Monday 6 November 2006

Transcription

1 Agenda Land Use Management Committee Notice is hereby given that a Land Use Management Committee of Council will be held at Council Chambers, 1 Belgrave Street, Manly, on: Monday 6 November 2006 Commencing at 7:30 PM for the purpose of considering items included on the Agenda. Persons in the gallery are advised that the proceedings of the meeting are being taped for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy of the Minutes. However, under the Local Government Act 1993, no other tape recording is permitted without the authority of the Council or Committee. Tape recording includes a video camera and any electronic device capable of recording speech. Copies of business papers are available at the Customer Services Counter at Manly Council, Manly Library and Seaforth Library and are available on Council s website:

2 Seating Arrangements for Meetings Staff Staff General Manager Chairperson Staff Minute Taker Mayor Dr Peter Macdonald Clr Jean Hay AM Clr Mark Norek Clr Adele Heasman Clr Joanna Evans Clr Dr Judy Lambert AM Clr Barbara Aird Clr Simon Cant Deputy Mayor Clr Brad Pedersen Clr David Murphy Clr Richard Morrison Clr Pat Daley Press Press Public Addresses Public Gallery Chairperson: Clr Dr Judy Lambert Deputy Chairperson: Clr Jo Evans

3 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page No. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The Land Use Management Committee of 9 OCTOBER 2006 PUBLIC ADDRESSES SITE INSPECTIONS The following site inspections will take place Monday 6 November, Jamieson Avenue, Fairlight 8:00am 46 Addison Road, Manly 8:30am ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Environmental Services Division Report No Jamieson Avenue, Fairlight Section 96 Modification...2 Environmental Services Division Report No Addison Road, Manly Section 82A Review Environmental Services Division Report No Darley Road, Manly - St Patrick's Estate - Spring Cove Environmental Services Division Report No. 67 Development Applications Currently Being Processed Environmental Services Division Report No. 68 Appeals List for November CLOSED COMMITTEE ITEMS ***** END OF AGENDA ***** Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 1

4 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 TO: Land Use Management Committee - 6 November 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 65 SUBJECT: 11 Jamieson Avenue, FairlightSection 96 Modification FILE NO: DA533/04 Application Lodged: 9 August, 2006 Applicant: Mr P Smith and Ms G Agnew Owner: Mr P Smith and Ms G Agnew Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, Residential Manly Residential Development Control Plan 2001, Amendment 1 Sub Zone: 3 Surrounding Development: Predominately two storey dwelling houses Heritage: No heritage SUMMARY: 1. DEVELOPMENT CONSENT IS SOUGHT FOR SECTION 96 MODIFICATION FOR APPROVED ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE RETAINING WALL AND THE INSTALLATION OF TWO (2) AIR CONDITIONING VENTILATION LOUVRES TO THE EAST SIDE FRONT WALL. 2. THE APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED FROM 14 AUGUST 2006 UNTIL THE 28 AUGUST 2006 AND FOUR (4) SUBMISSIONS WERE RECEIVED OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSAL. 3. THE APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO COUNCILS LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILLOR MACDONALD AND NOREK. 4. A SITE INSPECTION IS RECOMMENDED. 5. THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. LOCALITY PLAN Shaded are is subject site. REPORT Development History: The original development application proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling as follows:- Construction of garage and plant room at basement level Construction of entry, living room, study, play room, family room, kitchen, laundry and bathroom at ground floor level Construction of swimming pool in backyard Construction of four bedrooms, main including ensuite, and construction of bathroom Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 2

