hunter's hill council...d5, d8, d9, d14, d15, d21, d26, d27, d30, pe2, pe6. and the following...

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

No.4191

23rd May, 2005 7.30pm

ORDER OF BUSINESS PRAYER ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES, DECLARATIONS A. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

CIVIC CEREMONIES B. MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS

TABLING OF PETITIONS ADDRESSES FROM THE PUBLIC C. NOTICE OF MOTIONS (INCLUDING RESCISSION

MOTIONS) REPORTS FROM STAFF D. DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT E. PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE F. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION G. CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES H. GENERAL MANAGER J. COMMITTEE REPORTS K. CORRESPONDENCE L. DELEGATES REPORTS M. GENERAL BUSINESS N. QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE Z. COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

HUNTER’S HILL COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

4191 – 23rd May, 2005

INDEX A – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No.4190 held 9th May, 2005 ....... 1

B – MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS

1. Leave of Absence .............................................................................................. 1

D – DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

1. 10 Campbell Street, Hunters Hill ....................................................................... 1 2. 14 Lyndhurst Crescent, Hunters Hill .................................................................17 3. 35-39 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill ..........................................................................29 4. 100 Woolwich Road, Woolwich ........................................................................51 5. Draft Local Environmental Plan No.42 – 9(d) Local Open Space Reservation & Unzoned Lands ...........................................................................67 6. Exhibition of Gladesville Town Centre Masterplan ............................................76 7. 52 Woolwich Road, Hunters Hill .......................................................................80 8. Delegated Authority ..........................................................................................92

E – PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE

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

G – CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES

1. Buffalo Creek Reserve Coffee Vendor ................................................................ 1 2. Cultural Plan ...................................................................................................... 2

H – GENERAL MANAGER

1. Extension of Temporary Licence – Henley Bowling & Recreation Co-operative. 1 2. Code of Conduct ................................................................................................. 6 3. Review of Councillors Fees – Determination of the Local Government

Remuneration Tribunal. ...................................................................................... 7

J – COMMITTEES

1. Minutes of the Children’s Services Committee Meeting held 5th May, 2005 ....... 1 2. Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel Meeting held 11th May, 2005 ........ 5

K – CORRESPONDENCE

1. Items of Correspondence .................................................................................... 1

M – GENERAL BUSINESS

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

A

Confirmation Of Minutes

A – Confirmation Of Minutes

4191 – 23rd May, 2005

Index 1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No.4190 held 9th May, 2005 1

............................................ ............................................. Councillor Susan Hoopmann Barry Smith MAYOR GENERAL MANAGER

MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING 4190 – 9TH MAY, 2005 A1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4190 held on 9th May, 2005. This is page

COMMENCEMENT The meeting opened with Prayer at 7.30pm. IN ATTENDANCE The Mayor, Councillor Susan Hoopmann, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Annabel Croll, Councillors Peter Astridge, Simon Frame, Jason Lin, Bruce Lucas and Ross Sheerin. ALSO PRESENT The General Manager, Barry Smith, the Acting Manager Public Works and Infrastructure, David Innes, the Manager Finance and Administration, Debra McFadyen, the Manager Development and Environment Steve Kourepis and Trainee Administrative Officer Anna Yusef. APOLOGIES No apologies were received. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Mayor called for Declarations of Interest without response. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 126/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Croll that the Minutes of

Ordinary Meeting No.4189 held 11th April, 2005 be confirmed. MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS (Page B1) 1. ANZAC EVE MEMORIAL SERVICE 127/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Lin that the report be

received and noted. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 128/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Sheerin that at 7.35pm

Standing Orders be suspended to bring forward Item H3, (Page H21) to be discussed before other items.



3. GLADESVILLE RESERVE ‘DRAFT’ PLAN OF MANAGEMENT PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF

The following persons addressed the meeting on the subject matter:

1. Mr. Donald Ingham addressed the meeting regarding his submission to Council.

2. Mrs Yvonne Dornan addressed the meeting regarding her submission to Council

3. Ms Jen McHugh addressed the meeting regarding her submission and the general state of the Henley suburb needing attention before building the Henley Club.

4. Mr. David Gaunt addressed the meeting regarding the Hunters Hill Trust submission to Council.

5. Mr. Philip Jenkyn addressed Council regarding his submission to Council. 6. Mr. Ross Williams addressed the meeting regarding his submission to

Council. 7. Mr. Jeff Egan addressed the meeting on behalf of the Henley Club. A motion was moved Clr Astridge, that:

1. Council retain the building previously occupied by the Henley Bowling and Recreation Club Co-operative Limited to be used for identifiable and specific community purpose, for as long as there is a proven community need that is economically viable within Council resources.

2. Council include in the next Draft Plan of Management for Gladesville Reserve, the option of reversion to public open space if the building previously occupied by the Henley Bowling and Recreation Club is no longer required by the community.

The motion lapsed for want of a seconder.

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

1. Council in the first instance indicate that its preferred position is to retain a building within the precinct currently occupied by the Henley Sporting and Recreation Co-operative, Riverside Pre-School and associated and adjoining car parks, for community and recreational use, in accordance with the core objectives ((Clauses 36F to 34J) of the Local Government Act 1993).

2. As indicated on Page H25 of Item H3, a further report be brought forward

on the options for future uses of the Henley Club building and surrounding lands for consideration of inclusion in a revised plan of management. The report to include identified uses (or how to identify uses) for the lands that will meet the current and future needs of the local community and wider public, the potential economic viability and the commercial nature of any identified uses.



3. Where practicable, any future use proposals within the precinct identified in 1 above, shall include options that allow for the improvement of adjacent (or adjoining) foreshore land, foreshore transition areas and public accessibility to the foreshore.

4. Council advise persons who made submissions of the above.

An Amendment was moved Clr Astridge that:

1. Council retains the current Henley Club building, Riverside Pre-School and associated and adjoining car parks, for community and recreational use, in accordance with the core objectives (Clauses 36F to 34J) of the Local Government Act 1993).

2. As indicated on Page H25 of Item H3, a further report be brought forward

on the options for future uses of the Henley Club building and surrounding lands for consideration of inclusion in a revised plan of management. The report to include identified uses (or how to identify uses) for the lands that will meet the current and future needs of the local community and wider public, the potential economic viability and the commercial nature of any identified uses.

3. Where practicable, any future use proposals within the precinct identified in

1 above, shall include options that allow for the improvement of adjacent (or adjoining) foreshore land, foreshore transition areas and public accessibility to the foreshore.

4. Council advise persons who made submissions of the above.

The amendment lapsed for want of a seconder. 129/05 The motion as put to the meeting was CARRIED.

Clr Astridge requested that his name be recorded as being opposed to the resolution

of Council.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 130/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Lin that at 8.37pm, Standing

Orders be resumed. NOTICE OF MOTION (Page C1) 1. TRAFFIC MATTERS – Clr Ross Sheerin Councillor Sheerin withdrew his motion.



REPORTS FROM STAFF DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT (Pages D1 – D100) 1. DA NO.05/1005 – 10 CAMPBELL STREET, HUNTERS HILL PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Greg Boshell addressed the meeting on the subject matter. 131/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lucas, seconded Clr Astridge that this matter be

deferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee for on-site inspection at 8.00am Monday 23rd May, 2005.

