Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 24 July 2012

Present:

Councillor E Malicki (Chairperson) (Comenarra Ward)

Councillor S Holland (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors E Keays & C Szatow (Gordon Ward)

Councillors T Hall & C Hardwick (St Ives Ward)

Councillor D McDonald (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:

Acting General Manager (Michael Miocic)

Director Corporate (Rocky Naickar)

Acting Director Development & Regulation (Corrie Swanepoel)

Director Operations (Greg Piconi)

Acting Director Strategy & Environment (Ian Dreghorn)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Manager Records & Governance (Matt Ryan)

Minutes Secretary (Sigrid Banzer)

The Meeting commenced at 7.03pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

216

ApoLOGIES

File: S02194

The Mayor, Councillor Jennifer Anderson tendered an apology for non-attendance [illness] and requested leave of absence.

Councillor Ian Cross tendered an apology for non-attendance (illness) and requested leave of absence.

Councillor Rakesh Duncombe tendered an apology for non-attendance (business commitment) and requested leave of absence.

NOTE: The General Manager, John McKee and Director Strategy and Environment, Andrew Watson tendered apologies for non-attendance.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Keays)

That the apologies by the Mayor, Councillor Jennifer Anderson and Councillors Cross and Duncombe for non-attendance be accepted and leave of absence be granted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairperson, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Elaine Malicki adverted to the necessity for Councillors and staff to declare a Pecuniary Interest/Conflict of Interest in any item on the Business Paper.

No Interest was declared.

217

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Hall/Holland)

That in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993, all officers’ reports be released to the press and public, with the exception of confidential attachments to the following General Business reports:

GB.7 Tender T59/2012 - Construction of a Clubhouse at Warrimoo Oval, St Ives

GB.9 Tender T57/2012 - Road Reconstruction, Stabilisation and Road Shoulder Construction Works

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

The Chairperson, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Elaine Malicki adverted to the documents circulated in the Councillors’ papers and advised that the following matters would be dealt with at the appropriate time during the meeting:

Late Items:

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Meeting held
17 July 2012 - Minutes numbered 188 to 215

Memorandums:

Refer GB.4 - South Turramurra Corridor DCP58 - Report back on Submissions - Memorandum from Manager Urban and Heritage Planning dated 24 July 2012 with an amendment to text of (g) in the report on page 81 of the Business Paper No 12/12 and an additional amendment to Recommendation A. (iv).

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

218

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 17 July 2012

Minutes numbered 188 to 215

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Hall/Szatow)

That Minutes numbered 188 to 214 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

219

Policy for Relief from Rates Hardship Resulting from Land Valuation Changes

File: S06392

Vide: GB.1

To provide rate relief to ratepayers who believe that they have suffered financial hardship as a result of Council utilising a General Revaluation for rating purposes for the first time.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Hall/McDonald)

That the Relief from Rates Hardship resulting from Land Valuation Changes Policy be adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

220

Investment Report as at 30 June 2012

File: S05273

Vide: GB.2

To present to Council investment allocations and returns on investments for June 2012.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Hall/Hardwick)

A. That the summary of investments and performance for June 2012 be received and noted.

B. That the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

221

Asset Management Plan for Fleet and Plant

File: S08989

Vide: GB.5

For Council to consider the draft Asset Management Plan for Fleet and Plant.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Hall/Hardwick)

A. That Council adopt the draft Asset Management Plan for Fleet and Plant.

B. That Council maintains the level of funding for the renewal of Council’s Fleet and Plant in accordance with the adopted Long Term Financial Plan.

C. A review of all Interim Asset Management Plans will be undertaken during the development of the Asset Management Strategy.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

222

Asset Management Strategy - Community Consultation Results

File: S08989

Vide: GB.6

To provide an update on the results of the community consultation undertaken in preparation for the development of Council’s Asset Management Strategy and to seek Council’s endorsement of the continuation of the Road Infrastructure Levy.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Hall/Hardwick)

A. That Council receives and notes the results of the community consultation survey undertaken in preparation of Council’s Asset Management Strategy.

B. That Council apply to IPART for an extension of the Infrastructure Levy for roads for an extension of the special rate variation for a further five (5) years under Section 508(A) of the Local Government Act, 1993.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

223

State Blackspot Program Funding 2012-2013

File: S02388

Vide: GB.8

To seek acceptance of the 2012/2013 State Blackspot grant for the superelevation correction and the installation of a wide painted centreline in The Comenarra Parkway near the intersection of Ravenhill Road, Turramurra

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Hall/Keays)

A. That the Roads and Maritime Services be advised of Council's acceptance of the grant of $200,000 for the upgrade of the intersection of The Comenarra Parkway, Turramurra, near Ravenhill Road.

B. That Council’s funding for the works be taken from the Traffic Facilities and Roads Program and that the adjustments be reported to Council at the first quarter budget review report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

224

Tender T57/2012 - Road Reconstruction, Stabilisation and Road Shoulder Construction Works

File: S08641/2

Vide: GB.9

To advise Council of the tenders received for road reconstruction, stabilisation and road shoulder construction works.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Hall/Hardwick)

A. That the tender rates submitted for road reconstruction or stabilisation by Roadworx Surface Pty Ltd for two (2) years commencing 2012/2013 with a possible extension into 2014/2015 be accepted as a primary supplier.

B. That the tender rates submitted for road reconstruction or stabilisation by Stabilised Pavements Australia for two (2) years commencing 2012/2013 with a possible extension into 2014/2015 be accepted as an alternative if Roadworx Surface Pty Ltd are not able to comply with Council’s program.

C. That the tender rates submitted for road shoulder construction by Kizan Pty Ltd, Ozpave (Aust) Pty Ltd and Roadworx Surface Pty Ltd Australia for two (2) years commencing 2012/2013 with a possible extension into 2014/2015 be accepted and allocated work according to supplied rates and availability to comply with Council’s program.

D. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all tender documents on Council’s behalf in relation to the contract.

E. That the Common Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents.

F. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations and that the results of the tender be placed on Council’s noticeboard and web site.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

225

20 Phillip Mall, West Pymble - Extension to Existing Veterinary Clinic

File: DA0137/12

Vide: GB.3

Ward: Comenarra

Applicant: Morrissey Design

Owner: Blue Mango Investments Pty Ltd

To determine Development Application No.0137/12 for an extension to an existing veterinary clinic.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Hall/McDonald)

THAT Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to the maximum Floor Space Ratio standard in clause 30B of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case.

AND

THAT Council, as the consent authority, being satisfied that the objection under SEPP No. 1 is well founded and also being of the opinion that the granting of consent to DA0137/12 is consistent with the aims of the Policy, grant development consent to DA0137/12 for an extension to the existing veterinary clinic on land at No. 20 Philip Mall West Pymble for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions that identify approved plans:

1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)

The development must be carried out in accordance with work shown in colour on the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent.

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
DA.01 Context plan Rev B	Morrissey Design architects	4 April 2012
DA.02 Existing & proposed floor & roof plans Rev B	Morrissey Design architects	4 April 2012
DA.03 Elevations Rev A	Morrissey Design architects	4 April 2012
DA.04 Sections Rev A	Morrissey Design architects	4 April 2012
DA.201 Signage 1 of 2 Rev C	Morrissey Design architects	4 June 2012
DA.202 Signage 2 of 2 Rev C	Morrissey Design architects	4 June 2012

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

2. Inconsistency between documents

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

3. No demolition of extra fabric

Alterations to, and demolition of the existing building shall be limited to that documented on the approved plans (by way of notation). No approval is given or implied for removal and/or rebuilding of any portion of the existing building which is shown to be retained.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the development consent.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:

4. Road opening permit

The opening of any footway, roadway, road shoulder or any part of the road reserve shall not be carried out without a road opening permit being obtained from Council (upon payment of the required fee) beforehand.

Reason: Statutory requirement (Roads Act 1993 Section 138) and to maintain the integrity of Council’s infrastructure.

5. Notice of commencement

At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of any development (including demolition, excavation, shoring or underpinning works), a notice of commencement of building or subdivision work form and appointment of the principal certifying authority form shall be submitted to Council.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

6. Notification of builder’s details

Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be notified in writing of the name and contractor licence number of the owner/builder intending to carry out the approved works.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:

7. Mechanical ventilation

Submission of the relevant certificates of compliance by a suitably qualified person for the following works. The certificate shall identify the works the certificate relates to and the relevant Code, Standard or Policy the works are required to comply with.

· The mechanical ventilation systems have been constructed in accordance with Part 3.8.5 of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standard 1668 Part 1 and 2.

Reason: To ensure adequate levels of health and amenity to the occupants of the building.

8. Waste/recycling storage area

Following completion of a waste/recycling storage area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, that the waste /recycling storage area has been constructed in accordance with Development Control Plan No 40 and the requirements of the Waste Management Plan.

Reason: To protect public health and to ensure adequate levels of health to the occupants of the building.

9. Long service levy

In accordance with Section 109F(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act a Construction Certificate shall not be issued until any long service levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or where such levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) has been paid. Council is authorised to accept payment. Where payment has been made elsewhere, proof of payment is to be provided to Council.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate or prior to demolition, excavation or construction (whichever comes first):

10. Infrastructure restorations fee

To ensure that damage to Council Property as a result of construction activity is rectified in a timely matter:

a) All work or activity taken in furtherance of the development the subject of this approval must be undertaken in a manner to avoid damage to Council Property and must not jeopardise the safety of any person using or occupying the adjacent public areas.

b) The applicant, builder, developer or any person acting in reliance on this approval shall be responsible for making good any damage to Council Property, and for the removal from Council Property of any waste bin, building materials, sediment, silt, or any other material or article.

c) The Infrastructure Restoration Fee must be paid to the Council by the applicant prior to both the issue of the Construction Certificate and the commencement of any earthworks or construction.

d) In consideration of payment of the Infrastructure Restorations Fee, Council will undertake such inspections of Council Property as Council considers necessary and also undertake, on behalf of the applicant, such restoration work to Council Property, if any, that Council considers necessary as a consequence of the development. The provision of such restoration work by the Council does not absolve any person of the responsibilities contained in (a) to (b) above. Restoration work to be undertaken by the Council referred to in this condition is limited to work that can be undertaken by Council at a cost of not more than the Infrastructure Restorations Fee payable pursuant to this condition.

e) In this condition:

“Council Property” includes any road, footway, footpath paving, kerbing, guttering, crossings, street furniture, seats, letter bins, trees, shrubs, lawns, mounds, bushland, and similar structures or features on any road or public road within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) or any public place; and

“Infrastructure Restoration Fee” means the Infrastructure Restorations Fee calculated in accordance with the Schedule of Fees & Charges adopted by Council as at the date of payment and the cost of any inspections required by the Council of Council Property associated with this condition.

Reason: To maintain public infrastructure.

Conditions to be satisfied during the demolition, excavation and construction phases:

11. Prescribed conditions

The applicant shall comply with any relevant prescribed conditions of development consent under clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation. For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the following conditions are prescribed in relation to a development consent for development that involves any building work:

· The work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia

· In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any works commence.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

12. Hours of work

Demolition, excavation, construction work and deliveries of building material and equipment must not take place outside the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 12 noon Saturday. No work and no deliveries are to take place on Sundays and public holidays.

Excavation or removal of any materials using machinery of any kind, including compressors and jack hammers, must be limited to between 7.30am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday, with a respite break of 45 minutes between 12 noon 1.00pm.

Where it is necessary for works to occur outside of these hours (ie) placement of concrete for large floor areas on large residential/commercial developments or where building processes require the use of oversized trucks and/or cranes that are restricted by the RTA from travelling during daylight hours to deliver, erect or remove machinery, tower cranes, pre-cast panels, beams, tanks or service equipment to or from the site, approval for such activities will be subject to the issue of an "outside of hours works permit" from Council as well as notification of the surrounding properties likely to be affected by the proposed works.

Note: Failure to obtain a permit to work outside of the approved hours will result in on the spot fines being issued.

Reason: To ensure reasonable standards of amenity for occupants of neighbouring properties.

13. Approved plans to be on site

A copy of all approved and certified plans, specifications and documents incorporating conditions of consent and certification (including the Construction Certificate if required for the work) shall be kept on site at all times during the demolition, excavation and construction phases and must be readily available to any officer of Council or the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

14. Site notice

A site notice shall be erected on the site prior to any work commencing and shall be displayed throughout the works period.

The site notice must:

· be prominently displayed at the boundaries of the site for the purposes of informing the public that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted

· display project details including, but not limited to the details of the builder, Principal Certifying Authority and structural engineer

· be durable and weatherproof

· display the approved hours of work, the name of the site/project manager, the responsible managing company (if any), its address and 24 hour contact phone number for any inquiries, including construction/noise complaint are to be displayed on the site notice

· be mounted at eye level on the perimeter hoardings/fencing and is to state that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted

Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.