5 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 65 (Cont d) Deferred Commencement consent was granted on 16 June, 2005, with the consent not to operate until the applicant has:- 1. Submitted revised plans showing all windows as marked in red on the approved plan are to be fixed obscure glazing 2. Submitted revised plans showing access/egress point via the proposed ground floor bathroom deleted and the proposed full height bathroom windows on the eastern elevation amended in height to match the approved ground floor windows 3. Submitted an amended Landscape Plan incorporating the following trees crucial to the Jamieson streetscape are retained o 16m Palm Tree located at the side rear. Reference 5 on Landscape Plan o 15m Silky Oak located at the front. Reference 2 on Landscape Plan 4. Noted that the western side setback (from side wall to boundary) in no circumstances shall be less than 900mm 5. Provided adequate evidence that the proposed roof tile system is waterproof and is used upon the entire roof of the dwelling. 6. Amended plans to indicate that the first floor is shortened by no less than 1m in length from the rear in order to minimise the impact of the first floor on neighbouring properties in terms of visual bulk and overshadowing. The Deferred Commencement conditions were complied with and development consent was given on 24 August Council's files show a series of correspondence relating to the construction of the approved DA. This correspondence is as follows: 12/12/06 - A letter was sent to the applicant advising that the works being undertaken were not in accordance with the approved plans. As such, the applicants were directed to cease all works on the site forthwith and to submit information to Council. 20/12/06 - A letter was sent to the applicant referring to the fact no response had been received regarding the original letter sent from Council. Furthermore, the letter advised "Council considers that as a result of the demolition of walls that required to be retained to the existing dwelling, which was an integral part of the consent, the development has altered significantly. As a result of the significant changes, Council requires cessation of all building works and a fresh development application submitted for what Council considers is the development of a new dwelling. A written undertaking from you, the owners of the property, that no further works will progress until such time as Council has assessed a fresh development application" 21/12/05 - Correspondence was received from the applicant stating that the west wall was removed due to it being structurally unsound, which was accompanied by a letter of concurrence from Cardno engineers. Direction was also requested from the applicant about an appropriate course of action for the east wall which was also structurally unsound. 5/1/06 - Emergency Order No. 06/06 was issued to the applicant which required: 1. The removal of the eastern wall is required to be reinstated immediately to its previous construction, in particular to the RL heights and construction type. 2. Further demolition of walls is not permitted until such time as evidence is submitted to Council and written agreement on the course of action. 11/1/06 - a letter was received from the applicant, which included their letter from 13/12/05 and a structural engineers report dated 15/12/05. As stated in the letter, with the concurrence of the structural engineer, the applicant intends to replace the defective walls with new cavity brick walls exactly as per Council's Development Consent. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 3

6 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 65 (Cont d) 13/1/06 - A letter was sent from Council to the applicant advising "Council has noted the advice of the structural engineer and details to the state of the walls and whilst they were deemed dangerous and not capable of being retained to support the new walls to the development, Council is required to be notified prior to any of these works progressing. Having said that and as discussed previously, no further comment is required. In regard to the construction of the wall, this is required to be to its exact former location and at the same height and type as at the eastern side of the property, Council is of the view this work is to progress immediately and that further, prior to any further works associated to this area of the development, an inspection by Council is required to determine the said wall has been undertaken in accordance with both the plans received and relating to the former height levels and position. Any works to the western area of the site are not to progress until such time as Council has inspected the property and determined the advice of the structural engineer." 28/2/06 - a letter and attached survey was received by Council, indicating that the new west wall was 465mm lower than the original wall and the new east wall being 420mm lower than the original wall. 19/5/06 - A letter was sent from Council to the applicant stating that it had come to Council's attention that the installation of opaque glass to the specific windows had not been undertaken in accordance with the consent, that is, opaque and fixed. 28/6/06 - A letter was sent from Council to the applicant advising that Council had not received any correspondence regarding the previous letter sent. 28/6/06 - A fax was received by Council from the applicants which advised "the windows to be opaque and fixed are to the east side upstairs kids bathroom, laundry window and downstairs visitors bathroom window. The windows to the west side are the study. As per Council's letter and discussion with the builder so that fresh air and ventilation is available, the children's playroom and the front living area on the west are allowed to open 25% for ventilation. In reference to the rear landscaping and retaining walls, our structural engineer will certify the retaining walls to be built. The fencing at the rear of the property will be replaced in due course." INTRODUCTION: Site Analysis: The site is located on the southern side of Jamieson Avenue, and has a north-south orientation. The site is legally described as Lot 24, DP The site slopes from the rear of the property down to the front with a total fall of approximately 5m. The property is 13.43m wide at the front and m wide at the rear with side boundaries being 41.34m to the east and to the west. Total site area is 548.7m 2. The site is now developed with a two (2) storey dwelling house. Proposed development: Development approval is sought for S96 modifications as follows: The modification of retaining walls to the east, west and south boundaries of the property. The installation of two (2) air conditioning ventilation louvres to the east side front wall. These louvres would blow air out from the air conditioning unit, which would be situated in the plant room; their size would be 550mm wide x 1530mm high x 300mm deep. Applicant s Supporting Statement Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 4

