9 of SSLEP 2015. Clause 6.9 sets out the provisions relating to the foreshore

area, including restrictions to the form of development allowed within the foreshore area and below the

FBL. The FBL line functions to minimise buildings and other works in the most environmentally

sensitive areas adjacent to the foreshore. Development in the foreshore area is generally restricted.

Generally, buildings or work must not occur in the foreshore area (i.e. below the FBL), as indicated by

subclause (2). New dwellings are to be located outside of the foreshore area and designed to maintain


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

and enhance natural vegetation and landforms visible from the waterways.

Under subclause (2) Development consent must not be granted for development on the foreshore

area except for the following:

the alteration, extension or rebuilding of an existing dwelling wholly or partly on the foreshore

area if the footprint of the extension or alteration will not extend any further forward of the

foreshore building line than the footprint of the existing dwelling,

the erection of a new dwelling on the foreshore area if there is no reasonable alternative that

would allow a new dwelling to be located outside of the foreshore area,

development for the following purposes that does not significantly alter the shape, natural form

or drainage of the foreshore area:

- boat sheds,

- jetties,

- landscaped areas,

- sea retaining walls,

- slipways,

- swimming pools (that are no higher than 300 millimetres above ground level),

- water recreation structures,

- waterway access stairs.

The proposed dwelling will be partially within the FBL. Subclause (b) above states that consent may

be granted for the erection of a new dwelling on the foreshore area if there is no reasonable

alternative that would allow a new dwelling to be located outside of the foreshore area. Given the site

proportions and the generous area above the FBL it is evident that there is an opportunity to develop a

new dwelling to achieve compliance with the developments standard and as such the proposed

development does not comply with subclause (2) and would thus require a written request to

contravene Clause 6.9 if supported.

Subclauses (3) and (4) of Clause 6.9 set the matters to be considered by Council in assessing a

development application for any buildings/works proposed within the foreshore area. These matters

and a review of the proposed development against these matters are provided in the following table:

Matters under Subclauses (3) and (4) Review of the Proposed Development

(3) Development consent must not be granted under this clause, unless the consent authority is satisfied

that:

(a) the appearance of the development,

from both the foreshore area and the

adjacent waterway, will be compatible with

the surrounding area, and

The proposed dwelling is predominantly within the footprint

of the existing dwelling. A minor portion of floor area as well

as open form terraces on the ground and first floor

encroach the foreshore area however the encroachments is


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8


a significant improvement on existing. . This section of the

eastern side of Kangaroo Point Road includes numerous

dwellings with building encroachments beyond the FBL.

The proposed dwelling maintains the existing rearward

pattern of development. In fact, given the location of the

dwelling further to the street frontage then the existing

dwelling, it is considered to be a more reasonable outcome

and a ‘net improvement’ to the current conditions.

The proposed variation will not significantly impact the

appearance of the foreshore area and will result in

development that is compatible with the surrounding area.

(b) the development will not cause

environmental harm such as:

(i) pollution or siltation of the waterway, or

(ii) an adverse effect on surrounding uses,

marine habitat, wetland areas or fauna

and flora habitats, or

(iii) an adverse effect on drainage patterns,

and

Conditions shall be imposed to ensure the proposed

development will be appropriately managed and will have

minimal impacts on the surrounding environment.

The drainage will be upgraded in accordance with the

approved drainage plan. A condition of consent shall be

imposed to ensure that the stormwater management

system of the proposed development will comply with the

relevant Australian Standard.

(c) the natural qualities of the foreshore area

are retained or restored as far as practicable

through the retention or reinstatement of

natural levels and endemic vegetation, and

The natural qualities of the foreshore area will be retained

and improved as a result of the development. As discussed,

the heritage items limit the natural qualities of the foreshore

area. The proposal seeks to retain the existing features and

to increase landscaping within the foreshore area.

(d) the development will not cause

congestion or generate conflict between

people using open space areas or the

waterway, and

The development will not intensify the use of the site as it

will remain a residential dwelling used for single occupation.

The boatshed as part of the application will not generate

additional use of conflict between people using the

waterway.

(e) opportunities to provide continuous public

access along the foreshore area and to the

waterway will not be compromised, and

The development is contained entirely within the subject

site, on private property and will not affect public access

along the foreshore area. Access to the waterway will not

likely be compromised as a result of the proposed

development.

(f) any heritage significance of the foreshore

area on which the development is to be

carried out and of surrounding land will be

There were no items of heritage significance found in and

around the development site.


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8


maintained, and

(g) in the case of development for the

alteration, extension or rebuilding of an

existing building (or the erection of a new

building) wholly or partly in the foreshore

area, the alteration, rebuilding or new

building will not have an adverse impact on

the amenity or aesthetic appearance of the

foreshore, and

N/A

(h) in the case of the erection of a new

dwelling, the dwelling will not be erected

further forward of the foreshore building line

than any existing dwelling on the land, and

As discussed above, the variation for the new dwelling is a

minor increase to the footprint of the existing dwelling that

had been partially constructed below the FBL. This

proposed encroachment is relatively minimal in scale and

design and will not be highly visible and will not obscure

views of the waterway from adjoining properties or public

space. The proposed development will not significantly

impact on the amenity and aesthetic appearance of the

foreshore area, and in fact offers an improvement

compared to the existing dwelling.

As previously stated, the new dwelling footprint is actually

set further back into the property from the waterway

frontage and is considered to be an improvement to the

current conditions.

(i) it has considered sea level rise or change

of flooding patterns as a result of climate

change.

Compliant.

The proposed development will not increase the existing

flood risk on the site. The proposed finished floor level at

the lowest point on the site – the boat shed is RL1.78 AHD.

Potential impacts associated with flooding and sea level

rise will be consistent with the existing dwelling.

(4) In deciding whether to grant development consent for development on the foreshore area, the consent

authority must consider whether and to what extent the development would facilitate the following:

(a) continuous public access to and along

the foreshore area through or adjacent to the

proposed development,

The proposed development is contained entirely within the

site and will not affect public access along the foreshore

area, through or adjacent to the proposed development.

(b) public access to link with existing or

proposed open space,

The proposed development will not affect public access to

existing and proposed open space.

(c) public access to be secured by

appropriate covenants, agreements or other

Public access will not be affected by the proposed

development.


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8


instruments registered on the title to land,

(d) public access to be located above the

mean high water mark,

N/A

(e) reinforcement of the foreshore character

and respect for existing environmental

conditions,

The proposal will not impact the existing foreshore

character or environmental conditions. The proposed

dwelling is consistent with adjoining dwellings. The

contravention is not considered to create an undesirable

precedent that would impact the foreshore character in the

future, especially given the proposed dwelling is moved

significantly away from the FBL than the existing..

(f) management of any rise in sea level or

change of flooding patterns as a result of

climate change.

Compliant.

As above

The objectives of Clause 6.9 are as follows:

to ensure that development on the foreshore area will not adversely impact on natural foreshore

processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area,

to maintain and improve public access to the intertidal area of waterfronts if that access will

cause minimal adverse environmental impact,

to avoid adverse ecological effects on waterways by minimising any adverse impact from

development on water quality and, so far as is practicable, to improve the quality of urban run-

off entering waterways,

to protect and enhance significant natural features and vegetation on the foreshore area,

to retain endemic vegetation along foreshore areas,

to restore and revegetate foreshore areas to improve estuarine flora and fauna habitat,

to minimise any adverse visual impact of development when viewed from adjacent land and

waterways by using a design and materials that complement the natural landscape of the

foreshore area,

to minimise any adverse impact of development on the natural landform of the foreshore area

and waterways by integrating the development with minimal change to the natural topography of

the foreshore area,

to achieve a balance between private development and the public use of waterways,

to minimise the obstruction of water views from public land.

The proposed development meets the above objectives as it will:

Not adversely impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of

the area. It will not diminish the overall character and aesthetic appearance of the foreshore

area. The proposal is not substantially different to a compliant design. The area of non-

compliance is within a already developed area of the site;


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

Not detrimentally impact public access to the intertidal area of waterfronts. The development is

entirely contained within the site and will not impact public access;

Avoid adverse ecological effects on waterways. Site management during construction will be

undertaken in accordance with conditions imposed to ensure minimal adverse impacts;

Protect and enhance significant natural features and native vegetation on the foreshore area.

The proposed development will not involve the removal of any native vegetation;

Minimise any adverse visual impact of development when viewed from adjacent land and

waterways by incorporating a high quality materials and design. The proposed variation will not

impact on the remnant natural areas within the site;

Minimise any adverse impact of development on the natural landform of the foreshore area and

waterways by integrating the development with minimal change to the natural topography of the

foreshore area. The proposed development will not involve any significant excavation or fill and

will therefore not affect the existing topography and drainage of the site;

Achieve a balance between private development and the public use of waterways. The

proposed development will not significantly intensify nor change the residential use of the site;

and

Minimise the obstruction of water views from public land. The proposed development will not

significantly affect views from adjoining properties or public space.