2. DA NO.02/1152(B) – 1 TOOCOOYA LANE, HUNTERS HILL PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF 132/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Lin that: Pursuant to Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

Development Application No. 02/1152 (B) for the amended swimming pool fencing at 1 Toocooya Lane, Hunters Hill be approved subject to the modification of Condition 15 as follows:

Condition 15 The development consent No. 02-1152 relates to the plans prepared by Sunrise Pools numbered SA 445-1 to SA 445-3 dated June 2002.

9.14pm Councillor Sheerin here left the meeting. 3. DA NO.04/1187 – 12-14 LE VESINET DRIVE, HUNTERS HILL PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Mark Bullen – Architect addressed the meeting on the subject matter: 133/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that:

1. The Council as the consent authority being satisfied that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the foreshore building line provisions under clause 18, of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded.



2. Development Application No. 04/1187 for alterations and additions at Nos.12-14 Le Vesinet Drive, Pulpit Point, be approved, subject to conditions: A1-A4, B2, B14, C1-C10, C12(a-i), C25, C33, C34, C36, C39-C46, C54, C55, C62, C84, C94-C98, C100 proposed works as noted in colour only (drawn by Mark Bullen Architects Pty Ltd) drawing Nos. DA01 dated 28/9/04, DA02 6/9/2004, DA03 dated 27/9/2004, DA04 dated 10/9/2004, DA05 dated 27/9/2004, DA06 dated 27/9/2004, DA07 dated 27/9/2004, DA08 dated 27/9/2004, DA09 dated 10/9/2004, DA10 dated 27/9/2004, DA11 dated 10/9/2004, DA12 dated 27/9/2004, DA13 dated 27/9/2004, DA14 dated 27/9/2004, DA15 dated 10/9/2004, DA16 dated 10/9/2004, DA17 dated 10/9/2004, DA18 dated 10/9/2004, DA19 dated 10/9/2004, DA20 dated 10/9/2004 and DA21 dated 1/11/2004), C102, D2, D5, D8, D9, D14, D15, D21, D26, D27, D30, PE2, PE6.

And the following special condition:

1. So as to protect the presentation of the development when viewed from the waterway/public areas, the proposed first floor awning/pergola structures are to be constructed in a white finish so as to be consistent with the existing pergola structures throughout the development. Details are to be submitted and approved at the Construction Certificate stage.

4. DA NO.04/1194 – 3 CHEVALIER CRESCENT, HUNTERS HILL SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 134/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lucas, seconded Clr Lin that at 9.20pm, Standing

Orders be suspended to allow Councillors to view plans. RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 135/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Croll, seconded Clr Lin that at 9.21pm, Standing

Orders be resumed. 9.21pm Councillor Lucas here left the meeting. 9.22pm Councillor Lucas returned to the meeting. 9.22pm Councillor Sheerin returned to the meeting. 136/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lucas, seconded Clr Lin that: 1. The Council as the consent authority being satisfied that the objection under

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the height of buildings provisions under clause 15, of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded.



2. That Development Application No.04/1194 for a rear two storey extension and conversion of the existing roof into an attic and roof deck at No.3 Chevalier Crescent, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to conditions: A1-A4, B14, C1-C10, C12(a-i), C24, C33, C36, C37, C39, C41-C49, C55, C60, C63, C64, C81-C85, C94-C98, C100 (Prepared by Migliorino Architects Pty Ltd, drawing Nos. DA-01, DA-02 and DA-03 and all dated October 2004), C102, D1-D5, D16, D19, D21, D22, D30, PE2, PE5, PE6, PE15-PE17, S11(50%).

5. DA NO.04/1198 – 21 LE VESINET DRIVE, HUNTERS HILL 137/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Croll that: 1. Council as the consent authority being satisfied that the objection under

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the garden area provisions under clause 16A, of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded.

2. Development Application No.04/1198 for alterations and additions at 21 Le

Vesinet Drive, Hunters Hill be approved subject to the following conditions:

Special Conditions: 1. A bond of $1,000 being lodged prior to issue of Construction

Certificate refundable on successful protection of sandstone kerb and other Council infrastructure.

2. The alterations and additions, including external finishes are to be

completed to match the existing external finishes and colour of the dwelling.

3. Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a certificate is to be

submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority verifying the lift has been installed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.

Standard conditions: A1-A4, B2, B8, B14 ($750), C1-C10, C12 (b, i), C19, C37, C39, C46, C62, C62, C63, C64, C81, C82, C83, C84, C86, C94, C95, C96, C100 (prepared by Emiat Pty Ltd, Drawing No.’s BU: 01 & BU: 03, both dated October 2004 and BU: 02, Issue A, dated February 2005), C102, L1, D29, PE6, S1, S4, S6, S19

6. DA NO.04/1176 – 17 JOHN STREET, HUNTERS HILL 138/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Lin that:

1. Council as the consent authority being satisfied that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the garden area



provisions under clause 16A, of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded.

2. Development Application No.04/1176 for the removal of an existing carport

and driveway, the construction of a gazebo, a glass balustrade, a front fence and landscaping at 17 John Street, Hunters Hill be approved subject to the following conditions:

Special Conditions:

1. Written verification is required prior to the issue of an

Occupation Certificate that a garden area, addressing the requirements as defined within Clause 16A of LEP No.1, of a minimum 43.9% has been achieved for the allotment.

2. The proposed timber and sandstone fence and piers located

adjacent to the Augustine Street boundary (north-western boundary) is to be located wholly within the boundaries of the subject allotment.

A check survey is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority at the footing stage to verify the location of the fence.

3. The height of the boundary fencing fronting Augustine Street is to

be a maximum 1.8 metres when measured externally to the subject development site.

4. The boundary fencing facing Augustine Street is to be continued

through to the location of the driveway servicing the garage of the dwelling. This will involve the removal of the gates providing potential vehicular access to the underside of the balcony to ensure the proposal satisfies Clause 16A of Local Environmental Plan No.1.

5. The redundant existing vehicle crossings shall be re-instated to a

kerb and gutter at the owners expense.

Standard conditions:

A1-A4, B2, B8, B14 ($750), C1-C10, C12 (b, i), C37, C41, C62, C64, C84, C86, C94, C95, C96, C100 (prepared by Imperial Gardens Landscape Pty Ltd, Drawing No.’s JC001 TO JC004, all dated Aug 2004 and JC006, JC007, both dated Feb 2005), C102, L1, L6, L8, PE6, S1, S19.

7. DA NO.03/1060(A) – 7 LLOYD AVENUE, HUNTERS HILL

139/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that the s96 Application to modify the consent of Development Application No. 03/1060(A), for the Section 96 application – alterations and additions at No. 7 Lloyd Avenue, Hunters Hill, be approved and that condition No.81 of the development consent be amended as follows:



81. The development consent No.(03/1060) relates to the plans prepared by Lufi and Associates Pty Ltd Architects, dwg. No. DA01a and DA02a and both dated May 2003 and landscape plan drawn by Marc Deuschle Landscape Architect, drawing No. DA –L01 Revision A and dated 1 May 2003, as amended by plans prepared by Lufi and Associates Pty Ltd Architects, drawing No. DA01B and DA02B and both dated November 2004.