7 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 65 (Cont d) In support of the application the applicant has submitted a Statement of Environmental Effects. This is on file. NOTIFICATIONS: The S96 Application The S96 application was notified from 14/8/06 to 28/8/06 and four (4) submissions were received from Louise and Parl Macfarlane, 9 Jamieson Avenue, Fairlight; Len Power, 56 Griffiths Street Fairlight; Judith Haverfield, 4 Jamieson Avenue Fairlight; Julie McConaghy, 13 Jamieson Avenue, Fairlight. It is noted that the majority of the objections were not pertaining to within the scope of the S96 proposal. The following relevant issues were raised: a) Acoustic privacy impacts It is envisaged that the proposal could result in adverse impact with regard to acoustic privacy to the property adjoining to the east. It is considered that the openings could be located in the front elevation rather than the east elevation facing the adjoining residential boundary. b) Request for clarification of the type of air-conditioning unit that is going to be installed and the dba this unit emits and the dba measure at the boundary Modern air conditioning units are generally relatively quiet. However, attention is drawn to the imposition of Condition 52 in the original consent regarding noise, which will be discussed later in this report. c) Request for an independent assessment of the acoustic impact It is not considered necessary or appropriate that Council undertake or arrange an independent assessment of acoustic impact. At this stage as any consent would be subject to conditions limiting noise level at the property boundary. d) Request for independent confirmation that the louvres represent the only viable alternative It is not feasible for Council to arrange an independent confirmation that the louvres represent the only viable alternative. It is considered that the louvres present an acceptable form of ventilating the plant room. Precinct Community Forum Comments: The S96 modifications were not referred to the Precinct Community Forum. Landscape Comments: No objections subject to the inclusion of recommended conditions. PLANNING CONTROLS & COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT PLANNING COMMENTS Manly LEP 1988: The site is located in Zone No.2 - The Residential Zone which permits dwelling houses with the consent of Council. The proposed S96 modification is permissible with consent in the zone. The proposal subject to conditions contained in the Recommendation, is considered satisfactory in response to the relevant objectives of the zone. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 5

8 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 65 (Cont d) Manly Local Environment Plan Clause 10 Objectives a) to set aside land to be used for purposes of housing and associated facilities; The site is zoned residential and will retain its residential use. (b) to delineate, by means of development control in the supporting material, the nature and intended future of the residential areas within the Municipality; Council s Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001 Amendment 1 has been considered in the assessment of the proposal. (c) to allow a variety of housing types while maintaining the existing character of residential areas throughout the Manly Council area; Subject to the recommended relocation of the ventilation openings to the front elevation, the proposed S96 modifications to the dwelling are considered compatible with the character and size of housing in the locality. (d) to ensure that building form, including alterations and additions, does not degrade the amenity of surrounding residents or the existing quality of the environment; Subject to the recommended relocation of the ventilation openings to the front elevation the design of the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to neighbour s amenity. (e) to improve the quality of the residential areas by encouraging landscaping and permitting greater flexibility of design in both new development and renovations; The proposal has been reviewed by Council s Landscape Officer as being acceptable subject to the conditions detailed in the original consent. (f) to allow development for purposes other than housing within the zone only if it is compatible with the character and amenity of the locality; The proposal maintains the residential use of the site. (g) to ensure full and efficient use of existing social and physical infrastructure and the future provisions of service and facilities to meet any increased demand; The proposal will not result in any increase in demand on services and facilities. (h) to encourage the revitalisation of residential areas by rehabilitation and suitable redevelopment. Subject to the recommended relocation of the ventilation openings to the front elevation the proposal is considered to be suitable development of the site. (i) to encourage the provision and retention of tourist accommodation that enhances the role of Manly as an international tourist destination, and particularly in relation to the land to which Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 (Amendment No 57) applies. Not applicable to this application Manly DCP for the Residential Zone 2001: Excavation: Performance criteria a) requires that natural ground level must be maintained within 900mm of a side and rear boundary. The plans submitted with the proposal indicate a retaining wall being a minimum of 500mm of the rear boundary, a minimum of 150mm to the western side boundary and 250mm to the eastern boundary. It is noted that the boundary side of the fence is where the natural ground level is retained. Furthermore, it is noted that in the original application consent was granted for a retaining wall in a similar position. The repositioning of the retaining wall would cause no adverse impacts on either the subject site or surrounding site. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to excavation. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 6

9 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 65 (Cont d) Privacy & Security: There has been concern raised regarding potential acoustic privacy impacts from the proposed louvres. It is considered that the acoustic information provided as part of the application is sufficient to determine the application ad that potential noise impacts could be minimised by locating the ventilation openings in the front elevation. It is noted that Condition 52 of the original consent would still be in effect, which requires that there is to be no noise emitted from any process carried on within the premises that will register more than 5 decibels above the background noise at any point more than 3m outside the premises. Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application. (a) the provisions of: (i) any environmental planning instrument (ii) any draft environmental planning instrument (iii) any development control plan (iv) the regulations The proposal has been assessed having regard to the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 and the Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001, Amendment 1. Subject to the controls detailed in the recommended conditions, the proposal is acceptable. (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality The impacts of the proposed S96 modifications have been considered and, subject to the recommended conditions, will not result in any significant negative effects on the locality. (c) the suitability of the site for the development, The site is within the Residential zone and is currently developed with a two storey dwelling house; and as such the proposed S96 modification as recommended is considered to be a suitable development. (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, The application was notified in accordance with Council s policy with four (4) submissions received. Relevant concerns raised in the submissions have been addressed in the recommended conditions of consent. (e) the public interest. Subject to the recommended conditions the proposal is not considered to be contrary to public interest. Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Pursuant to S96(2), Council may modify the consent if (a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and It is considered that when looking at the context of the original development application, that the alterations are substantially the same development as originally approved. (b) it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 7