The proposed development is located within the E4 – Environmental Living zone. As discussed above,

the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone.


SSLEP 2015. A full copy of this request is on the file and the most relevant section is reproduced

below:

“The proposed new dwelling has been designed to be located in a position on the subject site which is

consistent with adjacent and nearby dwellings on sites to the north and south. It is particularly noted

that the proposed new dwelling house is positioned a greater distance from MHWM than the existing

dwelling, reducing the encroachment of the main bulk of built form on the subject site. The proposal

also features a well-designed dwelling which has been stepped in response to the topography of the

land, modulated, articulated and finished in a high quality manner so as to provide a contemporary

built form which is visually compatible with and does not detract from the qualities of the waterway.”

“The proposed pool, spa, boat shed and landscaping have been designed and located in response to

the steep topography of the subject site below the FBL so as to minimise alterations to existing

contours.”

The written request to contravene the development standard at Clause 6.9 is acceptable as the

proposal satisfies the objectives of Clause 6.9 and the objectives of the E4 – Environmental Living


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

zone. It is reasonable in the circumstances of the case and demonstrates sufficient environmental

planning ground to justify varying the relevant development standard. The proposed development

remains in the public interest as the proposed development complies with the objectives for Clause

6.9 and the E4– Environmental Living zone.

The requested contravention to Clause 6.9 satisfies all relevant parts of Clause 4.6 and therefore it

can be supported.





Threatened Species

Threatened species are particular plants and animals that are at risk of extinction and include

threatened populations and endangered ecological communities. Threatened species, populations and

ecological communities are protected by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, NSW Fisheries

Management Act 1994 and the commonwealth Environmental Protection and Conservation of

Biodiversity Act 1999.

Council has mapped the known threatened species, populations and ecological communities.

Following a review of this information and an inspection of the site it is concluded that the proposed

development will not result in any significant impact on threatened species, populations and ecological

communities.

Further commentary has been under ‘specialist comments’.





undertaken.

Tree Removal

The proposed development involves the removal of 1 tree, this has been conditioned accordingly.

Further discussion made under ‘specialist comments’.


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8

SECTION 7.11 / 7.12 CONTRIBUTIONS





1.0% of $1,581,250.00 (the estimated cost of development identified on the development application

form). Therefore, Section 7.12 Levy contributions for the proposed development would be

$15,812.50.





made.

CONCLUSION


Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being the demolition of

existing structures, construction of a dwelling, inground swimming pool, boat shed and landscaping, is

a permissible land use within the zone with development consent from Council.

In response to public exhibition, 2 submissions were received. The matters raised in these


The proposal includes a written request to contravene the development standard limiting works below

the foreshore building line. This has been discussed and is considered acceptable subject to design

changes and/or conditions of consent.




Development Application No.17/1700 may be supported for the reasons outlined in this report.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager – Development Assessment

& Certification (AMcI) who can be contacted on 9710 0333.



SS

LP

P0

19-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

A


SS

LP

P0

19-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

B


SS

LP

P0

19

-18 A

pp

en

dix

C


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

SSLPP020-18 PROPOSAL: CONSOLIDATION OF 3 LOTS AND CONSTRUCTION

OF A RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING CONTAINING 34

DWELLINGS (AS AMENDED)

PROPERTY: LOT 14 DP 29614, LOT 1 DP 504124, LOTS 1-3 S/P

12620, (NOS.10-14) MOANI AVENUE, GYMEA

APPLICANT: HOMEBUR DEVELOP PTY LTD


Attachments: Appendix A,⇩ Appendix B,⇩ Appendix C⇩ and Appendix D⇩



proposed development exceeds the permissible FSR by 2.45% (55.68m2

based on site area of

2263.7m2 as per Deposit Plans) and by 18.75% (3m) Building Height. Further, the application is for a

residential flat building that is greater than 4 storeys.

PROPOSAL

The application is for the consolidation of 3 lots and construction of a residential flat building

containing 34 apartments over 4 levels with 2 levels of basement car parking.

THE SITE

The subject site is located on the south-eastern end of the cul-de-sac of Moani Avenue. It comprises 3

lots having an overall area of approximately 2270.1m2. The site adjoins the Cronulla rail corridor to the

south (rear). The consolidated allotment is irregular in shape with a curved frontage of approximately

32.54m to Moani Avenue. The site falls from the front of the site (North West) to the rear of the site

(south east) by approximately 2.28m.


THAT:


the written submissions in relation to the requested variations detailed below satisfy the

relevant provisions of Clause 4.6 and are therefore supported. It is recommended that the

provisions of Clause 4.6 be invoked and these development standards be varied as detailed

below, in respect to this application.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

Development

Standards

Clause Requirement Proposal Variation

Height of

Buildings

Clause

4.3(1)

16m 19m to stair and lift

overruns; and

17.61m to roof over

pergola

18/75%;

and

10%

Floor Space

Ratio

Claude

4.4(2)

1.2:1 1.22:1 2.45%

2. That Development Application No. 17/0782 for Consolidation of 3 lots and construction of a

residential flat building containing 34 dwellings at Lot 14 DP 29614, Lot 1 DP 504124, Lots 1-

3 S/P 12620, (Nos. 10-14) Moani Avenue, Gymea is determined by the granting of a deferred

commencement development consent subject to the conditions contained in Appendix “A”

of the report.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8



Background to Current Proposal

The subject application is essentially an intensification of Council approved Development consent

DA13/0878 which is currently valid up to 18 December 2018. On 18 December 2014, Council granted

‘Deferred Commencement Development Consent’ for demolition of existing dwellings and construction

of a residential flat building containing 24 units and strata title subdivision. On 11 May 2017, a 1 year

extension was granted that allows the consent will now lapse on 18 December 2018. The ‘Deferred

Commencement Development Consent’ was activated on 18 December 2014.

Currently Proposed development

The application before Council is for consolidation of 3 lots and construction of a residential flat

building containing 34 apartments (as per latest amended plans revision C dated 13/6/18) over 4

levels with a 2 level of basement car parking for 59 car spaces and 2 car wash bays.

More specifically, the proposal includes:

Removal of 15 trees existing on site

Consolidation of lots

Two Levels of basement car parking for 59 residents and visitor car parking spaces with 2 car

wash bays

Four levels of residential apartments comprising:

- 14 x 1 bedroom apartments

- 12 x 2 bedroom apartments

- 8 x 3 bedroom apartment

Relocation of stormwater drainage easement

Roof top communal terrace; and

Landscaping works.

A site plan is provided below:


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


The site comprises 3 lots and takes up approximately half of the bulb of the cul-de-sac in Moani

Avenue. It is an irregular shaped allotment having a curved frontage of 32.54m approximately to

Moani Avenue, a maximum depth of 45.89m on the northern side boundary and 24.88m on the south

west boundary. The site has an area of 2270m2 (as per survey plan) and 2263.7m

2 as indicated on the

deposited plans.

The land falls approximately 2.28 metres from North West to south east towards the rear at grades of

less than 10%. The rear south eastern corner of the property is the low point of both this site, and the

general locality. A Council drainage easement runs diagonally through the site.

A single storey weatherboard dwelling house is situated on No. 10 Moani Avenue. A single storey

brick multi-dwelling building on No. 12 Moani Avenue, which has not been strata subdivided. No 14

Moani Avenue contains a strata subdivided multi dwelling brick building with associated carports.

There is a significant gum tree located at the north east side of the site exists that has a height of

approximately 14m and a row of Cypress Pine trees along the boundary between Nos. 10 and 12


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

Moani Avenue. A line of screening vegetation also extends along the boundary between Nos. 12 and

14 Moani Avenue.

Adjoining and nearby development comprises older style four storey residential flat buildings with

ground level car parking and 3 residential levels above. Older style 2 storey medium density

developments are located further north in Moani Avenue. The Gymea Centre and railway station are

located approximately 275 metres to the east of the site.

Locality Plan – Aerial Photo

BACKGROUND


Previous applications

Development application No. DA10/0397 for a residential flat building lodged with Council on 6

May 2010.

DA10/0397 was refused on 12 October 2010.

A section 82A Review of the determination of the application (RA11/0014) was lodged with

Council on 5 May 2011.

Class 1 proceedings were commenced in the Land and Environmental Court (LEC) on 21 July

2011.

DA10/0397 was approved by the LEC by way of ‘Deferred Commencement Development

Consent’ on 10 November 2011. The Deferred Commencement conditions related to the

relocation of the Council drainage easement.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

Section 96(1) Modification Application No. MA12/0100 relating to s94 contributions lodged with

Council on 18 April 2012 and approved on 8 June 2012.

DA10/0397 lapsed on 10 November 2012 due to deferred commencement requirements not

being satisfied within 12 months of the date of consent.

DA 13/0878 for residential flat building containing 24 units lodged with Council on 24 September

2013.