And that the following condition be included:-

95. So as to preserve the Lloyd Avenue streetscape and the waterway, the proposed roof enclosure to the ground floor balcony, sited to the northern elevation is to be deleted. Plans are to be amended accordingly at the Construction Certificate stage.

8. DA NO.05/1007 – 31 SUNNYSIDE STREET, GLADESVILLE SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 140/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Croll that at 9.25pm,

Standing Orders be suspended to allow Councillors to view plans. RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 141/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Croll, seconded Clr Lin that at 8.27pm, Standing

Orders be resumed. 142/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Croll that the Section 82A

application for the review of determination of Development Application No.05-1007 for an in-ground swimming pool be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 79C of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to clauses (1)(a)(i)(iii), (b)(c) and (e).

2. The proposal would not comply with the development standard for garden area provisions under Clause 16A of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1.

3. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area

giving regard to the provisions of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development.

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

5. The proposal is an over-development of the site.



9. DA NO. 05/1001 – 14 LYNDHURST CRESCENT, HUNTERS HILL PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Peter Duffield addressed the meeting on the subject matter. 143/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Astridge that this item be

deferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee for on-site inspection on Monday 23rd May, 2005 at 8.30am.

10. DA NO. 04/1179 – 3 EVERARD STREET, HUNTERS HILL PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Michael Velo addressed the meeting on the subject matter. A motion was moved Councillor Astridge, seconded Clr Sheerin that this matter be

deferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee for inspection. The motion on being put to the meeting was LOST. 144/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Frame that the Section 82A

review of determination for Development Application No. 04-1179 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling, pool and garage, requesting to have Condition 1 from Schedule 1 of the deferred commencement to be deleted, be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 79C of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to clauses (1)(a)(i)(iii), (b)(c) and (e).

2. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area

giving regard to the provisions of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development.

3. Approval of the application would set an undesirable precedent and would

be contrary to the public interest and undermines Council’s planning objectives.

4. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Part 8-Garages and Carports

of DCP No.15.

An Amendment was moved Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Astridge that the section 82A review be approved and condition 1 of schedule 1of the deferred commencement consent be altered to read as follows:

1. So as to preserve the Everard Street streetscape, the proposed garage

structure to the front façade is to be setback a further 500mm. This is to be achieved by reducing the length of the garage structure.



145/05 The Amendment became the motion and on being put to the meeting was CARRIED. 11. DA NO. 04/1180 – 14 MARTIN STREET, HUNTERS HILL 146/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that the report be

received and noted. 12. LEGAL MATTERS 147/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that the report be

received and noted. 13. DELEGATED AUTHORITY

148/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Lin that the report be received

and noted. PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE (Pages E1 – E2) 1. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER – APPROVALS / REFUSALS 149/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that the report be

received and noted. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION (Pages F1 – F5)

1. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL’S INVESTMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 31ST MARCH, 2005

150/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted. 2. FINANCIAL REPORTS TO THE 31ST MARCH, 2005

151/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Sheerin that the report be received

and noted and the variation be adopted. CUSTOMER AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (Pages G1 – G3) 1. YOUTH WEEK 2005 152/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Croll, seconded Clr Lin that Council organise a

Skate Day to be held during the October, 2005 School holidays. 2. ARTSTART WORKSHOPS 153/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Lucas that Council apply for an

ArtStart 2005 grant to organise art workshops for young people in Hunters Hill.



3. HUNTERS HILL EARLY CHILDHOOD HEALTH CENTRE 154/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Croll that Council make

representation to the State Government seeking continued service at the Hunters Hill Early Childhood Health Centre.

GENERAL MANAGER (Pages H1 – H27) 1. 2004/2005 – 2007/2008 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLAN QUARTERLY

REVIEW AS AT 31ST MARCH 2005 155/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Croll that:

1. The report and comments be received and noted.

2. The proposed variations and revised target dates be adopted.

3. A letter be sent to members of the Food and Wine Festival Committee congratulating them on their great success at this year’s event.

2. 2005/2006 – 2008/2009 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, FORWARD FINANCIAL PLAN & BUDGET

156/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Frame that:

1. The 2005/2006 Draft Strategic Management Plan and Forward Financial Plan and Budget be adopted and placed on public exhibition from 16th May 2005 and a special newsletter outlining the proposals contained in the Management Plan be circulated throughout the Municipality.

2. Submissions and comments closing at 4.00pm on Wednesday 15th June

2005 be invited in respect of the 2005/2006 Draft Strategic Management Plan and Forward Financial Plan and Budget Management Plan.

3. A budget information evening be held on 1st June 2005 for the purpose of

community consultation and feedback.

4. Council advise Ryde City Council that it will not be participating in a joint library service for the 2005/2006 year under the present charging regime, as the current contribution methodology is imposing an inequitable cost share upon Council and does not represent ‘value for money’ for ratepayers.

5. Council call for expressions of interest for the provision of a full library service for a five-year period commencing in 2006/2007

6. Council call for expressions of interest for the provision of a housebound library service for a five-year period commencing in 2006/2007.

7. Council advise residents within the next week of the actions proposed in 4, 5 and 6 above and undertake a survey during the Management Plan exhibition period, providing the information contained in this report and seeking resident views on the proposed actions.



3. GLADESVILLE RESERVE ‘DRAFT’ PLAN OF MANAGEMENT This matter was brought forward and considered earlier in the meeting. See Minute

No.129/05. 4. MONTHLY REPORT OF OUTSTANDING MATTERS 157/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Sheerin that the report be

received and noted. COMMITTEE REPORTS (Pages J1 – J24) 1. MINUTES OF THE ART & CRAFT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD

5TH APRIL, 2005 158/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Sheerin that:

1. The Minutes be received and noted. 2. A letter of thanks be forwarded to Kathy Neilson for her work during the

past twelve months. 2. MINUTES OF THE MOOCOOBOOLA FESTIVAL ADVISORY WORKING

PARTY MEETING HELD 13TH APRIL, 2005 159/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Sheerin that the report be received

and noted. 3. MINUTES OF HUNTERS HILL - LE VESINET FRIENDSHIP COMMITTEE

MEETINGS HELD 9TH MARCH & 6TH APRIL, 2005

160/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Sheerin that the Minutes be

received and noted. 4. MINUTES OF THE ART & CRAFT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD

5TH APRIL, 2005 161/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Sheerin that the report be received

and noted. 5. MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL SENIOR SUPPORT GROUP MEETING

HELD 18TH APRIL, 2005 162/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Sheerin that a marked pedestrian

crossing, with aged person signs be constructed in Gladesville Road, near the Community Centre, in addition to the 40km zone.



6. MINUTES OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL MEETING HELD 20TH APRIL, 2005

163/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Sheerin that the report be received

and noted. 7. MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC ADVISORY

COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 19TH APRIL, 2005 164/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Sheerin that:

1. A drawing be prepared detailing a proposed pedestrian treatment for Gladesville Road.

2. No action will be taken with regard to speed humps in Mount Street but that a request be made to police to enforce speed limits.