15. Dust control

During excavation, demolition and construction, adequate measures shall be taken to prevent dust from affecting the amenity of the neighbourhood. The following measures must be adopted:

· physical barriers shall be erected at right angles to the prevailing wind direction or shall be placed around or over dust sources to prevent wind or activity from generating dust

· earthworks and scheduling activities shall be managed to coincide with the next stage of development to minimise the amount of time the site is left cut or exposed

· all materials shall be stored or stockpiled at the best locations

· the ground surface should be dampened slightly to prevent dust from becoming airborne but should not be wet to the extent that run-off occurs

· all vehicles carrying spoil or rubble to or from the site shall at all times be covered to prevent the escape of dust

· all equipment wheels shall be washed before exiting the site using manual or automated sprayers and drive-through washing bays

· gates shall be closed between vehicle movements and shall be fitted with shade cloth

· cleaning of footpaths and roadways shall be carried out daily

Reason: To protect the environment and amenity of surrounding properties.

16. Use of road or footpath

During excavation, demolition and construction phases, no building materials, plant or the like are to be stored on the road or footpath without written approval being obtained from Council beforehand. The pathway shall be kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition during building operations. Council reserves the right, without notice, to rectify any such breach and to charge the cost against the applicant/owner/builder, as the case may be.

Reason: To ensure safety and amenity of the area.

17. Guarding excavations

All excavation, demolition and construction works shall be properly guarded and protected with hoardings or fencing to prevent them from being dangerous to life and property.

Reason: To ensure public safety.

18. Protection of public places

If the work involved in the erection, demolition or construction of the development is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient, or building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

If necessary, a hoarding is to be erected, sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place.

The work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place.

Any hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed.

Reason: To protect public places.

19. Recycling of building material (general)

During demolition and construction, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that building materials suitable for recycling have been forwarded to an appropriate registered business dealing in recycling of materials. Materials to be recycled must be kept in good order.

Reason: To facilitate recycling of materials.

20. Construction signage

All construction signs must comply with the following requirements:

· are not to cover any mechanical ventilation inlet or outlet vent

· are not illuminated, self-illuminated or flashing at any time

· are located wholly within a property where construction is being undertaken

· refer only to the business(es) undertaking the construction and/or the site at which the construction is being undertaken

· are restricted to one such sign per property

· do not exceed 2.5m²

· are removed within 14 days of the completion of all construction works

Reason: To ensure compliance with Council's controls regarding signage.

21. Road reserve safety

All public footways and roadways fronting and adjacent to the site must be maintained in a safe condition at all times during the course of the development works. Construction materials must not be stored in the road reserve. A safe pedestrian circulation route and a pavement/route free of trip hazards must be maintained at all times on or adjacent to any public access ways fronting the construction site. Where public infrastructure is damaged, repair works must be carried out when and as directed by Council officers. Where pedestrian circulation is diverted on to the roadway or verge areas, clear directional signage and protective barricades must be installed in accordance with AS1742-3 (1996) “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”. If pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily maintained across the site frontage, and action is not taken promptly to rectify the defects, Council may undertake proceedings to stop work.

Reason: To ensure safe public footways and roadways during construction.

22. Services

Where required, the adjustment or inclusion of any new utility service facilities must be carried out by the applicant and in accordance with the requirements of the relevant utility authority. These works shall be at no cost to Council. It is the applicants’ full responsibility to make contact with the relevant utility authorities to ascertain the impacts of the proposal upon utility services (including water, phone, gas and the like). Council accepts no responsibility for any matter arising from its approval to this application involving any influence upon utility services provided by another authority.

Reason: Provision of utility services.

23. Erosion control

Temporary sediment and erosion control and measures are to be installed prior to the commencement of any works on the site. These measures must be maintained in working order during construction works up to completion. All sediment traps must be cleared on a regular basis and after each major storm and/or as directed by the Principal Certifying Authority and Council officers.

Reason: To protect the environment from erosion and sedimentation.

24. Drainage to existing system

Stormwater runoff from all new impervious areas and subsoil drainage systems shall be piped to the existing site drainage system. The installation of new drainage components must be completed by a licensed contractor in accordance with AS3500.3 (Plumbing Code) and the BCA. No stormwater runoff is to be placed into the Sydney Water sewer system. If an illegal sewer connection is found during construction, the drainage system must be rectified to the satisfaction of Council and Sydney Water.

Reason: To protect the environment.

25. No storage of materials beneath trees

No activities, storage or disposal of materials shall take place beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council's Tree Preservation Order at any time.

Reason: To protect existing trees.

26. Removal of refuse

All builders' refuse, spoil and/or material unsuitable for use in landscape areas shall be removed from the site on completion of the building works.

Reason: To protect the environment.

27. On site retention of waste dockets

All demolition, excavation and construction waste dockets are to be retained on site, or at suitable location, in order to confirm which facility received materials generated from the site for recycling or disposal.

· Each docket is to be an official receipt from a facility authorised to accept the material type, for disposal or processing.

· This information is to be made available at the request of an Authorised Officer of Council.

Reason: To protect the environment.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate:

28. Infrastructure repair

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that any damaged public infrastructure caused as a result of construction works (including damage caused by, but not limited to, delivery vehicles, waste collection, contractors, sub contractors, concrete vehicles) is fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council Development Engineer and at no cost to Council.

Reason: To protect public infrastructure.

Conditions to be satisfied at all times:

29. Noise control – plant and machinery

All noise generating equipment shall be soundproofed so the equipment is not audible within a habitable room in any other residential premises before 7am and after 10pm Monday to Friday and before 8am and after 10pm Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. The operation of any unit outside these restricted hours shall emit a noise level of not greater than 5dbA above the background when measured at the nearest property boundary.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

30. Storage and disposal of clinical waste

All clinical waste and sharps generated on the premises is to be stored in a secure location within the premises and handled in accordance with AS 3816 – 1998 Management of clinical and related wastes. An agreement with an appropriately licensed waste transporter is required to remove clinical and contaminated waste from the premises. A copy of the service agreement is to be provided if requested by Council.

Reason: To protect public health.

31. Ventilation

The premises shall be ventilated in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 1668 Parts 1 and 2.

Reason: To ensure adequate levels of health and amenity to the occupants of the building.

32. Offensive noise

The operation of the business (veterinary hospital) shall not give rise to an offensive noise as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Further, an advisory/information sign is to be displayed at the front entrance of the premises displaying emergency after hours contact details.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

33. Boarding of animals

No overnight boarding of animals is permitted on site. Only sick animals on a drip may be kept on site overnight where it would be inadvisable to send the animal home. Any sick animal kept on site is to be kept in an acoustically lined room.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

226

South Turramurra Corridor Development Control Plan (DCP) 58- Report back on Submissions

File: S09346

Vide: GB.4

The following members of the public addressed Council:

C Yasaratne

J Green

S Kariya

To have Council consider submissions on the draft South Turramurra Corridor Development Control Plan (DCP) 58.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Holland)

A. That the draft South Turramurra Corridor Development Control Plan (DCP) 58 be adopted by Council with the following amendments:

i. The draft DCP document be reformatted and renumbered.

ii. Reference to the Ku-ring-gai Riparian Policy, 2004 be included under Section 2.7 of the DCP.

iii. Delete reference to Sydney Blue Gum - Eucalyptus salinga – in Appendix A - Plant Species List for Public and Private land.

iv. That 4.4 (g) be reworded to “To provide vehicular and dedicated pedestrian access between Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue.”

B. That a public notice of Council’s decision to adopt the Development Control Plan be placed in the North Shore Times and that the DCP come into effect from the date of that notice.

C. That in accordance with Section 25AB of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000, a copy of the DCP be submitted to the Director-General of the Department of Planning & Infrastructure.

D. That all persons who made a submission be notified of Council's decision.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

227	Tender T59/2012 - Construction of a Clubhouse at Warrimoo Oval, St Ives Chase File: S09345/2 Vide: GB.7
	To consider the tenders received for construction of a new clubhouse at Warrimoo Oval, St Ives Chase.
	During discussion, Council resolved into Closed Session after a Motion was moved by Councillors Malicki and Keays For the Motion: Councillors Hardwick, Holland, Keays, Malicki, McDonald and Szatow Against the Motion: Councillor Hall Council resolved to return to Open Council after a Motion moved by Councillors Hall and McDonald was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Hall/Hardwick) A. That Council decline to accept any of the tender submissions for T59/2012 Construction of a Clubhouse at Warrimoo Oval, St Ives Chase, for the reasons outlined in the report. B. That Council enter into negotiations with the five highest ranked conforming tenderers named in the Attachment A4 of the report with a view to entering into a contract to carry out the works contemplated by the Request for Tenders for such contract with or without modification. C. That the General Manager be authorised to negotiate the terms of the contract contemplated in recommendation “B” with the five highest ranked conforming tenderers named in Confidential Attachment A4. D. That Council allocate additional funding for the project from the 2004-09 Section 94 development contributions reserve for Local Parks and Sports Facilities, as discussed in Confidential Attachment A5. E. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all tender documents on Council’s behalf in relation to the contract. F. That the Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents. G. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations. For the Resolution: Councillors Hardwick, Holland, Keays, McDonald, Szatow and Hall Against the Resolution: Councillor Malicki

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

228

St Ives Bowling Club Licence

File: S07453

Vide: QN.1

Question Without Notice from Councillor Tony Hall

I refer to Council's approval in August 2011 to provide the St Ives Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd with a 21 year licence.

When will the licence be issued, please and what is the delay?

Answer by Director Community

The licence, I believe, has been sent to the Club for their signature. Once that is done, it will be finalised.

229

St Ives Showground Draft Plan of Management

File: S06604/2

Vide: QN.2

Question Without Notice from Councillor Tony Hall

I would appreciate a status report on the draft Plan of Management for the Crown Reserve, known as St Ives Showground and Precinct. In fact, would the Acting General Manager provide a copy of the draft Plan of Management to Councillors for information while still in discussion with the owners of the Reserve?

Answer by Acting General Manager, Michael Miocic

Happy to do that for Mayor and Councillors.

The Meeting closed at 8.18 pm

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 24 July 2012 (Pages 1 - 19) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 14 August 2012.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 August 2012	GB.3 / 108

Item GB.3	DA0700/11
	7 May 2012

development application

Summary Sheet

Report title:	1-3 Corona Avenue Roseville - Demolition of two dwellings and construction of two residential flat buildings, basement car parking and associated landscaping
ITEM/AGENDA NO:	GB.3

Application No:	DA0700/11
Property Details:	1 – 3 Corona Avenue, Roseville Lot & DP No: Lot 101 DP 881843 (1 Corona Avenue) Lot A DP 337419 (3 Corona Avenue) and Lot 1 DP 1148070 Site area (m²): 2460.7m² Zoning: Residential 2(d3) and Residential 2(d)
Ward:	Roseville
Proposal/Purpose:	To determine Development Application No.0700/11 for demolition of two dwellings and construction of two residential flat buildings, basement car parking and associated landscaping.
Type of Consent:	Local
Applicant:	Dasco Australia Pty Ltd
Owner:	Paulara Pty Ltd
Date Lodged:	22 December 2011
Recommendation:	Refusal.

Purpose of Report

To determine Development Application No. 0700/11, for demolition of two dwellings and construction of two residential flat buildings, basement parking and associated landscaping.

The application was called to full Council for determination by Councillor Hall on 3 May 2012.

Executive Summary

Issues:

Impact upon Endangered Ecological Community

Non compliance with development standards

Insufficient information

Inaccurate and conflicting information

Submissions: Twenty one (21) submissions

Land & Environment Court No

Appeal:

Recommendation: Refusal

History

DA History – 2 -14 Pacific Highway and 1 Corona Avenue, Roseville (previous DAs)

DA0360/98 Construction of 30 home units, basement parking and consolidation of lots 11 to 14 of DP848328 and part of lot 9 within DP848328 known as 2 – 14 Pacific Highway and 1 Corona Avenue, Roseville was approved on 9 February 1999.

DA0361/00 Strata subdivision of approved development under DA0360/98. The application was approved on 14 July 2000.

DA0490/09 Development application for boundary realignment subdivision on land at 2 – 14 Pacific Highway and 1 Corona Avenue. The application for boundary re-adjustment transferred the burdened land to the site at 1 Corona Avenue and extinguished the right of carriageway, positive covenant and restrictions on use and created new easements reflecting the reassignment of land and services was approved on 2 November 2009.

Pre-DA0129/11

19 September 2011 Applicant attends a pre-DA meeting for demolition of existing dwellings, construction of two residential flat buildings comprising 33 units, basement carparking for 50 vehicles and associated landscape works.

Key issues raised include setbacks, non-compliance with development standards, deep soil landscape area, height and impact upon significant vegetation.

The proposed scheme breached at least four (4) development standards. Council staff were of the opinion that the breaches would be difficult to justify and substantial amendments were needed. A further pre-DA meeting prior to the lodgement of a formal development application was recommended.