DA13/0878 approved by Council on 18 December 2014 and a further extension of 1year was

granted to Development Consent No. DA13/0878 on 11 May 2017. Thus the development

consent DA13/0878 is now valid till 18 December 2018.

The ‘deferred commencement development consent’ was activated on 18 December 2014.

Current Application

The current application was submitted on 28 June 2017.


January 2018. No submissions were received.

The application was considered by Council’s Design Review Forum on 31 August 2017 and a

copy is attached at Appendix ‘A‘. The advice and recommendations of the DRF were sent to the

applicant on 25 September 2017.

The application was referred to Transport Sydney Trains on 11 July 2017 for their concurrence

under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

On 13 October 2017, the applicant was requested to address issues raised in Council’s letter

and the amended plans were submitted to Council on 17 November 2017.

The applicant was requested on 27 November 2017 to provide amended plans and additional

information addressing the issues raised by Council.

Amended plans were lodged on 15 December 2017.

The amended plans were forwarded to Transport Sydney Trains on 5 January 2018 and again

re-referred on 15 January 2018 for their assessment.

The amended plans were renotified on 4 January 2018 and no submissions were received.

Amended Stormwater Plans were submitted to Council on 17 May 2018.

Transport Sydney Trains issued Concurrence on 23 May 2018. Sydney Trains issued an

amended concurrence on 6 June 2018.

Further amended architectural plans for 34 units and storm water drainage plans were lodged

with Council on 7 June 2018.

Sydney Trains further amended Concurrence on 16 July 2018 supporting the stormwater

drainage design and have no comments & conditions pertinent to stormwater drainage or

flooding.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8




Council to enable an assessment of this application, including a written request to vary the Floor

Space Ratio and Height of Building development standards under Clause 4.6 of Sutherland Shire

Local Environmental Plan 2015.





Revised Plans

The applicant lodged revised plans on 2 occasions.

In accordance with the requirements of SSDCP2015 these plans were publicly exhibited in the same

way as the original application. No submissions were received.


The Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP 2015) applies to the subject site. The

site is zoned R4 High Density Residential and residential flat buildings are identified as permissible in

the zone.

The following Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs), Development Control Plan (DCP), Codes or

Policies are relevant to this application:

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (BASIX)

BASIX aims to establish a scheme to encourage sustainable residential development across New

South Wales. BASIX certificates accompany the development application addressing each building

within the development. The proposal achieves the minimum performance levels / targets associated

with water, energy and thermal efficiency.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP)

The Infrastructure SEPP applies to the State and seeks to facilitate the effective and timely delivery of

infrastructure and protect existing infrastructure from incompatible development. The subject site

adjoins the Cronulla Rail Corridor and as such provisions of Clauses 86, 87, 102 and 103 of the

Infrastructure SEPP apply to the proposal which is discussed in the assessment section of this report.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

SEPP 55 requires a consent authority to consider whether the land is contaminated and, if so, whether

the land will be remediated before the land is used for the intended purpose.

A site inspection and search of Council records has revealed that the subject site is unlikely to be

contaminated and is therefore fit for its intended use.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment

Development – Design Quality Principles (SEPP 65)

The proposal is affected by SEPP 65. Sutherland Shire Council engages its Design Review Forum

(DRF) to guide the refinement of development to ensure design quality is achieved in accordance with

SEPP 65. A brief assessment of the proposal having regard to the design quality principles of SEPP

65 is set out below:

Design Quality

Principles

Assessment

Principle 1: Context and

neighbourhood character

The context of the site is a R4 high density residential zone and is

located within a tree lined cul-de-sac with hipped roof 4 storey walk up

residential buildings to both sides. The site backs up onto a rail line on

an elevated embankment. The site is heavily impacted by potential

flooding due to the form and slope of the street, which requires that

ground level is raised significantly above the street. There is an existing

development consent that is current for the site, however, the subject

proposal is to take benefit of greater yield available under current

controls with smaller unit floor plans.

Principle 2 and 3: Scale,

Built Form and Density

The proposed scale generally complies with the 16m height requirement

except the roof top lift run over and stairs. The raised ground floor level

presents issues in terms of access, pedestrian comfort, streetscape and

visual and physical amenity. The identification of entries is acceptable,

being punctuated within a monotonous façade. Additionally the privacy

of the two central units private living areas are unduly compromised

because the location of the entry lobbies. The design has been revised

to comply with building separation requirements of the ADG. The density

of the proposal is an appropriate response to the Floor Space Ratio and

Landscaped Area development standards that apply to the site under

SSLEP 2015.

Principle 4: Sustainability The proposed layout does not easily facilitate compliant cross

ventilation. The revised design satisfies ADG compliance for solar

access. The development incorporates BASIX requirements and

sustainability measures in respect of water efficiency and provides a rain


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

water tank to water the communal open space.

Principle 5: Landscape

The proposed development includes compliant deep soil areas for tree

planting and landscaped areas on the podium within common areas

which reinforce the existing and desired future character of the locality.

Principle 6: Amenity The proposal as amended satisfies ADG compliance for natural

ventilation and solar access requirements. The elevated ground floor

balcony areas at the rear of the site requiring an additional sliding

screens for privacy is both poor in the amenity and impacts upon

neighbouring properties including streetscape. The relationship of the

Communal Open Space to the public way impacts the desirability of use

by the residents due to accessibility / stairs. In addition, the relationship

of ground floor unit’s private open space with the stairway affects

resident’s amenity including privacy in particular.

Principle 7: Safety The access corridor to Communal Open space and external stairs to the

southern areas and concealed areas raise CPTED concerns in terms of

safety security.

Principle 8: Housing

Diversity and Social

Interaction

The proposal provides a mix of apartment types, which encourages

diversity. 20% of apartments proposed are adaptable units and 10% are

proposed for livable units.

Communal open space is provided for social interaction amongst

residents.

Principle 9: Aesthetics Extensive glazing is provided to both east and west façades with no

discernible screening or protection from horizontal sun, traffic noise and

privacy. The introduction of extensive stairs and entry courtyard do not

improve the building’s relationship with the street or create an inviting

means of entry.

Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

The proposal is affected by the ADG. The following table contains an assessment of the proposal

against key controls of the ADG. Refer to the Assessment section of this report for further details with

respect to performance of the proposal against the ADG.

Apartment Design Guide (ADG) – Key Controls

Standard/Control Required Proposed Compliance

2F - 1 Building

separation

Up to 4 storeys (approx. 12m):

6m between habitable rooms /

balconies.

Up to 4 storeys (approx.

12m):

Northern and southern

side -6m;

Western side 6m

Yes

Yes


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

5 to 8 storeys (approx. 25m):

9m between habitable rooms /

balconies to boundary

Eastern side >6m

5th storeys - Level 3

Northern side – 9m;

Eastern side – 9m

Western side – 9m

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3D Communal and

public open space

25% of site (565.9m2 )

50% direct sunlight to principal

usable space for min. 2hrs between

9am and 3pm mid-winter

28.7% (211m2 roof top

terrace + 439.05m2 on

ground floor; a total of

650.05m2)

>50% receives 2 hours

between at mid-winter

Yes

Yes

3E Deep soil zones 6m min. dimension

7% of site area = 150m2

Along northern, southern

and eastern boundaries a

deep soil zone is provided

with a min dimension of

6m with a total area

>150m2

Complies

3F Visual Privacy Minimum required separation

distances from buildings to side and

rear boundaries:

Up to 12m (4 storeys):

6m for habitable rooms and

balconies

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys):

9m for habitable rooms and

balconies

Up to 12m (4 storeys):

Northern, side – 3m to

blank wall and 6m to

window of habitable room;

eastern & western side >

6m for habitable rooms /

balconies to property

boundary.

Southern side – 4.763m

between habitable room

and property boundary

5 to 8 storeys (approx.

25m):

Northern side 9m;

Yes

Yes

Yes

No;

acceptable

as facing rail

corridor

Yes

Yes


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

Eastern side 9m to

balcony of rear units and

Southern side 5m to unit

3.3, 3.4 and unit 3.5.

Western side minimum

9m to balcony.

No;

acceptable;

as facing rail

corridor

Yes

4A Solar and daylight

access

Living rooms and private open

space, 2 hours direct sunlight

between 9am and 3pm in mid-

winter to 70% (24 apartments) of

apartments.

99% of apartments (33

apartments) receive 2

hours of solar access at

winter solstice

Yes

4B Natural ventilation 60% of apartments to be naturally

cross ventilated.

60% of the apartments

are naturally cross

ventilated.

Yes

4C Ceiling heights - Habitable rooms: 2.7m

- Non-habitable rooms: 2.4m

3.2m floor to floor heights

which can support 2.7m

ceiling heights

Yes

4D Apartment size

and layout

1br: 50m2

2br: 70m2

3br: 90m2

8m max. habitable room depth from

window

All apartments provide

internal areas to meet the

minimum requirement.