3. Neighbourhood consultation be undertaken on the proposal of a road turning area in Reiby Road near St. Malo Reserve.

4. “Child Pedestrian” signage be provided in Prince Edward and Prince George Parades.

5. No action be taken on the request for the provision of centerline marking in Huntley’s Point Road.

6. Community consultation be undertaken on the request for the creation of a “No Stopping” zone on the northern side of Venus Street – Pittwater Road to Massey Street.

7. “No Right Turn” restrictions from Ryde Road into Park, Farnell, Blaxland, and Earl Streets in the am peak times be trialled for a three month period.

8. Community consultation be undertaken on the provision of “one-way” traffic movement in Matthew Street.

8. MINUTES OF THE PARKS & TREES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 19TH APRIL, 2005

165/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Sheerin that:

1. Council investigate a possible location for a tennis practice wall at Boronia Park Reserve.

2. Valentia Street traffic island be planted with Cannas.

3. An inspection of the lighting facilities at Boronia Park be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

4. The planting under the existing Cocos Palms for Princes Street roundabout be Dianella.



CORRESPONDENCE (PRECIS) (Pages K1 – K4) 1. CORRESPONDENCE 166/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lucas, seconded Clr Lin that the correspondence be

received and noted. GENERAL BUSINESS (Page M1) 1. MEETINGS – VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL 167/05 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Frame that the report listing the

various Committees of Council be received and noted. QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE

No. Author Date Question Answer 22/05 Clr Astridge 09.05.05 I asked for consideration of a

stop sign to be implemented at the corner of Mary Street and Mark Street. What is happening?

There are existing give-way signs at the nominated intersection. The installation of “stop” signs will be referred to the Transport & Traffic Committee meeting for consideration.

23/05 I have asked for consideration of a Pick-up/ Drop off zone parking at Huntley’s Point Wharf. What is happening?

This matter is to be referred to the Transport & Traffic Committee for consideration. It should be noted that Council has received a request for disabled parking at the same location. These two matters will be considered jointly at the next scheduled Committee.

24/05 Would Council bring forward a report on available space for angle parking on Huntley’s Point Road East bound after turning left from the round-a-bout?

There appears to be limited opportunity for parking on the northern side of Huntley’s Point Road for the first 40m from the round-a-bout. There is some opportunity for the next 50m, however, this needs to be considered with the issues raised in QWN 23/05 above. The parking request will be referred to the Transport and Traffic Committee for consideration.



TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 10.45pm. I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Ordinary Meeting No.4190 held 9th May, 2005. ...................................... ............................................. Barry Smith Councillor Susan Hoopmann GENERAL MANAGER MAYOR

B

Mayoral Minutes & Reports

B – Mayoral Minutes & Reports

4191 – 23rd May, 2005

Index 1. Leave of Absence 1

............................................. Councillor Susan Hoopmann

MAYOR

MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS Meeting 4191 – 23rd May, 2005 B1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4191 held on 23rd May, 2005. This is page

ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : LEAVE OF ABSENCE BUSINESS PROGRAM : MANAGEMENT & COUNCIL SUPPORT REPORTING OFFICER : COUNCILLOR SUSAN HOOPMANN FILE : 200/07 I wish to advise the Council that I shall require a leave of absence from local Council Business during the month of June.

FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact as a result of consideration of this report.

RECOMMENDATION 1. That leave of absence be granted from local Council Business during the month of June.

2. That Deputy Mayor, Councillor Annabel Croll assume the role of Acting Mayor during my absence.

D

Development & Environment

D – Development & Environment

4191 – 23rd May 2005

Index 1. 10 Campbell Street, Hunters Hill 1 2. 14 Lyndhurst Crescent, Hunters Hill 17 3. 35-39 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill 29 4. 100 Woolwich Road, Woolwich 51 5. Draft Local Environmental Plan No.42 – 9(d) Local Open Space Reservation & Unzoned Lands 67 6. Exhibition of Gladesville Town Centre Masterplan 76 7. 52 Woolwich Road, Hunters Hill 80 8. Delegated Authority 92

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

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

Meeting 4191 – 23rd May 2005 D1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4191 held on 23rd May 2005. This is page

ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 05/1005

PROPERTY: 10 CAMPBELL STREET, HUNTERS HILL OWNER: MR. R. & L. PERINI APPLICANT: DLM CONSULTING GROUP PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING AND BOAT SHED APPLICATION LODGED: 13 JANUARY 2005 REVISED PLANS: 14TH FEBRUARY 2005

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : SHAHRAM ZADGAN FILE : 1105/10 & 05/1005 Preamble The matter was on the agenda of Council’s Ordinary Meeting No.4190 of 9th May 2005, where it was resolved that this matter be deferred pending a General Purpose Site Inspection on Monday 23rd May 2005 at 8.00am. Background ?? The subject application was lodged with Council on 13th January 2005. ?? On 19th January 2005, Council sent the applicant a letter advising of a number of

deficiencies. ?? On 31st January and 9th February 2005, Council received additional information. ?? On 14th February 2005, Council received amended plans.

Proposed Works

The application seeks consent for the following works: Roof Form: ?? Replace existing flat roof with hipped roof form and new form to entry ?? Install skylights in the roof form ?? Solar panels added to northern roof plane

Northern Elevation: ?? Modification to balustrading at all levels resulting in a sandstone/glazing mix.




Western Elevation ?? Decrease window openings and include new aluminum window frames ?? Removal of door to lower level ?? Minor changes to balustrading Eastern Elevation ?? Upgrade existing doors and windows to lower level ?? New windows to lower level ?? Minor upgrade to balustrading Internal reconfiguration of the bedroom level ?? Relocation of laundry ?? Decrease size of cellar ?? Additional ensuite ?? Internal wall modification ?? Modification to stair direction ?? Decrease robe size

Boat Shed ?? Replace existing roof of boat shed from a skillion to a gable roof. Site and the Environs

The subject dwelling is four (4) storeys with a flat roof, situated on the northern side of Campbell Street, Hunters Hill. The site has a water frontage to Lane Cove River and is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on a battleaxe block. The site has an area of 970.2m², and slopes steeply down from the property street frontage towards the rear of the property. Due to the slope of the land, the dwelling presents its self as a single storey to Campbell Street and four (4) storeys towards the water. Surrounding development generally consists of dwelling houses of single, two and three storeys. The subject site is located within the conservation area and adjoins a heritage item (No.9 Campbell Street). Relevant Statutory Instruments: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 LEP No 1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a2) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes Development Control Plan: DCP No. 15 - Residential Development SEPP No.56: Yes SREP No.23 Yes Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes 9 Campbell Street




Development Control Assessment Neighbour Notification

NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 12 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Mr. T.J. & J.J. Hawcroft OWNERS OF 2/2 VIRET STREET Hunters Hill

?? Loss of views

Mr David Smith & Lynn McNally 7 Campbell Street HUNTERS HILL

?? Loss of views

Mrs W. Martin of No.4 Campbell Street, Hunters Hill Represented by Chris Blyth of The Turnbull Group

?? Loss of views ?? Excess Height

Allars Mottee Hannaford Solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Gregory John Boshell & June Margaret Boshell 2/9 Campbell Street, Hunters Hill

?? Loss of views ?? Excess Height

Proprietors of Strata Plan 57176 M. Scrivener, G..J. Boshell & J.M. Boshell 9 Campbell Street Hunters Hill

?? Loss of views ?? Height and bulk ?? Covenant in relation to height

Mr. Ross Laurie of 4/2 Viret Street Hunters Hill Represented by Justine Manning of Boyle First National Real Estate

?? Loss of views

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

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

Height

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




Bulk

Comment: The development is of a consistent scale and bulk with that of surrounding development, coupled with the choice of materials and colours. It is considered that the proposed roof form would be compatible with the bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality.