DA History DA0700/11 (Current DA)

22 December 2011 DA0700/11 lodged.

13 January 2012 – 14 February 2012 Application notified and applicant requested to lodge an architectural model.

30 January 2012 Architectural model submitted to Council.

3 April 2012 Council Officers met with applicant and consultants to discuss the proposed development. Council staff advise of issues relating to ecological impact, inadequate information and inaccuracies in supporting information.

3 April 2012 Council Officers advise applicant of fundamental concerns with the proposal in relation to ecological and landscape issues, non compliance with development standards, insufficient, inaccurate and conflicting supporting information. Council Officers invite the applicant to a further meeting following consideration of the matters raised.

23 April 2012 Applicant requests an extension of time until 21 May 2012 to submit amended information.

27 April 2012 Council officers advise applicant that the purpose of the preliminary assessment letter was to identify fundamental issues with the proposal, inadequate information and provide an opportunity for discussion with relevant experts. Council officers did not request amended plans. Council officers suggest that the application be withdrawn.

3 May 2012 Councillor Hall calls the application to full Council.

4 May 2012 The applicant advises that the application will not be withdrawn and asks for extension until 15 June 2012 to submit amended plans.

4 May 2012 Council officers request clarification from the applicant as to whether additional information would also include a Species Impact Statement and would address all the fundamental issues raised by Council. No response was received from the applicant at the time of preparing this report.

10 May 2012 The applicant is invited to a further meeting to discuss ecological issues.

23 May 2012 Council officers meet again with the applicant, owners and ecologist to further explain the need for a Species Impact Statement. At the meeting, it was agreed Council would not determine the application until a more detailed arborist report is submitted.

14 June 2012 The applicant submits an updated arborist report. The report did not adequately address issues and did not adequately demonstrate that a Species Impact Statement was not required.

5 July 2012 Council officers advise the applicant, that the application is to be reported to Council for determination.

The Site

Site description

The site is located within the West Roseville Urban Conservation Area. It is positioned on the northern side of Corona Avenue, Roseville, between Nola Road and the Pacific Highway, and is approximately 400 metres walking distance from the entrance of Roseville Station. The site comprises three lots. The site has a combined area of 2,460.7m². The site comprises the following allotments:

· Lot 101 within DP 881843 which is known as 1 Corona Avenue, Roseville. The site is regular in shape with an area of 1139.38m². The site has a frontage of 15.28 metres to Corona Avenue. This site is zoned Residential 2(d3).

· Lot A within DP 337419, which is known as 3 Corona Avenue, Roseville. The site is regular in shape with an area of 1120.46m². This site is zoned Residential 2(d3).

· Lot 1 within DP 1148070, which is a right of way providing access to 2 – 14 Pacific Highway (from Corona Avenue). The site has a frontage of 5.97 metres to Corona Avenue and is irregular in shape with an area of 200.9m². This site is zoned Residential 2(d).

The site slopes both from the front and rear boundaries creating a low point in the middle of the site near the western boundary. There is a gentle slope at the front of the site and a steep slope at the rear. The site also has a cross fall from east to west.

The site is characterised by an overgrown landscape setting with mature endemic trees within a weed infested understorey (particularly at 1 Corona Avenue). The site is dominated by numerous endemic trees (Eucalypts) that are part of the critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum High Forest (SBGHF) plant community.

Surrounding development

The site is bounded to the east and north by properties zoned 2(d). No. 2-14 Pacific Highway is located to the eastern at the corner of Corona Avenue and Pacific Highway. The site contains a 3 storey apartment building over basement car parking. The site benefits from a right of carriageway from Lot 1 which forms part of the subject site.

The site is adjoined to the northern (rear) boundary by No. 26A Pacific Highway which contains a 4 storey apartment building. The north-eastern corner of the site is adjoined by No. 18 Pacific Highway which contains a three storey residential flat building.

The site is adjoined to the north-west by a five storeys residential flat development at No. 8 – 12 Nola Road. The site is adjoined to the west by No. 5 Corona Avenue which contains a detached dwelling house.

The Proposal

Demolition of existing dwellings and ancillary structures.

Construction of two residential flat building containing 31 units (4 x 1 bedroom, 20 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom) and parking over two basement levels with a total of 56 car spaces.

Details of each floor level are as follows:

Lower Basement RL 89.100 23 car parking spaces, 12 bicycle spaces, 2 lifts and stair access. Storage areas and plant room.

Upper Basement RL92.100 22 car parking spaces (including 4 disabled, 8 visitor), sprinkler hydrant/pump room, garbage room, fan room, detention tank, plant room, two lifts, WC and stair access.

Building A

Level 1

RL96.90 5 units (4 x 2 bedroom, 1 x 3 bedroom)

Level 2

RL99.950 5 units (4 x 2 bedroom, 1 x 3 bedroom) (1 adaptable unit A204).

Level 3

RL103.00 5 units (4 x 2 bedroom, 1 x 3 bedroom) (1 adaptable unit A304).

Level 4

RL106.050 5 units (4 x 2 bedroom, 1 x 3 bedroom) (1 adaptable unit A404).

Level 5

RL109.100 2 units (2 x 3 bedrooms)

Building B

Level 1

RL95.2 2 units (1 x 1 bedroom, 1 x 2 bedroom)

Level 2

RL98.250 2 units (1 x 1 bedroom, 1 x 2 bedroom)

Level 3

RL101.300 2 units (1 x 1 bedroom, 1 x 2 bedroom)

Level 4

RL104.350 2 units (1 x 1 bedroom, 1 x 2 bedroom)

Level 5

RL107.400 1 unit (1 x 3 bedrooms)

Vehicular and pedestrian access

Vehicular access to the basement car park area is obtained from Corona Avenue via an entry/exit driveway ramp located at the south-eastern corner of the site. A pedestrian entrance is proposed from Corona Avenue centrally located in addition to secondary entrances which run adjacent to the side boundaries.

Consultation

Community

In accordance with Council's Notification DCP No. 56, owners of adjoining properties were given notice of the application on 13 January 2012. In response, Council received twenty one (21) submissions from the following:

1. Sydney F. J Walker I & 1/5 Corona Avenue, Roseville

2. Owners Corporation 18 – 20 Pacific Highway, Roseville

3. David Brian & Joan Holdsworth 3/5 Corona Avenue, Roseville

4. Geoffrey King & Ellen King 4/5 Corona Avenue, Roseville

5. James Brocklebank Willoughby Council

6. Lauren Shaw 8 – 12 Nola Road, Roseville

7. W Tinso 19/ 2 -14 Pacific Highway, Roseville

8. Mr and Mrs William Wood 3/7 Nola Road, Roseville

9. Tracey Khoo 20/ 2 -14 Pacific Highway, Roseville

10. Margaret A Hill 10 Alexander Parade, Roseville

11. C. J Seckhold 18 – 20 Pacific Highway, Roseville

12. Graeme Foote 8 – 12 Nola Road, Roseville

13. Mr and Mrs Layton 9/26a Pacific Highway, Roseville

14. Janet Fake 15/26a Pacific Highway, Roseville

15. The Hon Gladys Berejiklian on behalf of 2 Corona Avenue, Roseville

16. Julie and Stephen Wong 19 Corona Avenue, Roseville

17. Nancy Solichin 12 Corona Avenue, Roseville

18. Dr and Mrs Rossmanith 2 Corona Avenue, Roseville

19. Mrs S K O’Brien 6 Corona Avenue, Roseville

20. Fiona Anthony 4/26a Pacific Highway, Roseville

21. Frank Walker 4 Alexander Parade, Roseville

The submissions raised the following issues:

The inclusion of the driveway means the site area is 2400m² which means the site is permitted 5 storeys instead of 4 if the site area was less than 2400m²

The driveway is a separate allotment known as Lot 1 within DP 1148070 which is a right of way providing access to No. 2 – 14 Pacific Highway (from Corona Avenue). The site has a frontage of 5.97 metres to Corona Avenue and is irregular in shape with an area of 200.9m². The adjoining site benefits from the right of way.

Clause 25B of the KPSO defines site area as follows:

Site area, in relation to proposed development, means the areas of land to which an application for consent to carry out the development relates, excluding the area of any access handle.

Access handle means a strip of land that provides access from an allotment to a street or other public land, whether or not the strip forms part of the allotment.

The allotment is not considered to be defined as an access handle. An access handle refers to a battle axe driveway not the driveway element which forms part of this site.

However, the allotment is zoned Residential 2(d) and therefore pursuant to Clause 25A of the KPSO, is not subject to Part IIIA. This allotment therefore does not form part of the site for the purposes of the controls within Part IIIA of the KPSO. The site area is 2259.84m² where a 4 storey height is permitted. A SEPP 1 objection seeking variance to the number of storeys has not been submitted.

The proposal does not provide adequate building articulation and the materials are contrary to the streetscape

Council officers raise similar concerns regarding the articulation of the built form, particularly at the upper storeys. Concerns are also raised regarding the setbacks at the fifth and sixth storeys of the development, separation from the western side boundary and in relation to the materials not being consistent with the streetscape character. These concerns are addressed in detail in the body of this report.

The front and side setbacks are unacceptable

Council’s concerns in this regard are discussed in detail in the body of this report.

The owners corporation of SP64789 have not provided owners consent

The owner of Lot 101 within DP 1148070 (the right of way) is Paulara Pty Ltd. Development Application DA0490/09 altered the terms of the easement and the burdened party is now Paulara Pty Ltd and not the development at 2 – 14 Pacific Highway. The owners consent is not required from SP64789, as the application does not relate to this land.

No survey has been submitted

Agreed, an adequate survey was not submitted with the application. This issue was raised with the applicant in the preliminary assessment letter dated 3 April 2012 but no plan has been received to date.

Consent documentation to support the creation of a drainage easement over an adjoining property has not been provided

Council’s Development Engineer has raised concerns regarding inadequate details in relation to drainage easement from the site to the street.

No model was submitted at lodgement

A model of the proposal was submitted to Council on 30 January 2012 after the DA was lodged.

The traffic report is in draft form

Concerns are raised regarding the traffic report and this issue was also raised with the applicant in Council’s preliminary assessment letter dated 3 April 2012.

Site slope has been calculated incorrectly

Agreed, the site slope across the building footprint is not calculated to be 15% and consequently, the site does not benefit from an additional storey under Clause 25K.

The proposal fails to comply with the maximum FSR under DCP 55.

The submission indicates the site area is less than 2400m² (due to the exclusion of Lot 1 within DP 1148070) and the maximum FSR is 1:1. The proposed FSR when excluding Lot 1 within DP1148070 is 1.26:1 and fails to comply with the control.

Deep soil landscape area non compliance

Agreed, the proposal has not demonstrated compliance with the deep soil landscape area development standard.

Site coverage non compliance

Clause 25I(6) relating to site coverage permits 35% site coverage for residential flat development on land zoned Residential 2(d3). Lot 1 within DP1148070 is zoned Residential 2(d) and therefore is not included in this calculation. Nonetheless, the site coverage is calculated to be 30% and complies.

The SEPP 1 objections are not well founded

Agreed, the SEPP 1 objections to Clause 25I(5), 25I(8) and Clause 25L are not considered to be well founded.

Shadow diagrams are inadequate

Concerns are raised in relation to the adequacy of the submitted shadow diagrams.

Unit sizes are inadequate

The apartment sizes fail to comply with the minimum areas required under the RFDC.

Sound attenuation in the walls

Concerns were raised that the architectural plans do not show adequate wall thickness to comply with BCA requirements. This level of detail is usually provided as part of the Construction Certificate drawings and not part of the development application.

Management of construction traffic is not adequately addressed

Agreed, concern has been raised regarding the conflicting documentation provided as part of the development application.

Stormwater management

The submitted stormwater plan shows stormwater from the development site discharging to the property to the west via an easement but no details have been provided regarding this easement.

Flora and fauna report is defective

This is a fundamental concern with the proposed development. Council requires that a Species Impact Statement be submitted. Council officers have undertaken site inspections and identified fauna present on the site which has not been included or addressed in the submitted flora and fauna report.

Over development of the site, unacceptable bulk and scale

The proposal is contrary to the suite of built form controls and development standards within the KPSO which relate to bulk and scale. The proposal exceeds the maximum permitted height, number of storeys and provides inadequate setbacks and deep soil landscaping on site.

Noise impacts

A residential flat building as is proposed is not considered to generate any additional noise than what would be expected in a residential area zoned for that purpose.

Privacy impacts upon neighbouring properties

The proposal does not satisfy the spatial separation requirements of SEPP 65 and DCP 55. There is concern regarding the reduced setbacks and lack of landscape screening of the built form.

Tree loss particularly the large gum trees

The proposed tree removal is considered to be unacceptable.

Large Lilly Pilly Tree fronting Corona Avenue is retained

The landscape plan shows retention of this tree. If the application were to be approved, it would be a requirement of the consent that the trees nominated for retention were retained.

View loss when gums trees are removed

The construction of the development and removal of trees on site will result in a loss of views of these gum trees.