2 GF apartments = 8m

depth; and

6 apartments - 8m

Yes

Yes

Yes

4E Private open

space and balconies:

1 br apartment

2 br apartment

3 br apartment

Ground level

apartments (or on a

podium)

Primary balconies:

8m2, min. 2m depth

10m2, min. 2m depth

12m2, min. 2.4m depth

15m2 with min. 3m depth

9m2, min. 2m depth

10m2

Apartment 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 &

0.8 do not provide private

open space on ground

level; being over

basement podium. Unit

Yes

Yes

No


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

0.8 has a minimum depth

of 2m being of irregular

shape.

4G Storage 6m3 per 1br apartment

8m3 per 2br apartment

10m3 per 3br+ apartment

At least 50% of storage to be

located within the apartments

Each apartment has

sufficient storage.

Yes.

Local Controls – Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP 2015) and

Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015 (SSDCP 2015)

The compliance table below contains a summary of applicable development controls:


(%

Variation)


Height of building 16m 19m to stair and lift overruns. No

(18.75%

variation)

Clause 4.6

submitted to

Council.

FSR 1.2:1 (2716.44m2) 1.22:1 (2772.12m

2) No (2.45%

based on site

area of

2263.7m2 as

per DP)

Landscaping 30% (679.11m2) 36% (819m

2) Yes


(%

Variation)

Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015 for RFB in the R4 Zone

Ch 6.1.2 Street

scape and

Building Form

Cl 1.

A site minimum frontage width of

26.

Cl 2.

32.54m (curved frontage)

Yes


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


(%

Variation)

Development must be designed

and sited so that it addresses the

street and must have a clearly

identifiable entry. Where possible,

ground floor units facing the street

should have street access.

Cl 7.

The finished roof levels of

basements are to be located at or

near ground level.

Cl 9.

A 1m landscaped setback to

neighbouring properties is to be

provided along the driveways to

basement car parks.

Cl 10.

Driveway walls adjacent to the

entrance of a basement car park

are to be treated so that the

appearance is consistent with the

external finish of the building. If

basement car park entry points are

to be located on the main street

frontage of a development, these

should be designed so as to reduce

the visual impact.

2.6m above ground level

3m

Yes

No

Yes

Can be

Conditioned

Ch 6.2.2 – Street

Setbacks

Cl 1.

A minimum 7.5m setback from the

primary and secondary street

frontage is required (unless

specified differently by a locality

strategy)

7.5m

Yes

Ch. 6.3.2 – Side

and Rear Setbacks

Cl 1.

Side and rear setbacks must result

There will be overlooking and

No


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


(%

Variation)

in a development that:

a. provides resident amenity-

including privacy, solar access,

ventilation, and landscaped

setbacks;

b. responds to the local context

and provides streetscape

amenity, including providing

adequate separation from

existing and future adjoining

development;

c. does not prevent a neighbouring

site from achieving its full

development potential

d. has architectural merit.

privacy issue from the raised

ground floor balconies of rear

units (0.1 – 0.4) and unit 0.8.

The proposal complies with

building separation except to

northern and western side.

Will not hinder the

development potential of

adjoining sites.

Not satisfactory

No

Complies

Not

satisfactory(r

efer

assessment

section of

this report)

N/A

Ch 6.4.2 -

Landscape

Cl 1.

Inclusion of an indigenous tree

which will mature to be at least 8m

tall planted 3m from adjoining

structures.

Cl 2.

A minimum street tree planting rate

is set at 1 indigenous canopy trees

that will attain a minimum mature

height of 6m to be planted at

maximum spacing of 5m, planted at

least 1m from the kerb and/or

footpath. Informal clumping of trees

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Yes

Yes


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


(%

Variation)

is encouraged. Street trees must be

selected from the Native Plant

Selector available on Council’s

website. Turf must also be planted.

Cl 3.

Where there are power lines which

are not being undergrounded,

street tree planting will only be

required if they can be located 2m

away from the edge of the wires.

Cl 4.

Minimum rear boundary indigenous

tree planting rate is 2 for every 15m

of linear boundary.

Cl 5.

The landscape design should

achieve opportunities for deep soil

landscape planting between

buildings that provide a deep soil

separation of more than 3m

between trees and structures.

Planting beds should be a minimum

of 900mm wide to support shrubs

and small trees

Cl 8 Ground floor courtyards must

not extend into the 3m landscaped

strip along the front of the

development.

Cl 11.

Communal open space should

have a minimum area equal to 25%

of the site for residential flat

buildings with a floor space ratio of

2:1 or greater. Where residential

flat buildings have a floor space

ratio of less than 2:1, 100 sqm of

communal open space is required.

Acceptable with condition

Acceptable with conditions

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Total area of COS –

650.05m2

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


(%

Variation)

Cl 12.

Communal open space should

have a minimum dimension of 3m,

and larger developments should

consider greater dimensions. This

space must incorporate shelter,

furniture and facilities suitable for

outdoors, and if provided at ground

level, include canopy trees.

Communal open space on roof tops

should be designed to optimize

privacy for occupants and adjoining

residents.

Cl 13.

Planting is required on that part of a

basement which extends beyond

the building footprint. Planting in

this area is to have sufficient soil

depth to support the species

selected and should constitute a

minimum of 30% of the area of the

exposed basement. This planting is

intended:

a. to offset the potential for

excessive paved areas;

b. to provide residents with

attractive outlooks from

dwellings, and

c. to assist in the creation of privacy

between dwellings, and between

dwellings and common areas.

Cl 14.

Where planting is proposed on that

part of a basement which extends

beyond the building footprint, roof

tops or within planter boxes, the

space to be planted must be

>3m

Proposed on Landscape

Plan

Yes

Yes


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


(%

Variation)

designed and constructed to

contain a minimum soil depth of:

450mm for grass and ground

covers

600mm for shrubs

900mm for small trees

1200mm for large trees.

Species selection must be suited to

the future microclimate.

Landscaping on basement roofs

and planter boxes must be

accessible for maintenance access.

Cl 19.

A communal rainwater tank and

pump should be located

underground in common open

space. Common open space areas

must be provided with a water

efficient irrigation system and taps

at a minimum 25m intervals

connected to the rainwater tank.

Each private open space must be

provided with a tap connected to

the rainwater tank

Proposed planting is along

the side boundaries and is

beyond basement footprint.

RWT proposed within the

basement.

Complies

Complies

Ch 6.5.2 – Building

Layout, Private

Open Space

Cl 1.

Suitable clothes drying facilities

shall be provided which are not

visible from a public place and have

access to sunlight.

Cl 2.

Access to all levels of the

development, including the

basement, must be made available

by a lift in order to facilitate access

by people with disabilities.

Proposed within common

open space.

Lift access provided to all

levels from basement.

Complies

Complies


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


(%

Variation)

4E of ADG

Each dwelling must be provided

with a primary balcony/patio with

direct access from the living area,

with sizes as follows:

Balcony with direct access

from living area is provided to

each unit.

Complies

Ch 6.2.2 – Solar

Access

Cl 2.

Living rooms and private open

spaces for at least 70% of

residential units in a development

should receive a minimum of 2

hours direct sunlight between 9am

and 3pm in midwinter.

Cl 5.

For neighbouring dwellings:

a. Direct sunlight to north facing

windows of habitable rooms and

10m2 of useable private open space

areas of adjacent dwellings should

not be reduced to less than 2 hours

between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21

June.

70% units receives 2 hour

solar access

The windows of property to

north will not get enough 2

hours solar access.

Yes

Yes

Ch 6.7.2 – Visual

and Acoustic

Privacy

Cl 1.

Locate, orientate and design new

development to maximise the

provision of visual privacy

.

Cl 2.

Use detailed site and building

design elements to increase visual

privacy without compromising

access to light and air.

The upper level balconies of

rear units provides

overlooking to the rear yards

of properties to east of the

site.

Moveable Screening is

proposed to rear balconies.

Amended Landscaping Plan

is also to be prepared as a

deferred commencement

condition

Refer

assessment

section

Ch 6.8.2 –

Adaptable Housing

Cl 1.

All new multi dwelling housing must

provide dwellings designed in


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


(%

Variation)

accordance with the Australian

Adaptable Housing Standard

(AS4299) to Class C Certification at

the following rates:

Development containing 3- 5

dwellings – none.

Developments of 6 or more

dwellings – 20% adaptable

Cl 2.

When the calculations for the

number of dwellings results in a

fraction, numbers < = .5 should be

rounded down.

8.3 Liveable Housing

Cl 1.

In addition to complying with the

adaptable housing rates in clause 1

above, all new residential flat

buildings must provide ‘livable

dwellings (i.e., dwellings designed to

Silver Standard Livable Housing

Design Guidelines) at the following

rates:

Developments containing 3- 5

dwellings – 1 dwelling.

Developments of 6 or more

dwellings –10% of dwellings

Cl 2.


number of dwellings results in a

fraction, numbers < = .5 should be

rounded down..

7 dwellings

4 dwellings

Yes

Yes

Ch 6.10.2 - Car

Parking

Cl 1.