Covenant in relation to height

Comment: This is a civil matter between the two effected parties. Not a planning matter. Council can grant consent for works affected by covenants under Clause 22 of LEP No.1. This objection is unsustained.

Development Control Assessment:

CONTROL REQUIRED/ PERMISSIBLE

PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2m

11.84m

No (no change)

Storeys 2 4 No (no change) Garden Area 60% 41% No (no change) BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house South (Front) East (side) North (rear) West (side)

Pred. Street Pattern 1.5m 6m 1.5m

No change 1.8-3m 15-19.6m 1.5m

Yes Yes Yes Yes

* A SEPP No.1 Objection has been lodged for the existing non-compliances in relation to Height and Garden Area

Planning Consideration Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 this matter that Council shall take into consideration when determining the application. The assessment process has taken into consideration the matters as detailed below. (1)(a)(i) – The provision of any environmental planning instrument;

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 56 – Sydney Harbour It is noted that the subject site falls within the area covered by SEPP 56. This policy also contains a number of objectives relating to foreshore development and the use of the Harbour and its tributaries. The following are the most relevant guiding principles identified under SEPP 56 as matters for consideration by a consent authority: (e) the suitability of the site or part of the site for significant open space that will enhance

the open space network existing along the harbour foreshore; (g) protection and improvement of the unique visual qualities of the harbour, its foreshore

and tributaries;




(i) the conservation of items of heritage significance identified in an environmental planning instrument or subject to an order under the Heritage Act 1977;

(j) scale and character of any development derived from an analysis of the context of the site

(k) character of any development as viewed from the water and its compatibility and sympathy with the character of the surrounding foreshores.

The proposal would not change the existing ground to ceiling height, or number of storeys of the existing dwelling. It should be noted that the dwelling effectively appears as four (4) storeys when viewed from the waterway which would not be altered by the proposal. The proposed roof form when viewed from the water would be similar and sympathetic with other roofs and character of surrounding foreshore properties. Accordingly, as there are no significant changes to the northern façade of the dwelling, which faces the water, it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the abovementioned guiding principles, in particular those of relevance pertaining to height/scale and character of the development and the protection of the unique visual qualities of the foreshore. Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) No.23 -- Sydney and Middle Harbours The subject site is located within the area covered by SREP 23. This plan has a number of general aims and objectives, the most relevant of which, in this case, is as follows:

(e) to recognise, protect and enhance the natural, scenic, environmental, cultural and heritage qualities of the land to which this plan applies in future planning and development control, and

The SREP No. 23 also contains specific aims relating to the visual environment. The aims identified in relation to this are:

(i) to protect and enhance the landscape and special scenic qualities of the Harbours, and

(ii) to ensure that adequate consideration is given to the visual impact of development, and

(iii to preserve the natural foreshores of the Harbours and to ensure development does not detract from their natural character, and

As mentioned above, the proposal would not change the existing ground to ceiling height, or number of storeys of the existing dwelling. It should be noted that the dwelling effectively appears as four (4) storeys when viewed from the waterway which would not be altered by the proposal. The proposed roof form when viewed from the water would be similar and sympathetic with other roofs and character of surrounding foreshore properties. Also, the proposed roof would improve the visual appearance of the dwelling and benefit the conservation area. Accordingly, as there are no significant changes to the northern façade of the dwelling, which faces the water, it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the abovementioned guiding principles, in particular those of relevance pertaining to height/scale and character of the development and the protection of the unique visual qualities of the foreshore.




Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 The subject site is zoned residential 2(a2) (HHLEP No.1), dwelling houses are identified as a permissible use within the zone subject to Council consent. State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No.1 – Development Standard – Height The existing dwelling fails to comply with Clause 15 (2) (a) and (b) of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 in terms of permissible number of storeys and ceiling height for development in 2(a2) zone. The foundation areas along the northern elevation are greater than 1400mm, which therefore technically constitute a storey under the definition of “Storey” under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, which states that: “Storey means the space within a building which is situated between one floor level and the floor level next above or, if there is no floor above, the ceiling or roof above, but does not include: (a) any such space which is designed, constructed or adapted solely for the

accommodation of: (iii) foundation areas not exceeding a height of 1400mm above ground level”

Therefore, the subject dwelling has an existing non-compliance with height and number of storeys, as the existing dwelling consists of four (4) stories when viewed from the northern elevation facing the Lane Cove River. It should be noted that the proposed works to the existing dwelling would not change the existing ground to ceiling height, or number of storeys of the existing dwelling. Clause 15 of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 which states inter-alia:-

15 (1) In this clause “ground level”, in relation to carrying out of development on a site, means the level of the site immediately below the development is carried out.

(2) A person shall not erect a building on a site within Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a2), 2(a3), 2(b), 2(c), or 5(a):

(a) containing more than 2 storeys; or

(b) having a height greater than 7.2 metres measured vertically from ground level to the uppermost ceiling.

Council must consider the underlying objectives of particular development standard that is being breached. In this case the underlying objectives relating to the number of storeys and height are identified in Local Environmental Plan No.35 as quoted below:

(a) To avoid the adverse impacts associated with the excessive height, bulk and scale of development within the existing residential area;

(b) To ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality;

(c) To maintain and enhance the varied domestic scale, form and character of the residential area;




(d) To minimise visual impact, disruption to views, loss of privacy and loss of sunlight to existing residential development;

(e) To minimise the adverse impact on the Conservation Areas, Foreshore Scenic

Protection Area, items of environmental heritage significance and contributory buildings;

(f) To reduce the visual impact of development when viewed from the Lane Cove River

and Parramatta River as well as other public places such as parks, roads and community facilities.

The applicant’s consultant has therefore submitted a State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objection, which attempts to provide justification that strict compliance with the development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances, and that strict compliance would hinder attainment of the objects of the Act, for the following reasons:

?? The development does not propose any variation to the existing height.

?? Given there is no change to the existing wall height, number of storeys and garden area, built form (with the exception of roof form) will remain as it currently exists when viewed from Lane Cove River.

?? The existing breach of the 7.2 metre height control development standard in conjunction with proposed upgrade works does not result in any additional impact or reduce the developments potential to achieve the stated objectives of the development standard.