10 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 65 (Cont d) granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and Not applicable to this application. (c) it has notified the application in accordance with: (i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising or applications for modification of a development consent. The proposal has been notified in accordance with Manly Development Control Plan for Notification (d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be. Four submissions have been received which are discussed in this report. CONCLUSION The proposal has been considered pursuant to Section 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988, the Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001 Amendment 1. From this assessment the proposal is considered acceptable subject to conditions and approval is recommended. RECOMMENDATION That the application to modify Development Consent DA533/04 for Alterations and Additions to dwelling including first floor addition, pool and garage at No. 11 Jamieson Avenue, Fairlight be approved with Condition No. 1 modified and Condition Nos. 53 and 54 added as follows:- 1. This approval relates to drawings/plans Nos. DA-01B dated August 2005, DA-02B to DA06B dated July 2005 and received by Council on 18 August 2005, and landscaping plans sheets 1, 2 and 3 received by Council 1st November 2004.which have been amended by drawing/plan No DA-05B dated July 2005 Except as modified by drawing/plan No DA-05B dated July 2005 and received by Council 27/7/06 and landscaping plans sheet 1/3 ('Proposed Landscape Plan "A"', dated 3/8/06), 1/1 ('Retaining Wall Sectional Elevations', dated August 2006) and (Revision A, dated 23/8/06). 53. The proposed louvered ventilation openings to the plant room are to be relocated to the front (north) elevation to reduce impacts on the amenity of adjoining residential property to the east, plans being suitably notated prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. 54. Works in connection with this Section 96 modification are not to be commenced/carried out until a new Construction Certificate is issued. ATTACHMENTS AT- 1 Section 96 Notification Plans 2 Pages LUM061106ESD_2.doc ***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 65 ***** Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 8

11 ATTACHMENT 1 Environmental Services Division Report No Jamieson Avenue, Fairlight Section 96 Modification Section 96 Notification Plans Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 9

12 ATTACHMENT 1 Environmental Services Division Report No Jamieson Avenue, Fairlight Section 96 Modification Section 96 Notification Plans Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 10

13 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 TO: Land Use Management Committee - 6 November 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 66 SUBJECT: 46 Addison Road, ManlySection 82A Review FILE NO: DA443/05 Application Lodged: 17 August 2006 Applicant: Planning Directions Pty Ltd Owner: Proprietors of Strata Plan No Estimated Cost: $165,000 Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, Residential Manly Residential Development Control Plan 2001, Amendment 1 Within the Foreshore protection Area Surrounding Development: Multi Storey Residential Flat Buildings and Two Storey Dwellings Heritage: n/a SUMMARY: 1. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO.443/05 WAS RECEIVED BY COUNCIL ON 27 OCTOBER 2005 AND PROPOSED THE ADDITION OF BALCONIES TO THE EASTERN ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING AT LOWER GROUND FLOOR, GROUND FLOOR AND UPPER FLOOR LEVELS. 2. THE PROPOSAL WAS NOTIFIED TO ALL NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES WITH SIX (6) SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED. 3. THE APPLICATION WAS ALSO REFERRED TO LITTLE MANLY PRECINCT COMMUNITY FORUM MEETING OF 9 NOVEMBER 2005, WITH NO NEGATIVE COMMENTS RECEIVED. 4. THE APPLICATION WAS REPORTED TO COUNCIL S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING OF 2 FEBRUARY 2006 WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. 5. DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONSENT WAS GRANTED 10 FEBRUARY 2006 WITH THE CONSENT NOT OPERATING UNTIL THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED REVISED PLANS WHICH REDUCE THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED BALCONIES AT ALL THREE LEVELS OF THE BUILDING. 6. ON 17 AUGUST 2006 COUNCIL RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 82A OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT THE REVIEW APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO ALL ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WITH SIX (6) SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED. 8. THE REVIEW APPLICATION WAS REFERRED TO COUNCIL S DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING OF 24 OCTOBER 2006 WHERE THE APPLICATION WAS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL. 9. THE APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILLOR NOREK. 10. A SITE INSPECTION IS RECOMMENDED. 11. THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL. LOCALITY PLAN: Shaded area is subject site. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 11