Additional traffic on the driveway which already impacts traffic flow in Corona Avenue and Maclaurin Parade

The traffic report submitted is labelled ‘draft’ and a final report has not been submitted.

Separation distances do not comply

The proposal does not comply with the required separation distances of SEPP 65. Particular concern is raised in relation to the non compliant separation from 5 Corona Avenue.

Loss of solar access to adjoining properties

The proposal maintains reasonable solar access to adjoining properties, given the site orientation.

No details provided regarding retaining structures

The plans do not show any details of retaining structures on site and this is a concern with the level of detail and inconsistency in materials provided. This issue was also raised in Council’s preliminary assessment letter.

Within Council

Ecology

Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer commented on the proposal as follows:

“Introduction

During the site inspection, remnant Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) which is listed as a critically endangered ecological community (CEEC) under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 was identified within the site. The BGHF community on site comprises a canopy dominated by three Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) with one Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt). One sub-canopy tree, Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet pittosporum), was identified within the rear of the site. The understorey within the native canopy contains a mixture of exotic herbaceous species and scattered native Blue Gum High Forest grasses and herbs.

As well as the endangered ecological community, habitats for mobile threatened fauna species listed under the aforementioned Act were also identified. The site contains suitable foraging resources (Eucalypts) for the Grey-headed Flying Fox, a threatened species listed under both the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Impacts from the proposal

The proposed residential flat buildings and associated landscaping proposes the removal of Tree 6 Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum). Tree 11Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) and Tree 17-Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt).

The following trees (Table 1) form part of the Blue Gum High Forest community on the site.

Table 1

Tree No	Scientific Name	Common Name	Comments
6	Eucalyptus saligna	Sydney Blue Gum	To be removed
11	Pittosporum undulatum	Sweet Pittosporum	To be removed
17	Eucalyptus pilularis	Blackbutt	To be removed
20	Eucalyptus saligna	Sydney Blue Gum	To be retained
22	Eucalyptus saligna	Sydney Blue Gum	To be retained

Flora and fauna assessment

The flora and fauna assessment, prepared by Keystone Ecological, has been reviewed and assessed.

The impact assessments prepared for threatened fauna species e.g. microbats, Superb Fruit-dove and the Grey-headed Flying-fox species by Keystone Ecological are considered to be satisfactory and in accordance with Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No significant impacts are likely to occur upon threatened fauna species as a result of the proposal.

The impact assessment prepared for the Blue Gum High Forest community in accordance with Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is not considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons:

1. Insufficient assessment of impacts to Blue Gum High Forest community

The impact assessment fails to demonstrate the “extent” the physical area removed and/or to the compositional components of the habitat and the degree to which it is affected, this in particular reference to the local occurrence of Blue Gum High Forest community within the site. An amended impact assessment is to be submitted in accordance with Section 5A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 to assess all impacts of the current proposal on the Blue Gum high Forest community.

The impact assessment, prepared by Keystone Ecological, does not correctly consider the factors of the assessment as set out under Section 5A part 2 factors c (i) (ii), d (ii) (iii) & g of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

The impact assessment fails to consider the scientific determination for Blue Gum High Forest in undertaking the assessment and does not make an accurate assessment in accordance with the Threatened species assessment guidelines “The assessment of significance” prepared by the Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (dated August 2007).

The impact assessment, prepared by Keystone Ecological, has concluded that the proposed development is not likely to have a significant impact upon Blue Gum High Forest. This conclusion is not supported for the following reasons:

· The proposal will result in further loss of Blue Gum High Forest CEEC which will have a adverse affect on the local occurrence in the immediate future placing the community at further risk of extinction.

· The proposal will remove habitat which is important to the survival of Blue Gum High Forest within the locality.

· The proposal will further fragment the local patch of Blue Gum High Forest CEEC on site.

· The proposal will further exacerbate “clearing of native vegetation” which is a Key Threatening process to Blue Gum High Forest

It is therefore concluded that the proposal is likely to result in a significant impact upon Blue Gum High Forest critically endangered ecological community and, as such, a Species Impact Statement pursuant to Section 78A(8)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 must be prepared.

2. Adverse impacts upon Blue Gum High Forest community

The proposal is contrary to Part 1 Section 3 objectives a, b, d & f of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The proposed development should not be approved as it will have a detrimental impact upon the BGHF community.

The proposal is contrary to Part 1 Section 3 objective (a) –

“to conserve biological diversity and promote ecologically sustainable development” (Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995).

The proposal fails to conserve the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site. The extent of the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site will be further reduced placing Blue Gum High Forest at further risk of extinction within the site & locality.

Section 13 of the scientific determination states the following “Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion is eligible to be listed as a critically endangered ecological community as, in the opinion of the Scientific Committee, it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in New South Wales in the immediate future, as determined in accordance with the following criteria as prescribed by the Threatened Species Conservation Regulation 2002”.

Clause 25

The ecological community has undergone, is observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have undergone, or is likely to undergo within a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics of its component species:

(a) a very large reduction in geographic distribution.

Clause 26

The ecological community's geographic distribution is estimated or inferred to be:

(b) very highly restricted, and the nature of its distribution makes it likely that the action of a threatening process could cause it to decline or degrade in extent or ecological function over a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics of the ecological community's component species.

Clause 27

(a) a very large reduction in ecological function, as indicated by any of the following:

(b) change in community structure

(c) change in species composition

(f) disruption of ecological processes

(g) invasion and establishment of exotic species

(h) degradation of habitat

(i) fragmentation of habitat

The proposed replacement planting of Blue Gum High Forest species is not considered to be an appropriate mitigation measure.

The proposal is contrary to Part 1 Section 3 objectives (b and d) as follows:

“to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species, populations and ecological communities and

“to eliminate or manage certain processes that threaten the survival or evolutionary development of threatened species, populations and ecological communities” (TSC Act 1995)

The ecological function/processes that occur at present in the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site and locality will be further reduced as a result of the proposed development. Development of the site will reduce the availability of foraging habitat for birds and the Grey-headed Flying-Fox which is likely to result in a decrease in ecological processes such as the dispersal of fruit, pollen, gene flow (cross-pollination) and recruitment which contributes to the survival of the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site and locality.

Section 9 of the scientific determination for Blue Gum High Forest states the following: “All remnants of the community are now surrounded by urban development. Consequently, the distribution of Blue Gum High Forest is severely fragmented. Fragmentation of habitat contributes to a very large reduction in the ecological function of the community”.

The following key threatening processes listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 will be further exacerbated by the proposal.

· clearing of native vegetation

· anthropogenic climate change

The proposal is contrary to Part 1 Section 3 objective (f)-

“to encourage the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities by the adoption of measures involving co-operative management” (TSC Act).

The proposal fails to encourage the conservation of the Blue Gum High Forest community. Development of the site will result in the loss of three canopy trees which is greater than 50% of canopy trees within the site.

Section 11 states that “The loss of large trees removes essential habitat for a range of tree-dependent fauna (Gibbons and Lindenmeyer 1996). The reduction of understorey complexity, through the reduction of native shrub cover, degrades habitat for a range of bird and mammal species (Catling 1991). These processes contribute to a very large reduction in the ecological function of the community”.

Vegetation management plan

The following amendments and further information are required to be made to the vegetation management plan.

The area of land to be managed under the VMP is to be amended to include the following Blue Gum High Forest Trees 6, 11 and 17.

The VMP is to include the approximate number of shrubs and groundcovers to be planted within the Blue Gum High Forest community within each management unit.

(Reference point) photo monitoring point is to be established on plans within the Blue Gum High Forest. Baseline quadrant data is to be incorporated into the VMP.

The VMP is to specify the number and species type to be planted within each management unit.

Landscape plan

The landscape plan is to be amended in accordance with the following:

· The landscape plan is to identify the management units as per the vegetation management plan.

· All species to be planted within areas containing Blue Gum High Forest are to be native endemics to the Blue Gum High Forest community as per the scientific determination.

· The landscape plan is to detail the number of individuals of each species to be planted within management area as per the amended VMP.

· No monocultures are to be proposed to be planted within areas containing Blue Gum High Forest.

· Only native Blue Gum High Forest species in accordance with the scientific determination are proposed to be planted within landscape areas of the site containing Blue Gum High Forest. Consultation between landscape architect and ecologist may be required.

· The proposed removal of Trees 6, 11 and 17 is not supported, these trees are to be nominated for retention on the landscape plan.

Arborist assessment

A review of the aboricultural impact assessment report in conjunction with a recent site (21/06/2012) raises concerns regarding the assessment of the trees, particularly Tree 6 (Sydney Blue Gum) which is proposed to be removed. The arborist has identified Tree 6 as having 70% dead canopy, during the site inspection Tree 6 was visually inspected and was noted to contain a healthy mature canopy with very little epicormic growth and by no means 70% dead wood within the canopy, dead wood appears to be less than 5%.

An inspection was also undertaken of the canopy of Tree 17 Blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis) proposed for removal which the arborist has identified as having 25% dead wood. It is agreed that approximately 25% dead wood occurs within the canopy, however, this is limited to one dead branch of a secondary leader, the remaining canopy exhibits good vigour, with little epicormic growth with the greater bulk of the canopy being to the south, this is acknowledged in the arborist report.

The arborist report has given a Safe Use Life Expectancy (SULE) rating of (4) for Trees 6 and 17 and has recommended the removal of both trees within 5 years. The SULE assessment is inaccurate and not supported, both trees present a healthy canopy with some medium dead wood which could be removed successfully without impacting upon the longevity of these trees. The arborist report also states that both Trees 6 and 17 appear stable and that branch attachment appears fair and sound.

The arborist report makes reference to resistograph testing being undertaken for tree 20, however no results of the testing appear within the arborist report.

There is no substantiated arboricultural or other justification for the removal of significant trees which comprise part of critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest.

Further information/amendments

A species impact statement is to be prepared for the Blue Gum High Forest community.

Any landscape plan provided is to be amended in accordance with the aforementioned comments.

An amended impact assessment is to be prepared that considers the extent of the local occurrence of the onsite Blue Gum High Forest and all impacts of the proposal upon the Blue Gum High Forest community.

Amendments to the vegetation management plan are required in accordance with the aforementioned comments.

Further arboricultural assessment is required for trees 6 and 17. Further investigation/assessment is required to demonstrate that the abovementioned trees have a Safe Useful Life Expectancy of 4.

The proposal be amended to address the retention of the BGHF canopy trees upon the site.

Conclusion:

The proposal is not supported for the following reasons:

· Impacts on Blue Gum High Forest Critically Endangered Ecological Community

· Insufficient assessment and information.”

Landscape

Council’s Senior Landscape Assessment Officer, commented on the proposal as follows:

“Site characteristics

The site is characterised by an overgrown landscape setting with mature endemic trees within a weed infested understorey (particularly at 1 Corona Ave). The site is dominated by numerous endemic trees (Eucalypts) that are part of the critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum High Forest (SBGHF) plant community.

Tree impacts

The development proposes the removal of numerous trees across the site. The most significant being Tree 6 Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum), and Tree 17 Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt), both of which are located within the existing rear setback. Other trees proposed for removal do not have broader landscape significance, although they do provide site and neighbour amenity.

Tree 6 Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Bluegum) located within the existing rear setback within the proposed Building B footprint. The tree is a mature specimen, most likely a remnant specimen with a DBH of 1250mm, in outwardly moderate health and condition. The tree has landscape significance and is considered to be part of the critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum High Forest plant community. The tree has a dead central leader, some epicormic regrowth, a sparse canopy crown, and a partly dead upper canopy. The tree has previously been infested with ivy which has suppressed its growth, but since the removal and subsequent death of remaining ivy the tree appears to be recovering.

Tree 17 Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) located within the existing rear setback within the proposed Building B footprint. The tree is a mature specimen, most likely a remnant specimen with a DBH of 1000mm, in moderate health and condition. The tree has major dieback in one of the northern leaders, with evidence of a major limb failure on the southern trunk of the northern leader. No aerial inspection of the tree has been undertaken.

An updated arboricultural impact assessment report has been submitted in response to previous concerns raised by Council. An aerial inspection of Tree 20 Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Bluegum) has been undertaken at the applicant’s instigation. The following comments are made:

(i) The report states setbacks of proposed development works from the trees to be retained but fails to assess adequately what the TPZ incursion is or the potential impacts.

(ii) An aerial inspection and resistograph testing of Tree 20 was undertaken at the applicant’s instigation. Decay was found, but the report fails to provide the results of the resistograph testing or detail the extent of decay. Is the tree viable? What remedial works are recommended? What hazard does the tree represent?

(iii) The report states ‘no significant impact’ regularly, but fails to identify if there is any impact and to what extent this impact may have to the subject tree, particularly where development works encroach within the TPZ and on more than one side.