?? Of paramount consideration in this instance is site topography. A site inspection from the Lane Cove River demonstrates the general fall of land from west to east at a relatively steep decent traversing the locality from west of Lloyd Avenue across the subject site to the water front. As a result, dwellings themselves step down with respect to topography. Further, the steep south to north slope across the site is a common characteristic in the area which also promotes larger wall heights amongst older dwellings.

?? It should be noted that heritage items near the subject site dominate views from the waterway, and the proposed increase in wall height is such that the visual catchment will remain unaltered. As a result, the proposed development is considered to achieve the intent of objectives (b3) which has particular relevance to this proposal.

?? The steep south to north slope in this area has historically encouraged increased wall heights along the northern elevations of dwellings. The existing wall height is deemed satisfactory at river foreshore.

?? Drop of ground level along eastern boundary presents a hard edge from the dwelling which is softened by existing vegetation at present and as a result, the wall height at higher levels is not uncharacteristic of the area.

?? Changes to roof form and window fenestration along the northern elevation eradicate dated elements of the façade resulting in a more sympathetic relationship with other period dwellings within the catchment.




?? As stated within this SEPP 1 Objection, there are no additional impacts given the breach of the development standard currently exists and was approved in accordance with the planning instrument in force at the time.

?? There is no variation to any development standard contained with HHLEP No.1 sought in this instance.

Notwithstanding, the non-compliance with the height it is considered that the scale of the development would remain satisfactory, as the proposal would not alter the existing ground to ceiling height or number of storeys. The proposed roof for the existing dwelling house is considered acceptable, as it would improve the presentation of the house and benefit the conservation area, and be similar to roofs of other surrounding dwellings in terms of bulk and scale, and its relationship with the development in the locality and the amenity of adjoining properties and as a result would be consistent with the objectives of the Hunters Hill LEP No.1, Hunters Hill LEP No. 35 and DCP No.15. Accordingly, having considered the SEPP No.1 objection to Clause 15, in the Hunters Hill LEP 1, the strict application of the height development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The arguments made within the SEPP No.1 specifically relate to the proposal complying with the aims and objectives of the LEP No.35 and the height objectives stipulated under 7.1.1 of the DCP No. 15. The SEPP No.1 is therefore supported. Garden Area The existing garden area is approximately 41% and does not comply with the provisions under Clause 16A, being Garden Area, of LEP No.1, which requires the garden area to be equal or greater than 60% of the area of the allotment for buildings on an allotment of land which have a frontage to the Lane Cove River. Accordingly, as the existing garden area of the site fails to comply with Clause 16A of LEP No.1, a State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objection has been submitted, which attempts to provide justification that strict compliance with the development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances, and that strict compliance would hinder attainment of the objects of the Act. Clause 16A, being Garden Area, of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 states:

16A. (1) In this clause, “ garden area” means any area within an allotment of land

which has not been built on and which, in the opinion of the council, is designed, constructed or adapted for living or outdoor recreation, but does not include decks, balconies or swimming pools (other than swimming pools with a water surface of less than 40 square metres and which don’t project more than 150mm above ground level), driveways, parking areas, drying yards or other service areas.




(2) The council shall not grant consent to the erection or use of a building on an allotment of land within Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a2) or 2(a3) unless the allotment has a garden area equal to or greater than 50% of the area of the allotment.

(3) Notwithstanding subclause (2), the council shall not grant consent to the

erection or use of a building on an allotment of land within a zone referred to in that subclause which has a frontage to the Lane Cove River or the Parramatta Rivers unless the allotment has a garden area equal to or greater than 60% of the area of the allotment.

In summary the SEPP No.1 Objection addresses the following issues: ?? It is forwarded that the development does not propose any variation to the existing

height and garden area of the dwelling as defined by the definitions with HHLEP No.1.

?? The existing garden area on site is 41.33% with no variation proposed. ?? The existing garden area remains unaltered and the development will not impact

upon the thematic pattern of development or landscaped setting. There is no change to the existing landscaped setting of the dwelling which is characteristic of many sites within the visual catchment.

?? The proposed development does not contradict the objectives for garden area which

relate to locality character, retention of vegetation, access to sunlight and privacy, topography and drainage. The sitting of the dwelling, which was deemed appropriate at time of construction is not altered or increased as a result of the proposal. Given there is no alteration to the existing garden areas (pursuant to LEP No.1) and the landscaped setting of the dwelling is not altered, the development is considered satisfactory in respect to the objectives for garden area contained within DCP No.15.

?? The existing dwelling was approved and deemed acceptable in accordance with the

provisions of the relevant environmental planning instruments at the time. ?? There is no variation to any development standard contained with HHLEP No.1

sought in this case. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy the objectives for garden area stipulated under Part 7.3 of the Development Control Plan No.15, as the proposal would not remove any trees or vegetation, or reduce the existing garden area.

Accordingly, having considered the SEPP No.1 objection to Clause 16A, in the Hunters Hill LEP No.1, the strict application of the garden area development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The arguments made within the SEPP No.1 specifically relate to the proposal complying with the aims and objectives of the LEP No.1 and the garden area objectives stipulated under 7.3.1 of the DCP No.15. The SEPP No.1 is therefore supported.




Items of environmental heritage Not applicable, as the subject site is not a heritage item. Foreshore Building Lines The site contains a boatshed which faces onto the Lane Cove River, and is located within 15 metres of the foreshore building line. The proposal would replace the existing roof of the boat shed from a skillion to a gable roof. It is considered that the replacement of the existing roof of the boat shed from a skillion to a gable roof would be acceptable and would satisfy Clause 18 (5)(a)(iv) of LEP No.1. Also, the application was referred to the Waterways Authority, who advised that the proposed development is not considered integrated development for the purposes of Part 3A of the RFI Act. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is also located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of LEP No.1. Clause 18A states: 18A. The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry

out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked "Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14. - Heritage Conservation", unless it has made an assessment of:

(a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when viewed

from the waterway; and (b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway

from public roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6(b).

The subject site is visible from the water and careful consideration has been given to the proposal’s external appearance as discussed in detail within the body of the report. It is considered that the proposed roof would be satisfactory with regard to its appearance and visual quality when viewed from the waterway, as it would be similar and comparable to other roofs of surrounding dwellings, in terms of bulk and scale, dark and recessive in colour, and form. Conservation Area The subject site is situated within a Conservation Area and, as such, Clause 19A of LEP No.1 is applicable. Clause 19A states: 19A. (1) A person shall not, in respect of a conservation area -

(a) demolish or alter a building or work within the area; (b) damage or move a relic within the area; (c) excavate for the purpose of exposing a relic within the area; (d) damage or despoil a place within the area; or (e) erect a building on or subdivide land within the area,

except with the consent of Council.




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

(3) The Council shall not grant consent to such an application, being an application to erect a new building or to alter the exterior of an existing building, unless the Council has made an assessment of - (a) the pitch and form of the roof; (b) the style, size, proportion and position of the openings for windows

and doors; and (c) whether the colour, texture, style, size and type of finish of the

materials to be used on the exterior of the building are compatible with the materials used in the existing buildings in the conservation area.