14 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 66 (Cont d) REPORT INTRODUCTION: Site Analysis: The site is located on the eastern side of Addison Road and is a battle axe shaped allotment and adjoins Little Manly Cove to the east. The site has an east/west orientation. The site is legally described as SP The site slopes from west to east and has a total site area of 1239sqm. The site is developed with a four storey residential flat building. The adjoining dwelling located on the site to the immediate west of the subject site at No.44 Addison Road is listed as a dwelling of heritage significance under the Manly LEP, To the north-east of the subject site is a large townhouse development running the length of the allotment at No Addison Road. The north-eastern adjoining dwellings are constructed in three distinct buildings with a four level tiered brown brick townhouse development adjoining the subject site at the rear of the allotment, which does not extend beyond the building alignment of the subject site. The south-western adjoining development consists of a large two storey brown brick residential dwelling house with rear balconies which extend beyond the building alignment of the subject development. History On 26/09/ 2005, Council received Development Application DA 443/05 for the addition of balconies to the full width of the eastern elevation of the existing residential flat building at lower ground floor, ground floor and upper floor levels. The proposal included installation of aluminium sliding glass doors to the eastern façade of the building to allow access to the balconies. The application was notified to adjoining property owners with six submissions objecting to the proposal received. Following the resolution of the Development Assessment Unit at it s meeting of 02/02/06, Council issued Deferred Commencement consent dated 10/02/06. The Deferred Commencement conditions were: 1. The balconies should be confined to the existing central inset of the south-eastern rear elevation. This would limit the visual dominance and extent of the balconies to 8m of the 16.2m wide rear elevation yet still enable an approximate 4m by 3m wide balcony per unit. The amended balconies would comply with side setback requirements, improve privacy, overshadowing and visual bulk and scale impacts associated with the proposed development. Amended plans should be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the final Development Consent. 2. To reduce overlooking impacts on adjoining properties, 1m high solid balustrades should be placed on the north-eastern and south-western elevations of the rear balconies. Amended plans should be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the final Development Consent. 3. Given the visual prominence of the building fronting the harbour foreshore the colour of the proposed render and other materials should be sympathetic to that of adjoining development and not detract from the natural landscaped character of the harbour foreshore scenic protection area. Accordingly, a colour schedule of materials and finishes is required to be submitted to Council for consideration prior to issuing of the final Development Consent. On 17/08/06, the applicant lodged an application pursuant to Section 82A of the EP&A Act 1979 seeking a Review of the Determination. The plans for this Section 82A Review were amended to increase the side setbacks by 0.45m on each side and provide 1.6m high privacy screens on the sides of the balconies. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 12

15 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 66 (Cont d) Manly DCP for the Residential Zone 2001 Numerical Assessment: The proposal fails to comply with the side setback requirements, with the proposed balconies being 1.4m from the south side boundary where 2.4m is the minimum permitted and 1.6m on the north side where 3.2m is the minimum permitted. The proposal has no effect on the other numeric requirements of the DCP. Applicant s Supporting Statement The applicant has submitted a detailed statement in support of the review application, a copy of which is available for viewing on Council s file. NOTIFICATIONS: The original application was notified to adjoining property owners with submissions received. The review application was notified to adjoining property owners with submissions received from D and J Clout 1 Bruce Ave, Dr. and B Williamson, 4/48-52 Addison Road, C and B Diaz, 8/48-52 Addison Road, W and J Miles 9/48-52 Addison Road, L Fowler 11/48-52 Addison Road, B Moore, 12/48-52 Addison Road,, D Lawson 13/48-52 Addison Road, G and J Leith, 14/48-52 Addison Road. The submissions raise the following concerns: Non compliance with north and south side setback requirements of the DCP. Plans should be assessed on current requirements. View loss. Privacy impacts, overlooking and noise. No.46 originally had balconies on each corner and these were enclosed in the past to provide additional living area. Loss of property value. Overbearing effect on our property and could reduce natural light to part of our outdoor area. Proposed balconies within 4.0m of our bedroom, concern regarding privacy and noise particularly at night when most certainly balconies will be used for entertaining. Overlooking onto our outdoor area, BBQ, pool and patio area will suffer complete lack of privacy. Proposal will result in additional bulk to a building that already has major bulk and will not be in keeping with the older style of the property would make the building look like a block of apartments moved down from the Gold Coast. The 3.0m overhang of the balconies will mean that the lower units will have very little light. Splayed or curved corners would also enhance the look of the building. Security implications. The units at No.46 Addison already have extensive grassed and landscaped lawns and gardens for the purpose of outdoor entertaining. On 30 November 1983 our building won the Manly Council Civic Design Award for Merit in Design "Medium Density Housing" category. No Addison Road, Manly, was specifically designed with consideration to the existing boundary buildings and owners, with line of sight design which resulted in the development of a definitive stepped back architectural design which did not block the view of No.46 Addison Road, Manly, to Little Manly Beach. The proposed development shows no such consideration for us as it will severely impact the privacy and views of many of our units. Concern with the 3m depth of balconies, a 2.4m depth is adequate for table and chairs. Council only allowed 1.8m balconies for our dwelling and advised us to have smaller balconies above and larger ones below. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 13