Car parking shall be provided in

accordance with the following :

(delete what doesn’t apply):

Proposed 57 residents, 8

visitors and 1 car wash;

Total 66

Yes


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


(%

Variation)

Residential Flat Building (Zone

R4):

A minimum of 1 space per 1

bed,

1.5 spaces per 2 bed

2 spaces per 3 bed

Plus 1 visitor space per 4 units.

Cl 4.


number of parking spaces results in

a part or fraction of a parking space

of 0.5 or greater for the whole

development, then the actual

number shall be rounded up.

Cl 6. 2 Required @

Developments with 10 or more

dwelling require 1 designated

carwash bay with minimum

dimensions of 3m x 7.6m.

Additional carwash bays are

required in development in excess

of 30 dwellings at a rate of 1 per 20

dwellings.

Cl 7.

Where a development is on the

lower side of the roadway or where

basement car parking is proposed,

the driveway is to be a maximum

grade of 5% for 3 metres

immediately inside the boundary to

ensure driver visibility.

Required

1B 1x 14 14

2B 1.5x

12

18

3B 2x8 16

Visitor 1 per

4

units

8.5

Car

wash

1 1

total 57.5 say

58

1 space

Acceptable to Council’s

Development Engineer

Yes

Yes


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


(%

Variation)

Cl 8.

The minimum vehicular crossing

and driveway width for a combined

vehicular crossing (entry/exit) is

5.5m and 4m for a separate

vehicular crossing with a minimum

spacing between driveways of 3m.

Cl 9.

The design of the all vehicle access

ways shall enable all vehicles to

enter and leave the site in a forward

direction. Turning areas shall be

provided to enable a maximum 3-

point turn to achieve this egress.


Development Engineers


Development Engineer

Yes

Yes

Ch 6.11.2 - Waste

Management

Requirements

Cl 1.

Provision must be made for waste

management, including storage and

collection, in

accordance with Sutherland Shire

Council’s “Waste Collection Policy

for Multi-Unit

Dwellings and Residential Flat

Buildings

Adequate storage is provided Yes


The application was referred to the following internal and external specialists for assessment and the

following comments were received:

Sydney Trains – NSW Government

The application was referred to Sydney Trains seeking Concurrence under the requirements of the

Infrastructure SEPP

Sydney Trains granted revised concurrence on 16 July 2018 subject to conditions, and supported

stormwater drainage design drawing No. 170406 sheet D03/G dated 28.05.2018 prepared by

Australian Consulting Engineers. Previously, the concurrence had included a requirement that “given

the development site’s location next to the rail corridor, drainage from the development must be

adequately managed/disposed of and not allowed to be discharged into the corridor (and its


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

easements) unless prior approval has been obtained from Sydney Trains”.

This outstanding issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of Sydney Trains.

Design Review Forum (DRF)

The application was considered by the Design Review Forum (DRF) on 31 August 2017 and following

comments were provided:

“Due to the many urban design and amenity issues, the proposal cannot be supported by the Panel in

its current form. The proposal should be amended to incorporate the recommendations into the design

of a new layout and returned to the Panel for discussion.”

The applicant has revised the plans to address the above issues. Council’s Architect reviewed the

revised plans and considers that some of the issues raised remain unresolved, in particular:

the identification of entries is poor,

privacy of two central units private living areas,

need for multiple chair platform lifts associated with stairs and expensive pathways within the

front setback,

the elevated ground floor balcony areas at the rear of the site requiring additional fence for

privacy; and

unacceptable amenity impact upon neighbouring properties,

non-compliance with ADG for natural ventilation and solar access to central ground floor units

CPTED concerns associated with access corridor and external stairs to the southern Common

Open Space.

Further, the treatment of the elevations have not changed from the original submission due to

extensive glazing to both east and west facades and this issue still remains unresolved.

Council’s Design Architect has assessed amended plans revision C dated 13 June 2018 and advised

that issues raised previously remains unresolved. Concerns were raised in relation to lack of amenity

for future residents and impacts upon neighbouring properties.

These matters are discussed in the assessment section of this report.

Traffic & Transport Engineer

The application was assessed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and no significant objection is raised from

traffic and parking to the proposed development.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

Landscape Architect

Council’s Landscape Architect does not raised objection to the amended landscape plan subject to

conditions of consent regarding landscape design, tree removal and design and construction of works

in Road Reserve.

Stormwater and Waterways Engineer

The application was assessed by Council’s Stormwater and Waterways Engineer and it was advised

that the original flood impact assessment report should have been remodelled and required this to be

done. At the time of assessment no remodelling has been undertaken and provided to Council.

Council’s Engineer was of the belief that the modelling was conservative and it is most likely that if

remodelled to better addressed catchment size, run off coefficients, flow behaviour may lower the floor

levels and consequently the building may be lowered and may reduce the hazard from high to medium

risk. In order to provide a better planning outcome, Council’s Engineer advised that this information

should be provided prior to development consent recommending a deferred commencement

development consent.. However, in the context of an existing current approval on site that was

designed based on agreed levels, this is not considered the best solution. The matter of stormwater

and flood levels is discussed in greater detail in the assessment section of this report.

Engineering (Assessment Team)

The application was referred to Council’s Assessment Team Engineer for assessment along with the

amended plans and related documents and advised that a new Flood Study addressing Council’s

Stormwater and Waterways Engineer’s concern be provided that may reduce the hazard from high to

medium risk, lowering of the building and better address pedestrian accessibility. However, the

proposal was not supported until the following matters could be resolved to Council’s satisfaction:

Provide a new Flood Impact Assessment that satisfies Council’s Stormwater and Waterways

Section. A new Flood Study will most likely reduce the risk classification from ‘high hazard’ to

‘medium hazard’ and allow the lowering of the building and better address pedestrian

accessibility.

Access to the 1 way ramp between the two basement levels must be provided with traffic

control lights and mirrors. The applicant must submit details on the required traffic control lights.

Further a investigation / detail of the primary pedestrian access-way to the development for

“disabled” persons. In particular the required external lifts and associated switchgear.

Confirm the “Deed of Agreement” is appropriate.

This matter is discussed in further detail in the assessment section of this report.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

ASSESSMENT




Compliance with Controls under ADG

Clause 2F of Apartment Design Guide (ADG) for State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design

Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) deals with the building separation and

requires that a minimum separation distances for buildings are:

Up to four storeys (approximately 12m)

- 12m between habitable rooms/balconies,

- 9m between habitable and non-habitable rooms; and

- 6m between non-habitable rooms.

Five to eight storeys (approximately 25m)

- 18m between habitable rooms/balconies

- 12m between habitable and non-habitable rooms and

- 9m between non-habitable rooms.

The non-compliance with Clause 2F of ADG was raised with the applicant in October 2017 and on 30

May 2018. The amended plans submitted on 15 June 2018 shows that a building separation of 9m is

provided along the northern side at 5th storey (level 3 as indicated on drawings) and 9m on the

western side at the 5th storey.

The amended plans (revision C) show that the southern side has a setback of 4.763m from habitable

rooms to the boundary up to a height of 12m which is considered acceptable, given that the

neighbouring land is the rail corridor as shown below.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

Clause 4E – ‘Private Open space and balconies’ of ADG requires that for apartments at ground level

or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony, and must


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

have a minimum area of 15m2 and a minimum depth of 3m.The proposal shows that unit 0.5. 0.6, 0.7

and 0.8 do not provide private open space on ground level. They do have compliant “balcony” areas of

private open space in lieu of courtyards, however. Given the fact that the site is flood affected, to

satisfy the required flood planning levels, the ground floor needs to be raised substantially. This has

resulted in the non-compliance with the clause. The variation to this control is supported in this

instance. However, should the ‘Flood Impact Assessment’ report as discussed in the later part of this

report be re-investigated, the development may be lowered thereby minimising overlooking impacts

including privacy/ visual impact on adjoining properties, as well as creating a better relationship for the

proposed building with existing natural ground levels.

Built Form & Scale

The Design Quality Principle 2 – Built Form and Scale of SEPP 65 requires that the development be

of good design that achieves a scale bulk and built form appropriate to the existing or desired future

character of the street and the existing or desired future character of the street and the surrounding

buildings.

While the scale of the building appears to comply with 16m height requirements of the site, the

building mass do not comply with the streetscape / urban design guidelines (discussed above) and

results in a design of the building that is unduly elevated. The site, being flood prone dictates a raised

ground floor that presents issues of access, pedestrian comfort, streetscape and visual intrusion.

This results in poor relationship of entries, a monotonous façade affecting the privacy of central units

(because of the location of the entry lobbies) and a poor relationship with the neighbouring land.

Although the proposal does not fit in the neighbourhood context with older style four storey

Residential Flat Buildings (with ground level car parking and 3 residential levels above) the

application satisfies the future character of the area where 5 storey buildings are permissible under

the provisions of SSLEP 2015.