It is considered tha t the proposed works would maintain the setting of the conservation area and as a result not affect the heritage significance of the conservation area. The pitch and form, colour and materials used for the proposed roof and rendering of the existing build are considered to be acceptable. Also, the proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor, who provided the following comment: “The proposed slate-clad, pitched roof should improve the presentation of the house, and the works to the boatshed will also bring it more in line with the more “ideal” boatshed form- the asymmetrical arrangement looks a little odd in terms of the drawing, but should read as a gable ended roof in reality.” Accordingly, The proposal is considered to comply with the requirements stipulated under Clause 19 of the LEP No.1. (1)(a)(ii) – any draft planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority

There are no draft local environmental plans of relevance to the proposed development. (1)(A)(Iii) – a+ny Development Control Plan DCP 15 contains objectives that relate to all residential development within the Municipality of Hunters Hill. The objectives of DCP 15 state:

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

b. Development, particularly when viewed from the street or other public place, should

be compatible with the character and scale of any existing building to be retained on the site and residential development in the immediate vicinity.




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

d. In areas with significant stylistic/architectural associations and identity, additions

and new development should be designed in sympathy with their surrounds.

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

Garden Area

Refer to “Garden Area” under “(1)(a)(i) – The Provisions of Any Environmental Planning Instrument”. Height Refer to “Height” under “(1)(a)(i) – The Provisions of Any Environmental Planning Instrument”. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The objectives outlined in DCP 15 relating to development within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area are as follows:

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

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

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

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

e. To ensure that dwelling designs having regard to preserving existing views towards the waterway from public roads, public reserves and adjoining properties;

As stated previously within the body of the report, the subject site is visible from the water and careful consideration has been given to the proposal’s external appearance when viewed from the water. The proposal would result in a development that is not considered to visually degrade the amenity of the surrounding residents or the visual quality of Hunters Hill particularly when viewed from the waterway. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives stipulated under Part 5.2 of Council’s Development Control Plan No.15.




Setbacks

The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling house would comply with requirements stipulated under Part 7.2 of DCP No.15. The proposal has been assessed against the objectives under Part 7.2 of the DCP No.15 (following characteristic pattern of setbacks for locality, sunlight, privacy, views and streetscape, as has been assessed within the body of the report) and is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives as there would be no unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties. Solar Access The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that there would be additional overshadowing to the adjoining property to the west, being No.8 Campbell Street, at 9.00am mid winter. The additional shadows would affect less than 30% of the existing recreational open space to the adjoining property. At 12.00pm mid winter additional overshadowing would occur within the subject property, which would not result in any material impacts. The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that at 3.00pm mid winter additional overshadowing would occur within the subject site and partly No.2 Viret Street. The additional shadows are minor and would not result in any material impacts. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with the general requirements, being that new development must not eliminate more than one third of the existing sunlight to adjacent properties at ground level, measured at 9.00am, 12noon and 3.00pm of the winter solstice. Accordingly, the proposal would satisfy the objectives stipulated under Part 7.4.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15. Privacy It is considered that the proposed works would not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties with regard to aural or visual privacy. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with the objectives stipulated under Part 7.5 of the DCP No.15. Views The applicants have constructed templates on the existing roof indicating the proposed height of the hipped roof at a 22.5 degree roof pitch. The owners of No.9 Campbell Street have objected to the proposed development with regard to potential loss of views to the Lane Cove River from various rooms within their dwelling house. An inspection of the premises revealed that there would be some loss of water views from the northern side garden area, guest room and dining room on the ground floor as a result of the proposed new hipped roof form. However, these views will be retained from the upper level of the dwelling. The owners of No.7 Campbell Street have objected to the proposed development with regard to potential loss of views to the Lane Cove River from various rooms within their dwelling house. An inspection of the site revealed that there would be some loss of water views from the front garden area, and ground floor of the dwelling as a result of the proposed new hipped roof form. However, these views will be retained from the upper level of the dwelling.




The owners of No.4 Campbell Street have objected to the proposed development with regard to potential loss of views to the Lane Cove River from various rooms within their dwelling house. An inspection from the dwelling revealed that there would be negligible loss of water views towards the east from the main balcony area, as result of the proposed new hipped roof form. It is considered that the proposal would not result in significant material impacts on this property. The owners of the residential units at No.2 Viret Street have objected to the proposed development with regard to potential loss of views to the Lane Cove River from various rooms within their units. An inspection of the site revealed that there would be negligible loss of water views towards the west. However, it should be noted that currently there are large trees and dense vegetation towards the north-west of 2 Viret Street, with the dwelling at No.9 Campbell Street, which already effects the outlook of the units towards the west. This impact is not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application.

It is considered that the majority of the existing views of the Lane Cove River enjoyed from the first floor balconies and rooms would remain and that the objective stipulated under Part 7.6.1 of the DCP No.15, relating to view sharing by both existing and future residents of the municipality would be satisfied. Therefore, issues of loss of views is not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory, as the proposal would satisfy the objectives stipulated under Part 7.6 of the DCP No.15. (1)(a)(ii) – any draft environmental planning instrument. this application has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority There are no draft local environmental plans of relevance to the proposed development. (1) (b) (c) the likely impacts of the development including environmental impacts on both the natural and build environments and social and economic impacts the locality suitability of the site for the development. The proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house are considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties, the Lane Cove River or the Campbell Street streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal has existing non-compliances and would not further breech (Height and Garden Area) the numerical requirements and the objectives stipulated under DCP No.15 and LEP No.1. There would be no impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. Council’s Landscape Advisor raised no objection to the proposed works.




Council’s Heritage Advisor viewed the plans and provided the following comment: “The proposed slate-clad, pitched roof should improve the presentation of the house, and the works to the boatshed will also bring it more in line with the more “ideal” boatshed form - the asymmetrical arrangement looks a little odd in terms of the drawing, but should read as a gable ended roof in reality.” (1)(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the act or the regulations

The proposed development was notified twice, once for the original plans, and the second time for the amended plans in accordance with the Council Development Control Plan for a period of ten (10) working days. Within the specified time periods six (6) submissions were received. The submissions received have been addressed under the heading of neighbour notification and appropriate comments have been provided addressing those concerns. (1) (e) The public interest The proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in DCP No. 15 and LEP No.1, the application is considered acceptable. Conclusion

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under section 79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the adjoining residential properties and accordingly is recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Council as the consent authority being satisfied that the objection under

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the height of the building provisions under Clause 15, of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded.

2. That the Council as the consent authority being satisfied that the objection under

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the garden area provisions under Clause 16A, of the Hunters Hill local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded.




3. That Development Application No.05/1005 for alterations and additions, construction of a new hipped roof, and new roof to existing boatshed at No.10 Campbell Street, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to conditions: A1-A4, B2, B8, B14, C1-C10, C12, C21, C33-C37, C39, C40, C42, C46, C47, C57, C61-C64, C81-C85, C88, C94-C98 C100 (Drawn by Stephen Kitching & Associates Pty Ltd, drawing No.DA001E, DA002E, dated February 2005, drawing No.DA003D, DA004D, DA005D, dated December 2004, drawing DA006E, dated February 2005, drawing DA009D, dated December 2004. Schedule of colours and finishes prepared by SJK Architects, received by Council on 17 January 2005), D2-D5, D8, D12, D14, D19, PE2, PE5, PE6, PE14.