(iv) The report fails to justify the removal of existing significant trees. Trees of significance that are located within the proposed building footprint should still be assessed for their ongoing viability. For example while it is acknowledged that Tree 17 has a dead northern leader, there is no assessment of whether or not decay is present, has the deadwood compartmentalised, whether or not the dead leader can be satisfactorily removed without impacting the remainder of the tree? Given Tree 17 is part of a critically endangered plant community justification beyond a building footprint location is required and assessment of proposed landscape works within the TPZ.

(v) The report fails to identify or assess development impacts to trees on neighbouring properties eg drainage easement.

The report fails to assess the recommendations made within the ‘Impact Assessment On Hydrological Regime’ report regarding the locations of proposed absorption trenches and the incursions of these within the TPZ of trees being retained.

It is recommended the arboricultural impact assessment report be further amended to address the above concerns.

Landscape plan/tree replenishment

The landscape design has not taken into account the location of proposed fire stairs which conflict with proposed plantings. Clear access is to be maintained for fire stair access.

There is insufficient information regarding existing and proposed levels, particularly in conjunction with proposed drainage works and the western site boundary. Further detail and clarification is sought (additional retaining structures may be necessary).

Amenity issues relating to overlooking and privacy, particularly to the west and northwest need to be addressed with supplementary evergreen screen planting.

Stormwater plan

The stormwater plan is not at a consistent scale with the other submitted plans. To enable the assessment of the deep soil landscape area development standard, it is required that the stormwater plan be submitted at a consistent scale (preferably 1:100) with the architectural, landscape and compliance plans.

An inter-allotment drainage easement is proposed through adjoining property to the west of the site. As the development is reliant upon a future drainage easement it is required that the route of the drainage line be surveyed, the extent of works required detailed and the arborist assess any potential tree impacts where drainage works are proposed within the TPZ of existing trees. The easement location is based from an out of date survey. The plans indicate a tennis court which no longer exists and has been replaced with a five storey residential flat building.

The plan proposes drainage pipes and pits above existing ground level where no fill or grading changes are proposed. It is required that submitted plans be consistent regarding proposed level changes across the site.

Further detail is requested to enable assessment of proposed drainage works.

BASIX

BASIX Certificate No.409246M dated 20/12/2011, submitted with the application has made numerous landscape based area commitments. The proposed development is inconsistent with the BASIX Certificate. The areas of inconsistency include:

(i) The area of common lawn – it is assessed that there is not 806m² of common lawn proposed (an area of 100.98m² is indicated).

(ii) The area of common garden – it is assessed that there is a greater common garden area than 433m² (an area of 1237.1m² is indicated).

(iii) The Level 1 Units of Block B both have private courtyards with ‘areas of garden and lawn’ that have not been included within the BASIX certificate. The BASIX compliance plan indicates 15.54m² and 12.83m² for each unit. These garden areas are only accessible from the units and are at the same level as the ‘balcony’. They are therefore assessed as being a private courtyard/planting area. It is noted that unit identification on the architectural plan is B101 and A108. There is no unit A108 within the BASIX Certificate.

NOTE: The BASIX compliance plan by iScape is inconsistent with the BASIX Certificate commitments and areas.

As BASIX is a SEPP, compliance cannot be conditioned. The application would need to be amended to ensure consistency.

Deep soil

The SEE provides differing deep soil landscape area totals, being 1259m² and 1265m². Clarification is sought as to the correct deep soil landscape area total. LEP194 requires a minimum of 1129.92m² to comply with the deep soil landscape area development standard. A deep soil compliance plan has been provided within the SEE (Figure 12) however, the plan is not to scale and is insufficiently detailed to enable a thorough assessment. From the information provided, the Landscape Assessment Officer is in disagreement with the areas included within the deep soil calculable area. The areas in dispute include:

· garden areas less than 2.0m wide (as per LEP194 definition)

· proposed retaining walls (considered a structure)

· the sewer vent, sewer pit and sewer main (considered structures). Clarification is sought as to the size of the sewer main

· the front wall (considered a structure) NB: Plans unclear as to what is proposed

· fire hydrants/booster valves etc. Not shown on plan but usually required for this scale of development (considered structures)

· paths greater than 1.0m wide (as per LEP194 definition)

· attached louvres (part of structure)

· substation (if required)

· disabled circulation spaces as recommended by the Access Review Report

· letterbox structures

As the deep soil compliance plan is not to scale, it is not possible to undertake a full assessment and, as a result, there may be additional areas that the excluded from the deep soil landscape area, as per LEP194 definition. It is therefore required that a scaled 1:100 deep soil landscape area compliance plan be submitted to overlay architectural and drainage plans and to enable assessment.

Setbacks

The eastern side set back to Building A in conjunction with the existing ‘right of carriageway’ results in the inability of the development to provide any soft landscape works within the side setback. This is not a desired outcome. It is recommended that the setback from the east of carriageway be increased to allow sufficient area for soft landscaping/planting to provide landscape amenity between neighbouring units as per LEP194 objectives (25C 2g, 25D 2c, & 25L3).

The zero eastern site boundary setback to the interconnecting basement driveway does not provide for any deep soil landscape area for the provision of soft landscaping. While it is acknowledged that on slab planting is proposed, the basement link is partially above ground resulting in a wall up to 4.2m high when viewed internally from the site. This is not a desired outcome and contributes to the dominance of the built form within the communal soft landscape area. As viewed centrally from within the site there will be built form on three sides. Again, it is acknowledged why the basement link is located where it is due to the preservation of significant trees.

Communal open space

No useable principal communal open space has been proposed as part of the development/landscape design, with the reduced site frontage being the only area of open lawn. This is not a desirable outcome and does not comply with the objectives of the Residential Flat Design Code.

It is recommended that a useable communal open space suitable for active recreation be proposed within the site between the two buildings. It is considered that this can be achieved in balance with the restoration of Sydney Bluegum High Forest areas. It is noted that the existing mature Sydney Blue Gums have grown in a highly modified urban landscape setting and therefore can tolerate the retention of a soft urban landscape setting within their TPZ (subject to design detail).

Landscape amenity

Units B101 and B102/A108 have subterranean balcony/courtyard areas with a northerly outlook to a 4m high retaining wall. This does not provide good amenity and is likely to result in the paving of the courtyard areas. It is recommended that the heights of the wall be minimised by terracing the courtyard area. This can be achieved with the construction of a 1.2m high wall at the edge of the ‘balcony’ and adding an additional terrace. This may impact upon the available deep soil landscape area, but will improve landscape and resident amenity.

Construction management plan

The construction management plan submitted with the application is basic and generalised. As the site is constrained by large endemic trees with broader landscape and ecological significance, a more detailed CMP is requested to enable assessment of potential tree impacts. Information such as site access routes, site fencing and crane location has not been detailed. Tree retention within the site frontage and the reduced setback to the street is also likely to limit available on site truck movements, which have been proposed within the Draft Traffic and Parking Assessment Report. Detail of ‘truck’ and ‘truck and dog’ swept paths are to be submitted. The CMP needs to be detailed in consideration and reference to the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) and may require further arboricultural impact assessment and recommendations.

Conclusion

The application is unacceptable on landscape grounds due to:

· inconsistencies with the BASIX certificate

· inadequate side setback for landscape amenity

· inconsistent information regarding deep soil landscape area

· insufficient information regarding tree impacts

· insufficient useable communal open space and poor landscape amenity for selective units

· insufficient information and detail regarding construction management”

Engineering

Council’s Team Leader, Engineering, commented on the proposal as follows:

“Strata subdivision is not indicated on the application form. Section 3.7 of the Statement of Environmental Effects states “The development application seeks consent to strata subdivide the building under Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973, however no strata plan was submitted, so it is assumed that this is an error.

Further information is required for engineering assessment to proceed.

(i) No survey plan was lodged with the application and this is a critical omission.

(ii) At the pre DA meeting title and instrument details for the easements over 3 Corona Avenue were requested. These have not been provided. One easement is across the basement excavation so the benefitting property(ies) must be identified so that any necessary approvals or need for extinguishment can be determined as part of the assessment process.

(iii) Final traffic engineer’s report, addressing parking provision, manoeuvring in and out of the entry, the narrow internal ramps, requirement for mirrors/ traffic lights at ends of ramps and internal waste collection.

(iv) Clarification of accessible parking bay dimensions and accessible visitor parking space.

(v) Waste management must be amended so that internal collection is provided from the basement carpark, including a storage area of sufficient size.

(vi) Stormwater plans must be amended to show correct detention volume, pump wet well and the connection of the pump-out system downstream of the detention tank.

(vii) The arborist is to assess the proposed soil moisture recharge system.

(viii) Written agreement of the downstream owners to grant an easement is required, together with survey detail and a design drawing for the pipe within the easement.

(ix) Clarification of construction site access is required.

Water management

The site does not have the benefit of a drainage easement which would allow runoff to be conveyed to the public drainage system, as required under Council’s DCP 47 Water management. The stormwater plans show “Assumed location of easement, details at CC stage”. This is not satisfactory given the buildings, vegetation and other obstructions along the likely route of the drainage easement.

Critical information requested in the pre DA minutes has not been provided - that is, the written agreement of the downstream owners to grant an easement, together with survey detail and a design drawing for the pipe within the easement, endorsed by the arborist.

The BASIX commitments are for a 60 000 litres rainwater tank, collecting runoff from the entire roof area, with re-use for toilet flushing, irrigation and car washing. The stormwater plans contain a note “connect all roof runoff from Blocks A and B to RWT”. It is not clear that this is feasible, however the BASIX Certificate requires this to be shown on the Construction Certificate, not DA, plans, so it is not an issue at this stage.

The detention tank is considerably undersized. The Site Storage Requirement for this site is 35.6 cubic metres (using a hard surface area of 50% of the site area), so with the 25% concession available for retention and re-use under Section 6.9.3 of DCP 47, the volume required is 26.7m³. The stormwater plans show 5m³ which is insufficient. This is because the designer has reversed the factors in Appendix 2 of DCP 47 and reduced the volume by 75% instead of 25%. These calculations need to be done again. When the detention tank is correctly sized, its location should be consistent on both the architectural and stormwater plans.

The pump wet well has been designed using a 1 hour 100 year Average Recurrence Interval storm, when DCP 47 requires a 2 hour storm to be used. This results in a shortfall in volume of about 6m³.

The plans show the basement pump-out system discharging directly into the detention tank. This is not desirable given the likelihood of seepage inflows identified in the geotechnical report.

The ecological impact assessment refers to stormwater controls so that soil moisture is periodically recharged. The stormwater plans show a 500mm wide trench (called adsorption on the hydrological report, but probably absorption – receiving moisture rather than chemically binding it to the particles) on the east and north sides of the trees. The impact of these trenches on the tree protection zones is not discussed in the arborist’s report, which is only preliminary and does not contain details of the development.

Traffic and parking

The traffic report submitted with the DA is labelled “Draft”. The final report is required.

The site consists of three lots at present, including a 200m² lot to the north east which is currently a concrete driveway providing access to the neighbouring building, 2-14 Pacific Highway. Vehicular access to the basement carpark is via that lot, which is also subject to a right of carriageway benefitting the neighbouring building. From the levels shown on the drawings there does not seem to be any reason why the 2.6 metres of headroom which is required for the small waste collection vehicle cannot be provided.

The site is located more than 400 metres from the Roseville Railway Station. Therefore, 48 resident and 8 visitor parking spaces are required. There does not seem to be a disabled visitor parking space. The development requires 4 accessible units and 4 disabled resident parking spaces are provided. Parking space 44 appears to have inadequate headroom.

The traffic engineer’s report states that the car park complies with the Australian Standard subject to confirmation. This is not acceptable and may be due to a draft report being submitted. Matters which must be specifically addressed include the parking provision as discussed above, manoeuvring in and out of the entry, the narrow internal ramps, requirement for mirrors/ traffic lights at ends of ramps and internal waste collection.

Waste management

The traffic engineer’s report contains the statement “…the existing vehicular access arrangements which will be used to provide vehicular access to the site are therefore not suitable for use by Council’s garbage trucks. All garbage collection services will therefore be undertaken at the kerbside, in the traditional manner.” The Waste Management Plan by Robertson + Marks contains a similar statement (as well as committing the owners corporation to take the waste containers to Claude Street footpath – this could be rather onerous).

This is not acceptable and internal collection as required under DCP 40 must be provided, including a waste storage area of sufficient size for the required 32 x 240 litres containers.

Construction traffic management

The traffic engineer’s report contains a section titled “Construction Traffic Management Plan”, which is quite generic.

The Construction Traffic Management Plan by Robertson + Marks is slightly more relevant, stating that no access will be obtained from the right of way during construction, and that a temporary driveway will be provided in the south western corner of the site. However, the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan by Australian Consulting Engineers shows the site access on the eastern side.

One or both of these conflicting documents should be amended so that they are consistent.

Geotechnical investigation

Up to 9.5 metres of excavation is required to achieve the design of the basement level. The report states “The location of the development within a former, natural drainage line may also have an impact on the hydraulic design requirements of the project.”