16 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 66 (Cont d) No indication of the privacy screen material to be used which will block light in that direction. Precinct Community Forum Comments: The original application was referred to the Little Manly Precinct Community Forum with the following comments received. DA443/05 46 Addison Road, balcony on the front of building. The meeting felt that this DA was within the relevant controls and recommended acceptance. Building Comments No objections were raised subject to recommended conditions. Engineering Comments No objections were raised subject to recommended conditions. Environmental Protection Comments No objections were raised subject to recommended conditions. PLANNING COMMENTS Manly LEP 1988: The site is located in Zone No.2 - The Residential Zone which permits dwelling houses with the consent of Council. The proposed balcony additions are permissible with consent in the zone. However, the proposal is considered unsatisfactory in response to the relevant objectives of the zone, with adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring properties identified in terms of excess overlooking, view loss and visual bulk. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The site is also located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal will increase the visual bulk and scale of the existing building, and being located adjoining the Mean High Water Mark it will be readily visible from the foreshores and waterway of Little Manly Cove. Consequently the proposal is considered an unsatisfactory form of development. Manly Local Environment Plan Clause 10 Objectives a) to set aside land to be used for purposes of housing and associated facilities; The site is zoned residential and will retain its residential use. (b) to delineate, by means of development control in the supporting material, the nature and intended future of the residential areas within the Municipality; Council s Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001 Amendment 1 has been considered in the assessment of the proposal. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 14

17 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 66 (Cont d) (c) to allow a variety of housing types while maintaining the existing character of residential areas throughout the Manly Council area; The balcony additions as proposed are not consistent with the character of the existing building or the character of other development in the immediate area. (d) to ensure that building form, including alterations and additions, does not degrade the amenity of surrounding residents or the existing quality of the environment; The proposed balcony additions will result in adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding residents in terms of privacy, view loss and visual bulk and scale. (e) to improve the quality of the residential areas by encouraging landscaping and permitting greater flexibility of design in both new development and renovations; The proposal does not result in any significant effect on the existing landscaped areas of the site. (f) to allow development for purposes other than housing within the zone only if it is compatible with the character and amenity of the locality; The proposal maintains the residential use of the site. (g) to ensure full and efficient use of existing social and physical infrastructure and the future provisions of service and facilities to meet any increased demand; The proposal will not result in any increase in demand on services and facilities. (h) to encourage the revitalisation of residential areas by rehabilitation and suitable redevelopment. The proposed balcony additions do not respond suitably to the site conditions and surrounds. Accordingly the proposal is not considered to be suitable redevelopment. (i) N/A to encourage the provision and retention of tourist accommodation that enhances the role of Manly as an international tourist destination, and particularly in relation to the land to which Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 (Amendment No 57) applies. Assessment The amended proposal has now increased the side setbacks to 1.4m on the south side and 1.6m on the north side. The proposed side setbacks are substantially less than the minimum permitted under the DCP (1.4m south side and 3.2m north side). It is considered that the non-compliant side setbacks of the proposed balconies still do not satisfy the objectives of the DCP. The proposed balconies do not achieve sufficient separation from neighbouring properties. Privacy implications with respect to overlooking and noise impacts are considered inappropriate given the close proximity of the proposed balconies to the adjoining properties. It is considered that the amendments made in this Section 82A review are insufficient to warrant any changes to the Deferred Commencement conditions. The applicant has stated in his statement that the deferred commencement conditions will result in access to the balconies being available only from the bedrooms of each unit and it is noted that Department of Planning guidelines state balconies should be extensions of the living area. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are floor plan constraints may exist they are not considered to outweigh the responsibility of the applicant to maintain an acceptable level of amenity to adjoining properties. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 15