To a significant extent the design has been based on flood modelling accepted and agreed in the

previous (current) approval. It is desirable to improve the relationship of finished floor levels with the

existing ground both at the street front and the rear of the site. Practical alternative to improving this

relationship is through a high quality landscape treatment that provide a suitable balance and

transition from built form to the ground rather than initiating further flood studies and that may result

in some lowering of the floor levels.

Height of Buildings

The proposal is a five storey building which exceeds the maximum permissible building height of 16m

for the site. The proposed building achieves a maximum height of 19m to the stairs and lift overruns

and 17.61m to the top of the pergola roof over the terrace sitting area thereby representing a

maximum variation of 18.75% (3m) to Building Height. The factor dictating Building Height is the

basement car parking level 1 proposed in response to flood planning requirements that has resulted in


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

ground floor level being 1.6m to 1.67m above the existing ground level entry areas.

The objectives of the height of buildings development standard set out in Clause 4.3 (1) of SSLEP

2015 are as follows.

(a) to ensure that the scale of buildings:

(i) is compatible with adjoining development, and

(ii) is consistent with the desired scale and character of the street and locality in which the

buildings are located or the desired future scale and character, and

(iii) complements any natural landscape setting of the buildings,

(b) to allow reasonable daylight access to all buildings and the public domain,

(c) to minimise the impacts of new buildings on adjoining or nearby properties from loss of views,

loss of privacy, overshadowing or visual intrusion,

(d) to ensure that the visual impact of buildings is minimised when viewed from adjoining

properties, the street, waterways and public reserves,

(e) to ensure, where possible, that the height of non-residential buildings in residential zones is

compatible with the scale of residential buildings in those zones,

(f) to achieve transitions in building scale from higher intensity employment and retail centres to

surrounding residential areas.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


SSLEP 2015.

A full copy of this request is attached as ‘Appendix B’ and the most relevant section is reproduced

below:

“The basement and ground floor levels have been determined through the design process by

stormwater management and flooding considerations given the constraints on the site. The necessary

FFL of basement and ground floor levels resulting from these considerations therefore results in a built

form demonstrating non-compliances at the roof top level and lift core elements as well as the shading

elements to part of the roof top Communal Open Space area.”

The proposal is considered not fully consistent with the existing four storey residential flat buildings on

adjoining sites (No. 6-8 Moani Avenue & No. 19 Moani Avenue). However, the proposal is considered

consistent with the desired future character of the area where 16m tall buildings containing five storeys

will be permissible under the provisions of SSLEP 2018. The flooding constraint of the site has

dictated the FFL of ground floor by 2.5m above the existing ground level that has pushed the overall

building height. The elements that exceed the height requirements are the stair and lift core and

shading devices including some landscape elements provided as part of the roof top communal open

space.

The habitable part of the development is within the 16m height control generally, the non-compliance

is limited in the middle of the terrace to the lift run overs and roof over pergola. These structures are

proposed to the communal open space and to provide access and are setback from the building line

as well as from rear and side building foot print. The non-compliance with height in this part of the

building is central to the roof and does not include main built form of the development which complies

with the control. Despite the non-compliance with the height control, the proposal will have minimal

visual impact on adjacent residential uses. The stairs and lift overrun are central to provide

accessibility for future residents and will provide amenity to the residents.

The proposed development is located within zone R4. The objectives of this zone are as follows:

Zone R4 High Density Residential

To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential

environment.

To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

To enable other land uses that provides facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of

residents.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

To encourage the supply of housing that meets the needs of the Sutherland Shire’s population,

particularly housing for older people and people with a disability.

To promote a high standard of urban design and residential amenity in a high quality landscape

setting that is compatible with natural features.

To minimise the fragmentation of land that would prevent the achievement of high density

residential development.

In terms of compliance with zone objectives of R4 High Density Residential, the proposed

development is sited in an area comprising similar residential flat buildings.

The proposal includes a mix of unit sizes and includes livable and adaptable units that provides for

various housing needs and satisfies zone objective 1 and 2 above. The non-compliance will not limit

the ability of adjoining lots to meet this requirement for various housing needs. The proposed design is

of good quality that provides reasonable amenity to the future residents. The development is

architecturally designed that provides functional and high quality POS / COS to the future resident’s

amenity as well as quality landscaping of the site.

The proposed development satisfies zone objectives and minor height exceedance does not limit the

proposal’s ability to meet the zone objectives and a variation to height control development standard is

supported and is acceptable.

In conclusion the variation to the height development standard satisfies all relevant parts of Clause 4.6

and therefore the variation can be supported. This variation may be further reduced if the amended

Flood Impact Assessment lowers the finished floor levels than as estimated under the current

conservative approach considered in flood impact assessment report.

Floor Space Ratio

The proposed development fails to comply with the development standard for building density. Clause

4.4 (2) of SSLEP 2015 stipulates a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.2:1for this site.

The development proposes a FSR of 1.22:1, which exceeds the maximum allowed by approximately

1.667% (based on the site area of 2263.7m2 as per DP).

The objectives of the floor space ratio development standard set out in Clause 4.4(1) of SSLEP 2015

are as follows:

(a) to ensure that development is in keeping with the characteristics of the site and the local area,

(b) to ensure that the bulk and scale of new buildings is compatible with the context of the locality,

(c) to control development density and intensity of land use, taking into account:

(i) the environmental constraints and values of the site, and


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

(ii) the amenity of adjoining land and the public domain, and

(iii) the availability of infrastructure to service the site, and

(iv) the capacity of the road network to accommodate the vehicular and pedestrian traffic the

development will generate, and

(v) the desirability of retaining the scenic, visual, and landscape qualities of the area.


SSLEP 2015.

A full copy of this request is attached as ‘Appendix C’ and the most relevant section is reproduced

below:

‘Nevertheless, given that the numerical non-compliance is a result of amendments to the scheme

based on feedback provided by Sydney Trains, and as the overall building bulk and scale will not be

modified in response to these comments (remaining consistent with previous schemes that were

compliant with FSR controls), this variation is considered appropriate. The proposed variation will not

cause unreasonable impacts to onsite residential amenity, the ability for the site to be provided with

suitable private open space and landscaped areas, or to the scale and bulk of the built form

proposed. The increase in FSR to the scheme previously proposed results only from the

measurements of GFA to the south facing balconies on units 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 and based on

provision of adjustable glass louvers based on Sydney Trains feedback. The FSR proposed can

therefore be suitably accommodated on the site and accordingly a formal request for a variation is

submitted under section 4.6. The overall modification is response to Sydney Trains feedback is as

follows:

Full height adjustable glass louvres proposed to Units 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.4 (contributing to

calculable GFA); and

‘Batten style’ screens to the southern sides of south-east corner balconies. As these screens

are to the corners of balconies only, they do not impact on the numerical calculation of GFA and

so are not considered subsequently in this Clause 4.6 variation.’

The proposed non-compliance with FSR is considered a minor variation. Given that the additional

floor area is located within the balconies facing the rail corridor and will not have adverse impact on

adjoining properties in terms of its bulk and scale, visual intrusion or the amenity of adjoining

properties and therefore is supported.

In compliance with the zone objectives, the proposal is considered to satisfy zone objectives and a

variation to FSR can be supported.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

Stormwater disposal and flooding of the site

Council received Stormwater drainage design drawings on 3 July 2017 which were referred to Sydney

Trains as well as to Council’s Stormwater and Waterways Engineer and Development Assessment

Engineer for their assessment. Issues were raised with the applicant on 13 October 2017 regarding

flooding of the site and easement realignment and the applicant was requested to address these

issues. The applicant submitted a flood study and amended drainage design (drawing No. D03

revision D dated 12.12.2017) on 15 December 2017 which were forwarded to Sydney Trains for

further assessment again. Further, the amended flood impact assessment report dated March 2018

was assessed by Council’s Stormwater & waterways Engineer and identified a number of

inconsistencies in the report that required to be addressed prior to assessment. This issue was

conveyed to the applicant’s Stormwater Consultant on 22 March 2018 by Council’s Stormwater &

Waterways Engineer and was requested to revise the report. No amended flood impact assessment

report has been provided for further assessment of flood impacts.

Based on the amended FIA and Stormwater drainage design drawing No. 170406 sheet D03/G dated

28.05.2018, Sydney Trains granted concurrence on 6 June 2018 under Clause 86(4) of State

Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 to the proposed development subject to the

conditions they have provided. However, the stormwater drainage the stormwater drainage design

was excluded from Sydney Train’s approval. One of the condition of the Concurrence required that

“given the development site’s location next to the rail corridor, drainage from the development

must be adequately managed/disposed of and not allowed to be discharged into the corridor

(and its easements) unless prior approval has been obtained from Sydney Trains”.

The amended Flood Impact Assessment(FIA) report dated March 2018 was submitted for assessment

and Council’s Stormwater & Waterways Engineer advised that this Flood Impact Assessment report

poorly addressed a number of hydrologic and hydraulic factors giving conservative outcomes that

results in higher required floor levels and the associated flood hazard. In addition, the overland flow

from the site onto the rail corridor will occur even under the existing conditions.