The site is underlain by some fill, residual clays and sandstone, siltstone and shale. The report recommends additional investigation comprising a minimum of 5 boreholes for the purposes of foundation design. The report contains recommendations for excavation methods but not vibration monitoring. It is expected that this would also be covered in the additional report, as well as groundwater considerations.

The additional work required would be conditioned, as well as a requirement for the excavation works to be carried out in accordance with any recommendations made.”

Urban design

Council’s Urban Design Consultant provided the following comments:

PRINCIPLE 1: CONTEXT

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area. Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies. New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

The site is zoned 2(d3) and is located within the West Roseville Urban Conservation Area. It is positioned on the northern side of Corona Avenue, Roseville between Nola Road and the Pacific Highway, and is approximately 400 metre walk from the entrance of Roseville Station (measured on SIX maps). The site is comprised of two regularly shaped lots, being 1 and 3 Corona Avenue, which have a combined frontage of 30.56 metres and a site area of 2259.84m² (according to the Statement of Environmental Effects p9). It is noted that the only survey information provided is on drawing A100-A Site Analysis and this is partially obscured by overlaid information. The site areas do not appear to be able to be confirmed by this documentation. The site also has the benefit of a Right Of Way (ROW) over No. 2-14 Pacific Highway, Roseville which is said to 200.9m² in area. It is noted that without the ROW, even though the site has the minimum 30 metre street frontage required by LEP194 clause 25I(3), the site area is only sufficient to enable 4 storeys under LEP194 clause 25I(5).

The site is bounded to the east and north by properties zoned 2(d). No. 2-14 Pacific Highway is noted as a 3 storey apartment building over basement car parking; No. 26A Pacific Highway is a 3 or 4 storey apartment building; 18 Pacific Highway is more distantly located. All are situated on land which is of a greater height. LEP194 clause 25L(2) requires additional upper level setbacks from any boundary with neighbouring land that is not zoned 2(d3). LEP194 clause 25L(1) states the objective of this control is to 'provide a transition in the scale of buildings between certain zones.' On sites elsewhere, the neighbour might be a detached dwelling house and this kind of additional setback and separation would be a worthwhile one in managing the change in built form. In this instance however, from an urban design perspective, it is considered that the 3+ storey height of the neighbours, coupled with the topography they sit upon, makes the built form transition suitable and that the 'zone interface' setbacks to levels 3 and 4 are not necessary to achieve this objective. Setbacks of the uppermost storeys would still be required though.

The front setback does not comply. DCP55 control 4.3 C-1(bb) requires a 10-12 metres setback zone. The proposal uses a 6-9 metres setback which is established through reference to the setbacks of its neighbours to either side. Council's Pre DA advice (p12) appears to consider the variation to be reasonable 'given the existing established streetscape setbacks.' This decision depends primarily on the likelihood of 5 Corona Avenue redeveloping. No. 15-17 Corona Avenue appears to have been constructed with the greater setback. No. 7-11 Corona Avenue is undeveloped. A 10-12 metres setback will most likely be the future context to the west of Nola Road. It could also be argued that taller buildings require more significant landscaping in the front setback. For the sake of consistency though, this is not furthered as an issue here. The point could be coherently argued either way.

The site is constrained by a steep valley topography with the low point being at the midpoint on the western boundary. In a direct line from the highest to lowest boundary points, the site has a fall in the order of 20% and if this is the case, an extra storey might be considered under clause 25K for up to 25% of the building footprint. This is exceeded, but see PRINCIPLE 2: SCALE for discussion.

The site also has considerable existing tree cover, including members of the Blue Gum High Forest community. Three of five key trees are proposed for removal. This is a key issue. See PRINCIPLE 6: LANDSCAPE for discussion.

The Statement of Environmental Effects is considered to be straightforward and clear, however other aspects of the documentation it references suffer from being incomplete, conflicting or unclear. There does not appear to be a physical model of the project available. In general, additional or updated documentation is required to verify, demonstrate or substantiate a range of issues as described throughout this assessment.

PRINCIPLE 2: SCALE

Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings. Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

As discussed above, the steepness of the site may trigger LEP194 clause 25K allowing a partial sixth storey. In this instance, five residential storeys have been proposed above two levels of car park. This aspect appears to be over 25% and is noncompliant but should be verified with diagrams. Because of the RL of the existing driveway in the ROW, the upper car park projects out of the ground by up to 3 metres and is therefore counted as a storey. It is considered, however that the rationale of using the existing driveway is sound and that the car park level set by this is the most straightforward configuration. Because of the topography the proposal still presents as five storeys to the street. One approach to satisfying the controls would be to remove a typical residential floor from Building A, however this would substantially reduce the yield. It is considered from an urban design perspective that the proposed height might be appropriate, given the built form and topographic context, if an adjustment is made to implement additional setbacks at Levels 5 and 6.

The proposal does not achieve the required setback at the top floors on several counts. LEP194 clause 25I(7) requires that 'the floor area of the top storey of a residential flat building is not to exceed 60% of the total floor area of the storey immediately below it.' The diagrams in the Pre DA advice (p24) describe how there are two top floors. No GFA/FSR diagrams appear to have been submitted which quantify this. This aspect should be verified. DCP55 control 4.3 C-9(i) states, in relation to LEP194 25I(7), that the top storey of a residential flat building is to: 'Be set back from the outer face of the floors below on all sides' and C-9(iii) states that it is to 'be designed in the form of set back floor space, attics and dormers, lofts and clerestories in order to minimise the appearance of the top floor as viewed from the street.'

The proposal is not set back sufficiently on all sides, particularly to Corona Avenue, and does not reduce the apparent building scale from the street - five storeys can be clearly read. Also, both DCP55 control 4.5.2 C-2 and the RFDC p28 (via p59) require 18 metres separation for Levels 5 and 6 between two habitable rooms for privacy a 9 metres setback to the boundary should therefore be provided, particularly to No. 5 Corona Avenue which could conceivably redevelop. No. 2-14 Pacific Highway and is already set back an additional distance at Level 6 and this is considered satisfactory from an urban design perspective. It should be noted that the eastern setback of the proposal is effectively zero. It would be incorrect to consider the ROW as part of the site for the purpose of setbacks. In this instance however, given the predominantly blank western wall of No. 2-14 Pacific Highway which is strata titled and unlikely to redevelop, it is a sensible location for the proposed car park immediately adjacent to the shared driveway. In saying this, it is considered that balconies to units A102, A202, A302 and A402 should not be within 6 metres of the ROW boundary return.

PRINCIPLE 3: BUILT FORM

Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of building elements. Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

The building footprint has not been demonstrated in a diagram. It appears able to comply but this should be verified. The layout of the buildings are efficient, however 9 of 31 (29%) apartments are actually smaller than the minimum sizes recommended by the RFDC (p69). Whilst this is not in itself detrimental, in this instance there are compromises in the plans that should be addressed through reorganisation or enlargement of the apartments. Some 27 of 58 (47%) of first and second bedrooms are less than 3 metres in one or both dimensions as required by DCP55 control 4.5.4 C-3.

Adequate storage provision in accordance DCP55 control 4.5.4 C-6 is provided to only 6 of 31 (19%) of apartments and 4 of these (B102, B202, B302, B402) are using the whole study space as a storage space. There appears to be adequate storage in the basement but it is has not been allocated and cannot be assessed. 16 of 31 (52%) of apartments have balconies which do not comply with DCP55 control 4.5.5 C-2 and 19 of 31 (61%) apartments have balconies scaling less than 2.4 metres as required by DCP55 control 4.5.5 C-4.

The adaptable units also appear to be too small to cater for accessibility requirements (see PRINCIPLE 9: SOCIAL DIMENSIONS AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY).

There are several issues with the car park that need to be addressed. Depending on whether the site measures less than or greater than a 400 metre walk to Roseville train station, the car park may be providing additional car spaces under LEP194 clause 25J(2)(a). If it is less than 400 metres, a reduction in car parking numbers is encouraged to assist manage the built form outcome on this difficult site (although it is noted there is no maximum number for car parking spaces set).

The distribution of disabled spaces in the car park does not correspond with the location of the adaptable units which are all in Building A. These should be reallocated. Visitor spaces are provided under Building A, however there does not appear to be a pedestrian path to reach the lift of Building B which is a safety issue. Similarly, the Building A lift opens straight into the traffic aisle. A safe waiting and exiting space should be provided in front of the lift doors. The u-turn under Building B is awkward, and whilst perhaps achieving turning circles, should be referred to Council's Traffic Engineer for comment.

The garbage room appears to be too small to accommodate the necessary number of bins in accordance with DCP55 control 4.8.3 C-2 and there does not appear to be a space for the garbage truck to stand while collecting the bins within the property. Collecting bins from the street kerb, as proposed, is not considered to be an acceptable solution. No space for a removalist vehicle appears to have been provided either.

The small stairs to the sprinkler hydrant/pump room should be incorporated within the building as they are obstructive and built within a ROW. Similarly, the fire stairs to the west of Building A should occur within the building footprint rather than encroaching on the 6 metre building setback. Also, with a small bit of reconfiguration, the fire stairs to the west of Building B basement could be incorporated (but separated) within the core of Stair 2.

Building B sits low in the ground, requiring substantial excavation. It is considered that this building would benefit from being raised slightly and that this appears possible within the height controls. This would improve the amenity of ground floor units B101 and B102. It is unclear how the land is retained at this point, the architectural and landscape plans do not appear to match, however it is noted that DCP55 control 4.8.2 C-3(ii) states that the 'Natural ground level is to be maintained within 2 metres of a side and rear boundary.'

The entry to Building B also requires further consideration. DCP55 controls 2.1.3 E-7, 2.1.3 E-8 and 4.6 C-4 all call for clear building entries that are identifiable from the street. Some built form acknowledgement of the address to Building B should occur at the street edge, possibly integrated with letterboxes. The entry pathway itself could be improved by some treatment to the blank car park wall under Building A and the car park vents along the western wall of the ramp (see drawing A108-A). The path is circuitous and it is considered that a beeline will be taken to the front door by some. This might be addressed in the landscape design. Building B and its ground floor units should be shown with front doors.

The relationship of windows and balconies between A102 and A103 (and typical apartments above) is unacceptable in terms of both privacy and fire separation and should be resolved. Spandrel separation between the windows should be also be checked. The single window to A102 bedroom 2 (and typicals over) located in the re-entrant corner is mean and should be improved. Unit B501 might consider including a small foyer outside the lift for increased safety.

No roof plan appears to have been submitted. This should be addressed.

PRINCIPLE 4: DENSITY

Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents). Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

The FSR is stated to be 1.16:1 and is acceptable at 89% of maximum allowable if the applicable maximum FSR were 1.3:1, however no GFA/FSR diagrams appear to have been submitted which verify this. This should be addressed. The area of the ROW should not be included in the site area for this calculation.

PRINCIPLE 5: RESOURCE, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY

Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including construction. Sustainability is integral to the design process. Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.

The building depth is slightly over 18 metres but is generally acceptable because of the small building footprint with five units per floor and a high proportion of corner apartments. However, all circulation spaces above the ground floor have been internalised and do not comply with DCP55 control 4.5.1 C-3 'Entry lobbies and common corridors should be naturally lit and ventilated.' This should be addressed as 50% of energy consumption in apartment buildings come from common areas with circulation being the second biggest user after car parks. This could be achieved by keeping the ground floor plan arrangement at upper levels. Also, only 4 of 58 (7%) of bathrooms are shown with windows, however there are another 16 bathrooms with positions on external walls which could all have a window. Windows should be incorporated in these.

PRINCIPLE 6: LANDSCAPE

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain. Landscape design builds on the site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways. It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values. It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character. Landscape design should optimise usability, privacy and social opportunity, equitable access and respect for neighbour’s amenity, and provide for practical establishment and long term management.

The physical constraint to which the design most strongly responds is the presence of five trees from the Blue Gum High Forest community. The scheme proposes to retain two centrally located trees (T20 and T22) whilst removing three trees on the slope to the north (T6, T10 and T17) on the basis of their Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) rating. The arborist report categorises T20 and T22 as SULE 1 'Long, Life span greater than 40 years' whilst T6, T10 and T17 are SULE 4 'Remove, Should be removed within 5 years.' Considering the proposal on this criteria alone, the design is a reasonable urban design response to the constraint in line with DCP55 control 3.3 C-1 'Medium density development should be responsive to the topography and be designed around existing significant trees and vegetation' assuming that T6, T10 and T17 be removed. It is noted that this site planning option was 'among the many considered' (SoEE p24), it would have been useful to have had the alternatives presented as part of the DA. In spite of this, it is strongly acknowledged that the trees can be valued in ways other than a SULE rating, and the importance of these trees is best assessed by Council's landscape and ecology specialists. This urban design assessment should defer to their findings in this regard. This is a primary threshold issue.