18 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 66 (Cont d) The objections raised have been considered and the proposed changes will not address the concerns with bulk and scale, and impact on privacy and views.. Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application: (a) the provisions of: (i) any environmental planning instrument (ii) any draft environmental planning instrument (iii) any development control plan (iv) the regulations The proposal has been assessed having regard to the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 and the Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001, Amendment 1. (b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality The proposal will have a detrimental impact on both the natural and built environments. The proposal will have no identifiable effect on the social and economic conditions of the locality. (c) the suitability of the site for the development, The site is within the Residential zone and is currently developed with a residential flat building. The proposal exhibits a number of non compliances with the objectives of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 and as such cannot be considered to be suitable development for the site. (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, The submissions received in response to notification of the application have been considered previously in this report. (e) the public interest. The proposal is considered to be contrary to the public interest. CONCLUSION The proposal has been considered pursuant to Sections 82A and 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988, and the Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2001 Amendment 1. From this assessment the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory in its current form and refusal is recommended. RECOMMENDATION That the application for review of Development Application 443/05 for addition of balconies the existing residential flat building at 46 Addison Road be refused for the following reasons 1. The proposal fails to comply with objectives Part 1, 3, (e), (i) and (j) of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988, having regard to Section 79C(1) (a) (i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act The proposal fails to comply with objectives Part 2, 10 (c) and (d) of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988, having regard to Section 79C(1) (a) (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 16

19 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 66 (Cont d) 3. The proposal will result in adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of privacy, view loss and visual bulk and scale, having regard to Section 79C(1) (a) (iii), (b), (d) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act The proposal will result in adverse impacts on the visual quality of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area contrary to Clause 17 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988, having regard to Section 79C(1) (a) (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act ATTACHMENTS AT- 1 82A Review Notification Plan 1 Page LUM061106ESD_5.doc ***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 66 ***** Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 17

20 ATTACHMENT 1 Environmental Services Division Report No Addison Road, Manly Section 82A Review 82A Review Notification Plan Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 18

21 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 TO: Land Use Management Committee - 6 November 2006 REPORT: Environmental Services Division Report No. 63 SUBJECT: 106 Darley Road, Manly - St Patrick's Estate - Spring Cove FILE NO: DA482/04 Application Lodged: Lodged with Council on 22 nd October, 2004 Applicant: Lend Lease Developments Pty Ltd Owner: Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney Estimated Cost: $43.7M Zoning: Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 Residential (Amendment 24) & Special Uses Surrounding Development: Special uses, Open Space and Residential Heritage: Subject to Amendment 24 MLEP and Schedule 11 Controls SUMMARY: 1. DEVELOPMENT IS SOUGHT FOR SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND WITHIN PRECINCTS 4, 5, 6, 10 AND 11 AND CONSTRUCTION OF 16 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS AND 22 DETACHED DWELLING HOUSES ON PRECINCTS 5, 6, AND 10 OF ST PATRICK S ESTATE MANLY. 2. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS AMENDED IN MAY 2006 FOLLOWING A REVIEW BY EXPERTS. 3. ADJOINING AND SURROUNDING OWNERS AND RESIDENTS WERE NOTIFIED WITH 18 SUBMISSIONS TO THE AMENDED PROPOSAL RECEIVED. 4. THE APPLICATION WAS REFERRED TO THE LITTLE MANLY PRECINCT COMMUNITY FORUM AND COMMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. 5. THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED EXTERNAL TO COUNCIL. 6. THE APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT MEETING BY THE GENERAL MANAGER. 7. THE PROPOSAL IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. LOCALITY PLAN The shaded area is the subject site. REPORT INTRODUCTION Chris Young Planning and Planning Strategies have been engaged by Manly Council to independently assess the development application for Precincts 4, 5, 6,10 and 11 of St Patrick s Estate, Manly. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 19

22 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 63 (Cont d) Independent assessment of the application was undertaken as follows: Urban design: Planning Strategies Pty Ltd Flora and Fauna: Footprint Green Pty Ltd Heritage: Heritage Office of NSW Bushfire: Rural Fire Services National Parks and Wildlife Service Subdivision / S94: Armstrong Planning Pty Ltd Council s Environmental Services Division has commented upon matters of landscaping, contamination, waste, stormwater and safety. The public notification and liaison with the precinct community forum has been undertaken by Council in accordance with Council s procedures and policy. The applicant has responded to professional criticism of the application from internal and external experts and public submissions. Public submissions have also been considered by external consultants in their assessment. A number of changes to the proposal have occurred over the course of the assessment period culminating in amended plans being lodged with Council and exhibited in June See Appendix 5 for changes as provided by the project architect. It is these amended plans that are the subject of this report and analysis by the assessment team. BACKGROUND A short background to this application is contained in part in the applicants SEE as follows: "St Patrick s Estate, Manly is undergoing a transformation from a site that was once used only for church and related purposes to a wide range of urban uses. Due to the heritage significance of the site, the manner in which the site is to be developed has been guided by a Conservation Management Plan (CMP), rather than a Master Plan. The CMP was endorsed by the NSW Heritage Council on 2 April The CMP breaks down the Estate into precincts numbered Recently, the CMP is supplemented by additional controls in the form of Amendment 24 to Manly Local Environmental Plan 1998(gazetted 8 November 2002). North of Darley Road, Precinct 2 of the Estate has been developed with a residential townhouse and flat development. Precincts 1 and 13 have recently been the subject of an approval for subdivision into 26 residential allotments. Precinct 3 is the subject of a valid development consent granted by the Land and Environment Court granted on the 26 February 1997, although a new DA has been submitted for the development of Precincts 3 and 12 for 60 dwellings. Consent was previously granted by the Land and Environment Court on 21 August 1998 for the subdivision of Precinct 5 into 14 residential allotments and for the construction of 24 SEPP 5 dwellings within Precinct 10 (see reduced plans at Appendix A). The consent for the SEPP 5 dwellings has now lapsed however, the subdivision of Precinct 5 into 14 lots remains valid as the demolition of Gilroy House on the site constitutes substantial commencement of these works. A proposal to construct 39 dwellings in Precinct 5 was refused by the Land and Environment Court on 26 February On 25th November 2003 Manly Council granted development consent for remediation of part of the subject site. These works are now completed and a Validation Certificate has been granted. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 20