Sydney Trains issued revised concurrence on 16 July 2018, deleting the condition of Concurrence

requiring that “drainage from the development site must be adequately managed/disposed of and not

allowed to be discharged into the corridor (and its easements) unless approval has been obtained

from Sydney Trains”.

The modified Concurrence satisfies the issues raised in terms of flooding of the site and stormwater

management from the site. However, the further modelling to better address the issues raised by

Council’s Stormwater and Waterways Engineer in respect of catchment size and runoff coefficients,

flow behaviour and the finished floor level was not undertaken. It is possible that this reduce the

hazard risk from high to medium, lowering of the building and to better address pedestrian

accessibility. Any future study would need to include:


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

Revised sub catchment areas to the west of the development considering contours and

drainage lines across the rail corridor taking water away from the development site.

Details on the application of discrete hydrology in the 2D model domain.

Revised roughness coefficients for grassed areas and the rail corridor.

The stormwater network with 50% blockage of stormwater drainage pits.

Modelling of the above.

Details of flood behaviour in minor, major, and extreme events including flood depths, velocities,

levels and hazards, including associated mapping.

Recommendations for revised ground floor levels and basement driveway crests.

In addition, the following flood planning requirements are also required to be considered in any revised

flood study:

Flood compatible building materials and methodology.

Engineers certification for structural soundness.

Preparation of a site specific flood emergency response strategy to an area above the PMF

Revised architectural plans would also need to be prepared.

Council’s Stormwater and Waterways Engineer is of the view that the resultant finished floor levels of

the ground floor were too high and there is a strong possibility that the flood hazard category could be

lower should the flood study is revised. This has resulted in the provision of entry podium that is

significantly higher than the existing ground levels which in fact poorly relates to the existing

topography including streetscape, pedestrian accessibility issues, utilization of communal open space

at ground level by the residents and therefore a poor planning outcome from the proposed

development. It is on this basis, the stormwater engineer recommends a deferred commencement

condition.

However, it must be acknowledged that there is an existing active development consent on the site

that was designed to previously agreed levels. The current design is also based on this data. The

request to require a new study is particularly onerous in this circumstance, particularly given the

ultimate potential improvement is unknown. The reduction in levels may not be potentially significant.

The potential benefits are recognised but on balance new modelling in this circumstance cannot be

justified. Alternatively, the interface between the lower floor level and the ground may be addressed

with a well-considered strategic landscaping design. This can provide a balanced response in the front

setback and in the elevated decks and the common boundary. This is considered a more practical and

certain solution. Given the level of detailed design required a Deferred Commencement Development

Consent condition in relation to landscape design is the preferred solution.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

Earthworks






acceptable.



design. The relevant matters have been considered by Design Review Forum and the amended plans

revision C dated 13 June 2018 were reviewed by Council’s Architect as a part of the assessment of

the application. The issues raised remain unresolved as the proposal lacks the ability of providing

reasonable amenity for future residents without creating unacceptable impacts upon neighbouring

properties and is considered overdevelopment of the site. A number of steps are provided for

pedestrian entry to the building. The entry podium towards the northern end (left side entry area) of

the building is 1.6m above the street level whilst that at the southern side is 1.67m above the natural

ground levels. A balanced landscape design will assist in providing a more balanced outcome.

Rail Noise

The subject site is identified as a noise sensitive development and is located within 25 of the rail buffer

zone as well as within 80m of an operational rail track.

The development application was referred to Transport Sydney Trains for their concurrence under

Clause 86 of Sate Environmental planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. The Sydney Trains has

provided their concurrence subject to imposition of recommended conditions of development consent.

Greenweb




and corridors.

The subject site is identified as a Greenweb restoration area.

The application has been assessed by Council’s Landscape Architect and no objection is raised.

Having regard for the nature of the proposed development conditions have been included in relation to

additional Greenweb plantings.


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8


Council records indicate that the subject site is rated low in terms of Archaeological Sensitivity. A site



undertaken.

Tree Removal

The proposed development involves the removal of 14 trees. The application is assessed by Council’s

Landscape Architect and no objection is raised subject to imposition of appropriate conditions of

consent.


The proposed development will introduce additional residents to the area and as such will generate

Section 7.11 Contributions in accordance with Council’s adopted Section 94 Development

Contribution Plan. These contributions include:

Regional Contribution: $183,899.20

Local Contribution: $428,654.80

These contributions are based upon the likelihood that this development will require or increase the

demand for regional and local recreational space and infrastructure facilities within the area. It has

been calculated on the basis of 34 new residential units with a concession of 3 existing allotments.





made.

CONCLUSION

The subject land is located within Zone 4 – High Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. The proposed development, being a residential flat

building, is a permissible land use within the zone with development consent.

In response to public exhibition, no submissions were received.

The proposal includes variations to height of building and floor space ratio development standards.

These variations have been discussed and are supported. The issues of noncompliance with ADG

requirements in terms of built form and provisions of private open space to ground level units are


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8

To improve the relationship with the ground , a reduction in the lower level is desirable. It is possible

/probable that further flood studies may facilitate this outcome. However, the ultimate outcome is

unknown as is the degree of improvement. The design also needs to be tempered in the context of the

existing approval based on previously agreed finished levels. A suitable and less onerous strategy is

to develop a landscape treatment that assures in providing the necessary balance in particular, in the

rear private open space areas where large elevated decks dominate, and within the front setback.

On this basis, it is considered that Development Application No. 17/0782 is supported as ‘Deferred

Commencement Development Consent’ subject to the provision of detailed landscape plan that make

provision for suitable mass beds and plantings to balance the built form presented on its lower level.


Assessment (GW), who can be contacted on 9710 0333.



SS

LP

P0

20-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

A


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

B


SS

LP

P0

20-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

C


SS

LP

P0

20

-18 A

pp

en

dix

D


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

SSLPP021-18 PROPOSAL: SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT - VIEW LOSS -

CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL DWELLING TO

CREATE DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY

PROPERTY: LOT 2 DP 19260 (NO. 135) BUNARBA ROAD, GYMEA

BAY

APPLICANT: JOHN & HAYLEY ANN ADIS


Attachments: Nil

REASON FOR SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

On 3 July 2018, development application DA17/0806 – 135 Bunarba Road, Gymea Bay, was

reviewed and assessed by the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP). The IHAP

required additional information to confirm greater detail in relation to view loss. In considering the

issues the panel determined that the application be deferred and that the applicant erect height poles

on the subject site (with the location and heights of poles being verified by a registered surveyor). The

IHAP also required that following the installation of these poles, view loss analyses for No. 4, 6 and 8

Westringia Place, and No. 133 and 137 Bunarba Road must be undertaken by the applicant, and a

report on view loss analysis must be prepared by Council. This supplementary report provides a

detailed review of the view loss analysis as requested by the IHAP.


THAT:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan

2015, the written submissions in relation to the variations the maximum building height

development standard under Subclause 2C, Clause 4.3 satisfy the relevant provisions of

Clause 4.6 and that the variations are therefore supported. It is recommended that the

provisions of Clause 4.6 be invoked and the maximum building height development

standard be varied as follows: 0.59m or 14.6% (pre-existing variation) for existing cottage

and 2.8m or 55.6% for new dwelling, in respect to this application.

2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act, 1979, and in accordance with the delegated authority issued by the

General Manager of Sutherland Shire Council, Development Application No. 17/0806 for

Construction of additional dwelling to create detached dual occupancy at Lot 2 DP 19260

(No. 135) Bunarba Road, Gymea Bay is determined by granting of development consent

subject to the conditions that allow for view sharing as follows:


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

The upper level of the western wing is to be redesigned to reduce its overall length.

This is to be achieved by relocating its northern wall of bedroom 3 metres to the

south.

The walk-in wardrobe element of bedroom 3 is to be relocated to the east of the

newly located bedroom 3, cantilevered over the walkway roof element.

The walk-in wardrobe of bedroom 2 is to be relocated to the east of bedroom 2,

cantilevered over the walkway roof element.


The view loss analyses below were undertaken at No. 4, 6 and 8 Westringia Place, and No. 137

Bunarba Road and 133 Bunarba Road, Gymea Bay. Two objectors (No. 4 and No. 6 Westringia

Place) mentioned view loss as an issue. The objector at No. 8 Westringia Place has moved and the

new residents did not mention view loss as a concern. The adjoining properties at No. 137 and 133

Bunarba Road did not object to the proposal. To provide a balanced assessment with regard to view

loss impacts, an assessment was undertaken for all properties that objected and those that

immediately adjoin the site. Whilst 3 of the view loss analyses were for properties that did not object to

the proposal, view loss impacts for these locations are relevant and must be considered when

assessing the overall scheme. All view loss analyses were undertaken in accordance with the

planning principle established by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity Consulting v Waringah

[2004] NSWLEC 140. It is noted that the photographs were taken in the afternoon (3pm to 5:30pm) on

24 July 2018. Below is an aerial photo of the site (in red) and the respective neighbours to which the

analyses below relate to.