The intention to retain T20 and T22 in the centre of the site has the consequence that the proposed car park ramps must then occur in the side setback zone to avoid the tree roots. This does not comply with setback controls, nor with DCP55 control 4.1 C-3 'Driveways shall not be located in side setbacks as these areas are to consist of deep soil landscaping. However, in this instance, and given the disposition of surrounding buildings, the retention of two existing mature 30 metres tall Sydney Blue Gums is considered to be superior compared to provision of new trees along the boundary. The nature of the stepped platform landscape over the ramp is not well described though and more design detail is requested on this aspect, particularly in regarding its relationship to the neighbouring properties. This solution may not be acceptable.

Building A does not have direct access to any usable communal open space on site without leaving the site and re entering from the street. This is not acceptable. Access should be made at the ground floor to allow passage through to the centre of the site. Ground floor courtyards are not provided (where close to the natural ground line) as required by DCP 4.5.5 C-1 'Ground level apartments shall have a terrace or private courtyard with a minimum area of 25m².' The landscape plan 188.11/348 shows courtyards to the north of Building B, but these do not appear on the architecturals (see also PRINCIPLE 3: BUILT FORM). Additionally, A101 and A105 could be provided with courtyards in the front setback.

The Pre DA minutes note the presence of an easement over 3 Corona Avenue, but the status of this easement does not appear to be addressed in the submission.

PRINCIPLE 7: AMENITY

Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development. Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

Cross ventilation is compliant with 31 of 31 (100%) of units achieving cross ventilation, however Unit A103 and typicals over may have to be adjusted in light of privacy and fire separation (see PRINCIPLE 3: BUILT FORM), leaving 27 of 31 (87%) of apartments cross ventilated. This is a good result.

25 of 31 (80%) apartments are claimed to have 3 hours sun min midwinter, however insufficient documentation has been provided to verify this figure. The shadow diagrams provided (A116-A - A118A) do not clearly show the shadows and it appears that the context is incorrectly modelled, in particular the apartment building at 26A Pacific Highway to the north of the site. This should be addressed. A true 'sun's eye view' drawings or elevational drawings are suggested to graphically demonstrate sun access accompanied by results of each unit in a table format. It appears that at least A101 and A105 (and typicals over) do not receive 3 hours of sun to living spaces. The living space of A502 appear to be overshadowed by its balcony roof. Also, units B101 and B102 have questionable sunlight access given the topography and the northern neighbour. Including these units would mean that only 20 of 31 (65%) of units have adequate sunlight. This would be less than the 70% required and should be verified.

Units A102 and A103 are too deep, being more than 8 metres to the back of the kitchen. This can be rectified by incorporating windows as per the apartments above. Also, only 4 of 31 (13%) of units have kitchens with an external window. This does not satisfy the RFDC requirement of 25% (p87). However, several of the kitchens are located on external walls and could easily incorporate a window. This figure could comply at 10 of 31 (32%).

Further consideration should be given to bedrooms and balconies that are located over the driveway and garage entry with regards to DCP55 control 4.5.3 C-3

The corridor for Building B does not comply with DCP55 control 4.5.4 C-5 being less than 1800mm wide at lift.

PRINCIPLE 8: SAFETY AND SECURITY

Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain. This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

The entry to Building B needs to be identifiable in the street (see PRINCIPLE 3: BUILT FORM). Otherwise, access is straightforward and the communal open spaces are well overlooked by apartments.

PRINCIPLE 9: SOCIAL DIMENSIONS AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Good designs respond to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities. New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community. New developments should address housing affordability by optimising the provision of economic housing choices and providing a mix of housing types to cater for different budgets and housing needs.

A good mix of units are provided with 7 of 31 (22%) units being 3 bedroom.

Building A is not accessible from the street. Five stairs are shown to the front door of the building. The access report (p5) describes a 'turn back ramp' that is not visible on the drawings. This should be addressed. The access report (p6) also states that a 1400x1600 clear internal lift dimension is required. As the lift shafts scale at 1600x1600, this does not appear to be possible and could potentially impact apartment and car park planning. This should be addressed. Other accessibility issues include access to the garbage room (particularly from Building B); and letterboxes.

The adaptable apartment layout does not comply with AS4299: the bedroom is too small and requires 1540mm at the foot of the bed; there is inadequate space in front of the laundry which requires 1550mm clearance; the bathroom basin encroaches on the clearance for the pan; and the circulation area is encroached on by the kitchen bench. The adapted plan also unnecessarily switches the location of the laundry. This should be addressed.

21 of 31 (68%) apartments are visitable with 1250mm provided clear of the front of the toilet pan as required by AS4299 referencing AS1428.2 Clauses 24.3 and 6.2. This is marginally less than the 70% required by DCP55 control 4.7 C-3 and should be addressed.

PRINCIPLE 10: AESTHETICS

Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development. Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.

The building is not sufficiently articulated. The use of vertical blades and 'applied frames' is not considered to be sufficient to 'break up' the appearance of the building. DCP55 control 4.4 C-2 states 'No single wall plane shall exceed 81m² in area (Figure 6)'. Figure 6 shows a minimum of 600mm depth is required. Additional design detail is required to address this issue, particularly the east and west elevations of Building A.

The material selection is generally agreeable, however, given the sites location within Urban Conservation Area 4 – West Roseville, it would be ideal if the material selection was drawn from neighbouring properties within the UCA as per DCP55 controls 4.3. The justification of material selection through photos would be beneficial.

The northern elevations of Buildings A and B are too 'open' with overuse of glass balustrades. DCP55 control 4.5.5 C-7 states 'Design balustrades and screens to provide visual and acoustic privacy for residents where appropriate.' Some additional solidity in this regard would be an improvement.

No fencing details have been provided.

The location of air conditioning units has not been nominated.

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS

This proposal should not be approved in its present form. The proposal for this difficult site hinges on the removal of Blue Gum High Forest trees T6, T10 and T17. This is a threshold issue for Council’s landscape and ecology experts to consider. If the removal of these trees is found to be acceptable, then the approach to the scheme is reasonable in urban design terms. The key non-compliances then are: height; side setbacks; and percentage of top storey floor space. Many of the issues highlighted in the Pre-DA have not been addressed or responded to. Documentation on many of these points is incomplete.

The proposal is non-compliant on points of: upper level setbacks; unit sizes; balcony sizes; storage in apartments; internalised circulation spaces; accessibility of Building A; adaptable apartment layout; deep units; corridor width in Building B; and visitable units. Further design consideration should be given to: the pedestrian path to Building B core in car park; height out of ground of Building B; entry from street for Building B; re-entrant corner in Building A; landscape over car park ramp; access to communal open space from Building A; distribution of disabled car spaces; lift in car park in Building A; garbage room size; garbage/removalist vehicle; stairs in Right Of Way; fire stairs in western side setback; retaining wall to north portion of site; windows to bathrooms and kitchens; ground floor courtyards; balconies and bedrooms over driveway and garage; articulation; fence details; glass balustrades; and location of air conditioning units.

Verification is required for the following: site area (includes Right Of Way); solar access; GFA/FSR; building footprint; additional parking; spandrel separation; deep soil; and the easement.”

The site area does not include the right of way, pursuant to Clause 25A of Part IIIA of the KPSO which relates to land zoned Residential 2(d3) and Residential 2(c2). The right of way is zoned Residential 2(d) and is not subject to these provisions and cannot be relied upon for the calculation of site area, floor space and setbacks.

The site does not benefit from Clause 25K which enables a concessional storey.

In respect of the setbacks, at Council in its Pre DA advice wrote the following:

The proposal is non compliant with the required setbacks. It is considered reasonable for variation to be provided to the front setback given the existing established streetscape setbacks. However, concern is held regarding the non complying side and rear setbacks. There is concern regarding the significant non compliances and that an acceptable landscape outcome will not be provided on site. The setbacks and deep soil landscape area are important elements in achieving a proposal which is consistent with the objectives of LEP 194. A key element requirement is for landscaping within setbacks to screen the built form and be in scale with the development. The basement provides a significant inhabitant to this objective being achieved.

In respect of the zone interface of Clause 25L:

The provisions of cl.25L require that the third and fourth floor levels to be setback a minimum 9 metres from each boundary with a different zone. Clause 25L states:

The underlying objective of this clause is to provide a physical transition in scale and visual bulk between multi-unit development (5 storeys) and lower density residential development when viewed from surrounding areas and the streetscape.

The site is adjoined by properties zoned 2(d) to the north-east and east of the site and therefore a setback of 9m is required at the third and fourth storey of the development. The proposal is not stepped back at the third and fourth storeys and will therefore need to be supported by an objection made pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards. The objective of this standard is identified in 25L(1) and the proposal should be consistent with the landscaping requirement of 25L(3). The proposal does not comply with the minimum side setback requirement at ground floor of 6 metres along the eastern elevation which will mean providing the landscaping required by 25L(3) may be difficult and would necessitate further design consideration.

Heritage

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser who provided the following comments:

“Heritage status

The site does not contain any heritage items. The houses at No’s 1 – 3 Corona Avenue are located within a National Trust UCA No 4 – West Roseville. The UCA is a relatively broad area including most of the west side of Roseville from the Railway line including the Pacific Highway, Corona Avenue and the boundary with Willoughby Council. The rezoned sites are UCAs under the DCP and have statutory weight. A description of the UCA and statement of significance is contained in DCP 55.

The site is not within the immediate vicinity of a heritage item in the Ku-ring-gai area. There is an item at No 1 MacLaurin Parade which is some distance from the site. There are several heritage items in Findlay Avenue, located in the Willoughby Council area. Part of Findlay Avenue is included in Willoughby as a HCA.

Demolition of existing houses

Although the existing houses are reasonable examples from the Inter War period, they are not identified as having heritage significance. On this basis, demolition of the existing houses would raise no heritage objections.

Proposed development

The proposed development is two separate buildings with a treed garden area located between the two blocks set over basement parking with a basement driveway link on the eastern side of the site.

DCP 55

Council has prepared specific design objectives and design controls for medium density development within a UCA. Chapter 3.4 of DCP 55 applies.

Heritage impact statement (HIS)

The applicant has not submitted a HIS but has attempted to address the clauses in 3.4 of the DCP in a table in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE). The table suggests the proposed development complies with the clauses and refers to the SEPP 65 design comments in the SEE.

Design objectives for development within an UCA (Chapter 3.4 of DCP 55)

O – 1 New residential flat development in keeping with the identified historic and aesthetic values and character of the UCA in which it is situated.

Comment:

This is a difficult objective to reach as the medium density zoning is not consistent with the historic and aesthetic values of the UCA which is characterised by low scale residential houses in garden settings. The design of any new development should seek to minimise impacts and it is preferable for new buildings not to mimic historical forms. The important criteria to consider are character, scale, form, siting, materials and colour and detailing.

O – 2 New residential flats that respect the character of, and minimise visual impact upon, the UCA and its streetscapes through appropriate design and siting.

Comment:

The comments above are relevant to this objective and good design outcomes always assist in providing an acceptable context.

O – 3 New buildings that respect the character and setting of significant items in their vicinity as well as the predominant pattern of street plantings, gardens and landscape character.

Comment:

This site has significant planting that form a distinctive part of the existing character and environment.

Design controls for development within an UCA (Chapter 3.4 of DCP 55)

C – 1 New development should respect the predominant architectural character of the UCA and be designed with reference to it. Major issues are massing, style, roof pitch and complexity of roof shapes, proportions of doors and windows, materials and colours

Comment:

The subject site adjoins an earlier residential flat development that has a lower density zoning and recent 5 – 6 storey development in Nola Road, behind the site and recent medium density development further along Corona Avenue. The existing character of Corona Avenue is mixed and currently in transition.

C – 2 Facades well articulated to avoid long continuous facades.

Comment:

The proposed development is broken into two separate buildings and does achieve considerable articulation on the front elevations but lacks articulation on the side elevations.

C – 3 Scale and massing should be proportioned the respect and enhance character of adjacent development.

Comment:

The scale and massing is largely consistent with the density permissible under the zoning and similar to recently developed sites to the north and west. There is a scale variation to the south side of Corona Avenue which is in the Willoughby Council Area.

C – 4 Form and outline of new development to respect existing development, particularly roof forms.

Comment:

The roof form is flat with minimal articulation to the Corona Avenue elevation. The nearby sites have both pitched tiled roof forms and flat roof forms. The majority of the UCA has buildings with pitched tiled roofs. The architect’s statement states the articulated roof creates visual interest and character to the built form. Urban design comments on this aspect should be sought, but from a heritage point of view, the form and outline does not respect existing development.

C – 5 Setback should not be located forward of existing development.

Comment:

The proposed development is forward of the existing houses on the site but relates to the medium density development to the west. It does not achieve the minimum front setback required in DCP 55. The SEE indicates the reduced setback may be supported on planning grounds.

C – 6 Buildings should not be orientated across a site contrary to the existing lot pattern.

Comment:

The development replace two houses which are orientated across the site with two buildings one behind the other. This is contrary to the existing lot pattern. The visual pattern is increased due to the amount of concrete paving and right of way on the eastern side of the site.