23 LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2006 Environmental Services Division Report No. 63 (Cont d) THE SITE The site is described in part in the applicant s SEE as follows: "The land proposed to be developed generally encompasses land known as Precincts 5, 6 and 10 of St Patrick's Estate, Manly (hereafter referred to as the subject site"). However, the land to which the DA relates also includes Precinct 4 and 11, which together with Precincts 5, 6 and 10 comprise Lot 2 DP In this regard, the DA also proposes the subdivision of this lot. Precincts 5, 6 and 10 comprise the southern-most part of the Estate, sitting between Precincts 4 and 11 (which front Darley Road) and a strip of land which in turn fronts Spring Cove, which forms part of Sydney Harbour. The strip of land which was formerly part of the Estate is Lot 1 on DP and is now owned by Manly Council. Precinct 5 has an area of 11,920sqm. Precinct 6 has an area of 2,960sqm. Precinct 10 has an area of 12,270sqm. The total site has an area of approximately 27,150sqm. The natural and cultural features of the site have resulted in the land being considered as 4 zones (Zones A-D). Zone A is located in the north western corner of Precinct 5 bordering the access handle to Precinct 10. It consists of south sloping grassed land dominated by a stand of large mature trees on its northern boundary including such species as Angophora Costata, Norfolk Island Pine and Melaleuca. These trees, some with large canopies of between 8 and 10 metres, cast shadows over much of the site in winter. In comparison, the eastern portion of Zone A, which was previously disturbed with cut and fill to serve as the fore court of former Gilroy House and its associated driveway, is cleared. Due to soil remediation, a number of introduced trees on the southeastern corner of Zone A have been removed and consequently the eastern portion of the site has been recently re-graded. Zone B is located in the south eastern area of Precinct 5 bordering Precinct 10. It consists of gently sloping south facing grassy land remodelled by large quantities of fill to make an artificial 'plateau. This area of fill supported the former lawn-covered grounds of the now demolished Gilroy House. A steep slope terminates the southern edge of the plateau where a relatively small number of significant trees are located. Much of the fill has required soil remediation, which has required the removal of a number of less mature trees which were planted on the fill. Zone C is in the south-east portion of Precinct 10. The site slopes down to the south finishing at the masonry wall on the boundary of the Spring Cove reserve. The north edge of the site is defined by the steep embankment which adjoins Precinct 5 and is dense with existing vegetation and proposed to become a vegetated link through to Precinct 10. The zone is bordered on the east by a high stone heritage wall with Sydney Harbour National Park beyond. The western boundary is set by the axial pathway between the Archbishop s Residence and Spring Cove (as defined in LEP 1988). The site is characterised by its grass slopes and a number of existing significant trees, predominantly clusters of Broad-leaved Paperbarks with varying canopies from 5-12 metres. Zone D is in the south-west portion of the site, partly within Precincts 5 and 10. The site slopes down to the south finishing at the masonry wall on the boundary of the Spring Cove reserve. The north edge of the site is defined by one of the proposed access roads. A continuation of the steep embankment containing some significant trees runs generally through the middle of Zone D. This area is to become part of vegetated link through the site. The zone is bordered on the west by existing residential areas. This area contains a wide variety of building types from detached dwellings to high rise apartment blocks. The eastern boundary is set by the axial pathway between the Archbishop s Residence and Spring Cove (as defined in LEP 1988 Amendment 24). The site is characterized by the steep embankment, the grass slopes and a number of existing significant trees including 2 large Norfolk Island Pines. Land Use Management Committee Agenda Page 21