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

Aerial photo – View Loss Analyses

View loss analysis – 4 Westringia Place, Gymea Bay

Step 1: The first step is the assessment of views to be affected

No. 4 Westringia Place enjoys distant water glimpses through open vistas such as between canopy

trees or over existing buildings, and over several side boundaries across 5 properties. As most of the

views of the Port Hacking foreshore are highly obscured by trees and structures, the land/water


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

interface is not highly visible from this property. Distant views of the foreshore are via limited openings

through trees, with only a small section providing slightly better views due to reduced vegetation

density.

View from rear yard (below the balcony)

Step 2: The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained

The views are mostly obtained from the first floor east-facing balcony at the rear of the dwelling. It is

noted that there is an approval for dwelling additions and alterations (DA17/1762), which also involved

extending the balcony (eastward). Council records indicate that a construction certificate (Certificate

No. 8037874) was submitted for these works. The balcony extension has commenced and this will

likely result in an improvement to the existing views. These views are from both standing and sitting

positions. It is noted that better views are achieved from a standing position.


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

View from south-eastern corner of first floor rear balcony

View from the first floor rear balcony


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

Step 3: The third step is to assess the extent of the impact

Given that most of the trees in front of the proposal will be retained, the majority of the tree-lined

outlook views should be preserved. Distant water views to the south-southeast that rely on sparse tree

coverage will be affected; however, the proposed tree removal will also open up denser areas, which

will slightly improve views through these locations. It is noted that the neighbouring residence is

situated at a higher elevation than the subject site and the new dwelling will primarily affect the trees

that are located centrally, which are adjacent to the houses at No. 133 and 137 Bunarba Road. Given

the above, the view loss impact for No. 4 Westringia Place is considered negligible.

Step 4: The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact

The view loss impact is considered negligible and reasonable. While the new dwelling breaches the

height limit, it is within the height limits for a single dwelling or street front lot. It is further noted that no

additional views are lost by this additional height as a compliant design would still result in similar view

loss impacts.

Conclusion: Therefore, on balance, the overall scheme is acceptable and supportable (refer to the

IHAP report).

View loss analysis – No. 6 Westringia Place


No. 6 Westringia Place currently enjoys distant water glimpses and views of the land/water interface

through open corridors and canopy trees, and over several side boundaries across 5 properties. There

are 2 main viewing sections – through open areas (southeast) and between trees (south-south-east).

The land water interface to the southeast is the residence’s primary view as this is mostly interrupted;

whilst the south-southeast views are secondary views which rely on slight openings between trees.


The views are mostly obtained from the first floor east-facing balcony at the rear of the dwelling. These

views are from both standing and sitting positions. It is noted that better views are achieved from a

standing position.


Most of the views will be obscured by the new dwelling due to its location being on the flatter part of

the site. Whilst this property has limited views of the foreshore, most of these views will be lost and

therefore, the view loss impact is considered moderate.


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

Note: this is a ‘zoomed-in’ photo to show the height poles


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

Note: this is a ‘zoomed-in’ photo to show the height poles


The view loss impact is moderate; however, it is considered that this impact is primarily due to the

location of the first floor of the western wing and not the additional height. The height variation will only

impact land views – not land/water interface or water views. There is opportunity to reduce the floor

space on the first floor of the western wing so that this floor can be re-positioned to retain some of the

viewing corridor available for No. 6 Westringia Place

Conclusion: On balance, the ability to retain the view through this corridor needs to be tempered

against the ability to modify the building whilst generally maintaining the same level of amenity for the

applicant. It is recognised that with some modest modification the same amount of floor space and

amenity can be provided whilst preserving some of the existing view.

View loss analysis – No. 8 Westringia Place


No. 8 Westringia Place enjoys primary views (to the south) of the land/water interface of Gymea Bay,

which will be unaffected by the proposal. This residence also currently enjoys distant water glimpses

and secondary views of the land/water interface through open corridors, above roof lines of

neighbouring houses and canopy trees to the southeast, which are over several side boundaries

across 5 properties. Minor eastern glimpses of Yowie Bay can be seen above the roof lines of


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

neighbouring dwellings and will not be affected by the proposal.

Southern view from first floor rear balcony (unaffected)

Eastern view of development from first floor rear balcony


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8


The views are mostly obtained from the rear of the existing residence off the first floor (including a

balcony, bedroom and living room). These views are from both standing and sitting positions. It is

noted that better views are achieved from a standing position.


Most of the eastern views of the residence will be blocked by the new dwelling. It is noted; however,

that there will still be some views retained, which will rely on an open horizontal vista over the roof line

of the new dwelling. The new dwelling will also change the outlook for the residence, resulting in a

new 2 storey building, contained within a cleared portion of the site. The location of existing structures

and vegetation are such that any views of the new dwelling from No. 8 Westringia Place will not be

obscured; however, the position of the new dwelling, being within a flatter, modified and less

vegetated part of the site, is appropriate and expected. On balance, the overall impact is considered

moderate.

Eastern view from living room


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

Eastern view from bedroom


The view loss impact is moderate; however, it is considered that this impact is primarily due to the

location of the first floor of the western wing and not the additional height.

Conclusion: Therefore, the view loss impact is considered reasonable and acceptable.

View loss analysis – No. 137 Bunarba Road, Gymea Bay


No. 137 Bunarba Road, Gymea Bay currently enjoys high quality, uninterrupted primary views of the

foreshore and land/water interface to the south. Moderate, more distant secondary views to the east

and west are also visible from this residence; however, these rely on open vistas between trees and

over buildings and side boundaries across 5 properties.


The views are mostly obtained from the rear and sides of the existing residence off the first floor.

These views are from both standing and sitting positions.


The secondary views to the east from several windows in the kitchen and dining area will be


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

completely obscured by the new dwelling; however, all of the high quality primary views to the south

will be retained. With regard to the eastern secondary views, the view loss impact is considered

moderate; however, on balance, taking into account the retention of the panoramic primary views to

the south, which are of higher quality and importance (in terms of amenity), the overall extent of view

loss impact is minimal.


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

Secondary, eastern views from living and dining areas (internal

First floor balcony


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

This photo is of a primary southern view of the waterway from the rear of the residence at No. 133

Bunarba Road; however, No. 137 Bunarba Road has a similar uninterrupted view to the south


The overall view loss impact is minimal; however, it is considered that this impact is primarily due to

the location of the first floor of the western wing and not the additional height. The new dwelling has

been designed to reduce view loss impacts associated with the east-facing dining and living room

windows and ensures all of the high quality primary views of the water/foreshore are unobscured. The

elements that contribute to some view loss for the east-facing dining and living room windows are

generally associated with the open form balconies on the first floor.

Conclusion: Therefore, the view loss impact is considered minimal and acceptable.

View loss analysis – No. 133 Bunarba Road, Gymea Bay


No. 133 Bunarba Road, Gymea Bay currently enjoys high quality, uninterrupted views of the foreshore

and land/water interface to the south, east and west.


The views are mostly obtained from the rear and sides of the existing residence off the first floor.


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8

These views are from both standing and sitting positions.

Sunroom

Western views from sunroom towards No. 135 & 137 Bunarba Road


SS

LP

P0

21-1

8


As none of the views will be affected by the proposal, the view loss impact is considered negligible.


The view loss impact is negligible as this residence will retain all of their views.

Overall conclusion

Given the above view loss analyses, the overall view loss impact varies between different sites. The

proposed scheme generally presents a well-considered design that is reasonably sized and

appropriately located; being situated on a flatter, more modified portion of the site. The proposed

development is located well away from significant site constraints and features such as the foreshore

area, prominent vegetation below the rock shelf, natural rock outcrops, challenging topography, the

waterfront cottage and a known Aboriginal Heritage item. The view loss analyses determined that

whilst overall view loss impact is generally minor, the actual impact on No. 6 Westringia Place is

moderate. There is some opportunity to preserve the viewing corridor for this residence with some

modest modification and without sacrificing the primary design or floor space. This can be achieved by

relocating the western wing of the building slightly further south (1-2m) or alternatively, re-designing

the first floor of the western wing to be 1-2m shorter. Such re-design could involve relocating the first

floor bathroom to be adjacent to the sitting room, orientating Bedrooms 2 and 3 to be elongated from

west to east, and shifting the northern-most elements slightly further south. The suggested

modification is considered reasonable given that it results in the same amount of floor space and

amenity whilst preserving some of the existing view for No. 6 Westringia Place. In conclusion, the

overall view loss impact, with some minor adjustments to the new dwelling, is considered minor and

reasonable, and therefore, acceptable.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER


Assessment (MR) who can be contacted on 9710 0333.


agenda of sutherland shire local planning panel - 4 ... · proposal the application is for...

Documents