And the following special conditions:

1. That the fixed glazed gable proposed on the northern face (water front) of the boatshed is to be deleted, and replaced with non- reflective material, and painted in a dark and recessive colour, such as Dulux “Arava”. Details to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

2. That the glazing proposed on the balcony balustrading along all floors of the

northern elevation is to be deleted, and replaced with non- reflective material, such as dark and recessive coloured open palisades. Details to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

3. That the boatshed door is to be in ceder panelling or in a dark and recessive

tone. Details to be provided with the Construction Certificate.




ITEM NO : 2 SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 05/1001

PROPERTY: 14 LYNDHURST CRESCENT, HUNTERS HILL OWNER: MR. J. & MRS J. KANAVAS APPLICANT: PETER DUFFIELD AND ASSOCIATES PTY LTD PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS APPLICATION LODGED: 11TH MARCH 2005

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : ROBERT SHERRY FILE : 1430/14 & 05/1001 Preamble

The matter was on the agenda of Council’s Ordinary Meeting No.4190 of 9th May 2005, where Councillor Ross Sheerin, requested that this matter be deferred pending a General Purpose Site Inspection on Monday 23rd May 2005 at 8.30am. History

Development Application 05/1001 for the alterations and additions was refused under Delegated Authority on 18th February 2005 for not adequately addressing the requirements of Local Environmental Plan No.1, Development Control Plan No.15 and the resultant impact of the development.

The proposed development includes: ?? Enlargement of two windows within the southern wall of the building facing

Parramatta River; ?? Installation of three skylights (one in the southern roof plane and two in the northern

roof plane); ?? The removal of the existing roof tiles and the introduction of replacement roof tiles and

additional structural support members (the roof pitch would match the existing roof pitch);

?? Installation of a new window within the eastern wall of the building to the lower basement level and an enlarged window within the first floor servicing the kitchen area; and

?? The relocation of the laundry from the lower basement level to the exterior of the rear of the dwelling.




Details

Pursuant to section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Mr Peter Duffield of Peter Duffield and Associates Pty Ltd, the applicant for the proposal, is seeking a review of the Council’s determination, which refused a development application for the alterations and additions. Site and Environs The subject site is legally described as Lot 14 in DP 28489, being a predominantly rectangular shaped allotment, with its primary frontage to Lyndhurst Crescent. Surrounding development comprises single and two storey dwellings, comprising variations in style, form, period of construction and scale. The site is currently zoned Residential 2(a2). Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Hunter’s Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes Development Control Plan: 15 State Environmental Policies: No Regional Environmental Policies: SREP 22- Parramatta River: Yes Listed Heritage Item: No Contributory Building: No Bushfire Prone: No Integrated Development: No

Procedure - 82A Review of determination (1) If the consent authority is a council, an applicant may request the council to review a

determination of the applicant’s application. (2) A request for a review may be made at any time, subject to subsection (2A).

(2A) A determination cannot be reviewed:

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

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

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

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




(4) The council may review the determination if:

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

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

(ii) a development control plan, if the counc il has made a development control plan under section 72 that requires the notification or advertising of requests for the review of its determinations, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFICATION REQUIRED NO NUMBER NOTIFIED NIL SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED NIL

Supporting Documentation In support of the request for review, the applicants have submitted the following additional information: 1. A SEPP No.1 Objection to the garden area development standard of Clause 16A

contained within LEP No.1.




Development Control Assessment CONTROL REQUIRED/

PERMISSABLE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

GARDEN AREA 50% 20% No Planning Assessment Section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 lists the matters that Council shall take into consideration when determining the application. The assessment process has taken into consideration the matters as detailed below. (1)(a)(i) – The provision of any environmental planning instrument;

SREPP 22 - DCP - Sydney Harbour and Tributaries

The proposal is not considered to adequately address the following guiding principles, which apply to the development of land to which the policy applies: (g) the protection and improvement of unique visual qualities of the Harbour, its

foreshores and tributaries, (j) the scale and character of any development, derived from an analysis of the context

of the site, (k) the character of any development as viewed from the water and its compatibility and

sympathy with the character of the surrounding foreshores, (l) the application of ecologically sustainable development principles The proposed development has not addressed the requirements of SREPP No.22 particularly with regard to the increase in glazing along the southern wall of the dwelling and the reduction of garden area for the allotment. SREPP 22 – Parramatta River

Clause 20 of SREPP 22 – requires that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of development unless it is satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with development of the land to which this plan applies in accordance with the objectives of this plan, and it has considered certain matters. In this, case considering the following matters, the proposal is not worthy of approval, particularly where the specific objectives of the plan have not been satisfied within the Statement of Environmental Effects: (a) the appearance of the development from the waterway and the foreshores; The proposed development has not addressed the requirements of SREPP No.22 particularly with regard to the increase in glazing along the southern wall of the dwelling and the reduction of garden area for the allotment.




Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 The subject site is zoned residential 2(a2) (HHLEP No.1), dwelling houses are identified as a permissible use within the zone subject to Council consent. As noted in the development control table above, the proposal does not comply with the control relating to garden area. This is a development standard under the Hunters Hill LEP No 1 (as amended), and accordingly the applicant is required to submit an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 for the non-compliance. Garden Area Currently the existing garden area of 20% does not meet the requirements of Hunters Hill LEP. Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended 2-39 inclusive) The subject site is zoned Residential 2(a2) in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, gazetted on the 10th December 1982. As such, the proposed development is permissible within the zone subject to consent.

The LEP sets out the criteria that a new development is required to comply with by law prior to the issue of a development consent. The objectives of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan are as follows: To conserve the identity of the Municipality of Hunter's Hill, Council as established by its heritage, character, topography and residential amenity, by – (c) conserving the environmental heritage significance, the foreshore and riverscape, the

townscape quality and tree covered environment of the Municipality through regulation of the use and development of land, buildings and structures;

(d) retaining specific evidence of the thematic development of the environmental heritage of the Municipality through conservation of items of environmental heritage; (b1) integrating heritage conservation into the planning and development control

processes; (b2) providing for public involvement in the matters relating to the conservation

of the area's environmental heritage; (b3) ensuring that new development is undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic

to, and does not detract from, the heritage significance of the items and their settings, as well as streetscapes and landscapes and the distinctive character that they impart to the land to which this plan applies.

(e) increasing the area and standard of public open space in the Municipality; (f) improving public access to the shores of the Lane Cove and Parramatta Rivers; (g) provide off-street parking facilities at or near shopping centres at Boronia Park,

Gladesville and Hunters Hill; and (h) providing or assisting in the provision of public amenities and support services

consistent with the development of the area. The proposal does not comply with the requirements of Clause 16A(2) as clearly defined in Local Environmental Plan No. 1 (as amended).




As such the applicant has supplied an objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1. This objection will be discussed in detail further in this report. Clause 16A states: 16. (1) In this clause “garden area” means any area wi

hunter's hill council...d5, d8, d9, d14, d15, d21, d26, d27, d30, pe2, pe6. and the following...

Documents