C – 7 Development should be good contemporary design complimentary to the existing UCA.

Comment:

The development is contemporary in style and not related to the predominant Federation and Inter War style in the UCA.

C – 8 Different building materials should be chosen for external finishes and the colour range should blend with existing development

Comment:

The applicant claims that the variety of materials including brick, glass, painted elements and roofs create a distinctive building character to that of the area. That is probably a fair assessment however it results in a more distinctive building which does not assist in blending the new development into the character of the UCA.

C – 9 Colours and building textures to be complimentary to UCA

Comment:

The colours are possibly too dark. Some lighter, more earth tones would assist in providing a complimentary blend with the existing development particularly the recent flat buildings to the east.

C – 10, 11 & 12.

Front fences to be compatible with existing and neighbouring sites. If existing fences contribute to overall UCA, they should be retained. If the existing fences are unsympathetic they should be removed and replaced with more appropriate type.

Comment:

Fencing in the street is mixed. No 1 does not have a front fence and No 3 has a low brick fence. The proposal is to create a landscaped screen rather that a built fence. This is considered appropriate in the context of the streetscape.

Comments

This pocket of the UCA has a distinctive character largely as a result of the trees and landscaping. The existing trees at the rear of the site contribute strongly to the landscape character of the UCA. The building footprints would require some tree removal which would reduce the distinctive character of the precinct.

The existing car entry and right of way at the east would limit the potential for screen planting at the side boundary and affect the treed character of the UCA. The proposed hedge along the street frontage would enhance the site and provide an adequate response to the UCA.

The building has reasonable articulation on the front elevation but its setback is less that the minimum required. As this site is on the edge of the Local Government Area and is similar to the recent development to the east, this may be acceptable. The vertical articulation in terms of colours and materials does not assist in providing a complimentary relationship to the UCA and amendment is sought. Advice should also be sought from the external urban design consultant in an attempt to resolve the issue.

Conclusions and recommendations

The scheme is not supported on heritage grounds. The design would need considerable amendment to provide a complimentary relationship with the UCA which is strongly characterised by trees and landscaping.”

Statutory Provisions

Threaten Species Conservation Act 1995

The site contains remnant Blue Gum High Forest which is listed as a critically endangered ecological community pursuant to Section 6 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

The Blue Gum High Forest community comprises a canopy dominated by three Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) with one Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) and one sub-canopy tree Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet pittosporum) within the rear of the site. The understorey within the native canopy contains a mixture of exotic herbaceous species and scattered native Blue Gum High Forest grasses and herbs.

The site also contains endangered ecological habits for mobile threatened fauna species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The site contains suitable foraging resources (Eucalypts) for the Grey-headed Flying Fox a threatened species listed under both the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and under the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Pursuant to Section 94A of the Act, assessment guidelines are established which relate to the determination of whether an action is likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.

The proposal is contrary to Section 3 Objects a, b, d and f of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The proposed development will have a detrimental impact upon the Blue Gum High Forest community. The objectives of Section 3 are as follows:

(a) to conserve biological diversity and promote ecologically sustainable development

(b) to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species, populations and ecological communities and

(d) to eliminate or manage certain processes that threaten the survival or evolutionary development of threatened species, populations and ecological communities

The ecological function/processes that occur at present within the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site and locality will be further reduced as a result of the proposed development. Development of the site will further reduce the availability of foraging habitat for birds and the Grey-headed Flying-Fox which is likely to result in a decrease in ecological processes such as the dispersal of fruit, pollen, gene flow (Cross-pollination) and recruitment which contributes to the survival of the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site and locality.

(f) to encourage the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities by the adoption of measures involving co-operative management

The proposal is contrary to Section 3 Objects a, b, d and f of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The proposed development should not be approved as it will have a detrimental impact upon the Blue Gum High Forest community.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 5 Objects

The objects of this Act are:

(a) to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

(iii) the protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services,

(iv) the provision of land for public purposes,

(v) the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities, and

(vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, and

(vii) ecologically sustainable development, and

(viii) the provision and maintenance of affordable housing, and

(b) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government in the State, and

(c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment.

The proposal seeks consent to remove three of the five trees on site which form part of the remanent Blue Gum High Forest which is a critically endangered ecological community. It is considered that the proposal to result in a significant impact upon the endangered community and that the proposal is contrary to the objectives of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The development is not considered to protect the threatened species on site and is contrary to Section 5a(vi) of the Act.

Section 5a Significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats

Pursuant to Section 5(a)(1)(a)and (b) of the Act, developments must take into account in deciding whether there is likely to be significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats each of the factors listed in subsection (2) and any assessment guideline.

Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer has undertaken an assessment of the proposal in accordance with these requirements. It is concluded that the proposal is not likely to have a significant impact upon threatened fauna species microbats, Superb Fruit-dove and the Grey-headed Flying-fox. However, the proposal is considered to have a significant impact upon the Blue Gum High Forest community and the documentation provided is not considered to have been satisfactorily prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

The impact assessment provided by the applicant has concluded that the proposed development is not likely to have a significant impact upon Blue Gum High Forest. This conclusion is not supported for the following reasons:

(i) The proposal will result in further loss of Blue Gum High Forest which will have a adverse affect on the local occurrence in the immediate future, placing the community at further risk of extinction.

(ii) The proposal will remove habitat which is important to the survival of Blue Gum High Forest within the locality.

(iii) The proposal will further fragment the onsite and local patch of Blue Gum High Forest.

(iv) The proposal will further exacerbate “clearing of native vegetation” which is a Key Threatening process to Blue Gum High Forest.

The impact assessment, prepared by Keystone Ecological, does not correctly consider the factors of the assessment as set out under Section 5a part 2 factors c (i) (ii), d (ii) (iii) and (g) of the Act.

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

The impact assessment fails to consider the scientific determination for Blue Gum High Forest in undertaking the assessment and does not make an accurate assessment in accordance with the Threatened Species assessment guidelines “The assessment of significance” prepared by the Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (dated August 2007) as required by Section 5a (1)(b) of the Act.

The proposal is likely to result in a significant impact upon Blue Gum High Forest community and as such, a Species Impact Statement should be prepared. A Species Impact Statement has been requested from the applicant. The applicant has indicated an unwillingness to provide the required statement. Without the submission of such a report, Council cannot meet its statutory obligations and properly assess the application.

Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012

The Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Town Centres) 2012 was exhibited on 21 May 2012 to 18 June 2012. The development application was lodged on 22 December 2011. This was after the exhibition of the draft LEP. Under the Draft LEP the following standards are of relevance:

· The site is zoned Residential R4 which permit residential flat development

· Lot 101 within DP 881843 and Lot A within DP 337419 are subject to a maximum FSR of 1.3:1 and height of 17.5 metres

· Lot 1 within DP 1148070 is subject to a maximum FSR of 0.85:1 and height of 11.5 metres

· Lot 101 within DP 881843 and Lot A within DP 337419 are identified as an area of biodiversity significance.

The proposed development would not be consistent with aims or objectives of the Draft LEP.

Amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance to incorporate provisions for Biodiversity and Riparian land and Heritage Conservation Areas

The site is included under Draft Ku-Ring-Gai Local Environmental Plan DLEP 218 for the draft Natural Resources Biodiversity Area as shown on Map 026.

The draft LEP 218 was placed on public exhibition on 27 January 2012. The site under the draft LEP 218 is identified as containing biodiversity significance. This is consistent with Council’s assessment of the proposal against the Threaten Species Conservation Act 1995 and Section 5a of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal is unacceptable with respect of the impact upon the Sydney Blue Gum High Forest Endangered Ecological Community.

State Environmental Planning Policies

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

The provisions of SEPP 55 require consideration of the potential for a site to be contaminated. The subject site has a history of residential use and, as such, it is unlikely to contain any contamination and further investigation is not warranted in this case.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development RFDC)

SEPP65 aims to improve the design quality of residential flat buildings across NSW and provides an assessment framework, the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC), for assessing ‘good design’.

Clause 50(1A) of the EPA Regulation 2000 requires the submission of a design verification statement from the building designer at lodgement of the development application. This documentation has been submitted and is satisfactory.

The SEPP requires the assessment of any development application for residential flat development against 10 principles contained in Clauses 9-18 and Council is also required to consider the matters contained in the publication “Residential Flat Design Code”.

Pursuant to Clause 30(2) of SEPP 65 in determining a development application for a residential flat building the consent authority is to take into consideration the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC). The following table is an assessment of the proposal against the guidelines provided in the RFDC.

	*Guideline*	*Consistency with Guideline*
PART 02 SITE DESIGN
Site Configuration
Deep Soil Zones	A minimum of 25 percent of the open space area of a site should be a deep soil zone; more is desirable. Exceptions may be made in urban areas where sites are built out and there is no capacity for water infiltration. In these instances, stormwater treatment measures must be integrated with the design of the residential flat building.	YES
Open Space	The area of communal open space required should generally be at least between 25 and 30 percent of the site area. Larger sites and brown field sites may have potential for more than 30 percent.	NO Less than 30% provided
	The minimum recommended area of private open space for each apartment at ground level or similar space on a structure, such as on a podium or car park, is 25m².	NO Areas less than 25m² and not ground level
Planting on Structures	In terms of soil provision there is no minimum standard that can be applied to all situations as the requirements vary with the size of plants and trees at maturity. The following are recommended as minimum standards for a range of plant sizes: Medium trees (8 metres canopy diameter at maturity) - minimum soil volume 35 cubic metres - minimum soil depth 1 metre - approximate soil area 6 metres x 6 metres or equivalent	YES
Safety	Carry out a formal crime risk assessment for all residential developments of more than 20 new dwellings.	YES
Visual Privacy	Refer to building separation minimum standards - up to four storeys/12 metres - 12 metres between habitable rooms/balconies - 9 metres between habitable/balconies and non-habitable rooms - 6 metres between non-habitable rooms - five to eight storeys/up to 25 metres - 18 metres between habitable rooms/balconies - 13 metres between habitable rooms/balconies and non-habitable rooms - 9 metres between non-habitable rooms	NO Non compliant separation from western boundary
Pedestrian Access	Identify the access requirements from the street or car parking area to the apartment entrance.	NO Poor access within development
	Follow the accessibility standard set out in Australian Standard AS 1428 (parts 1 and 2), as a minimum. Provide barrier free access to at least 20 percent of dwellings in the development.	YES
Vehicle Access	Generally limit the width of driveways to a maximum of six metres.	YES
	Locate vehicle entries away from main pedestrian entries and on secondary frontages	YES
PART 03 BUILDING DESIGN
Building Configuration
Apartment layout	Single-aspect apartments should be limited in depth to 8 metres from a window.	YES
	The back of a kitchen should be no more than 8 metres from a window.	NO Kitchens greater than 8m from window
	The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments over 15 metres deep should be 4 metres or greater to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts.	YES
	The Affordable Housing Service suggest the following minimum apartment sizes, which can contribute to housing affordability: (apartment size is only one factor influencing affordability) - 1 bedroom apartment 50m² - 2 bedroom apartment 70m² - 3 bedroom apartment 95m²	NO 9/31 (29%) less than standard
Apartment Mix	Include a mixture of unit types for increased housing choice.	YES
Balconies	Provide primary balconies for all apartments with a minimum depth of 2 metres. Developments which seek to vary from the minimum standards must demonstrate that negative impacts from the context-noise, wind – can be satisfactorily mitigated with design solutions.	NO Balcony depths less than 2 metres
Ceiling Heights	The following recommended minimum dimensions are measured from finished floor level (FFL) to finished ceiling level (FCL). in residential flat buildings or other residential floors in mixed use buildings: in general, 2.7 metres minimum for all habitable rooms on all floors, 2.4 metres is the preferred minimum for all non-habitable rooms, however 2.25m is permitted.	YES
Ground Floor Apartments	Optimise the number of ground floor apartments with separate entries and consider requiring an appropriate percentage of accessible units. This relates to the desired streetscape and topography of the site.	NO Separate entries not provided from street
	Provide ground floor apartments with access to private open space, preferably as a terrace or garden.	YES
Internal Circulation	In general, where units are arranged off a double-loaded corridor, the number of units accessible from a single core/corridor should be limited to eight.	YES
Storage	In addition to kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes, provide accessible storage facilities at the following rates: - studio apartments 6m³ - one-bedroom apartments 6m³ - two-bedroom apartments 8m³ - three plus bedroom apartments 10m³	NO Only 6/31 (19%) provided with adequate storage
Building Amenity
Daylight Access	Living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70 percent of apartments in a development should receive a minimum of three hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm in mid winter.	NO – refer to discussion regarding adequacy of information
	Limit the number of single-aspect apartments with a southerly aspect (SW-SE) to a maximum of 10% of the total units proposed.	YES
Natural Ventilation	Building depths, which support natural ventilation typically range from 10 to 18 metres.	YES
	Sixty percent (60%) of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated.	YES 31/31 – 100%
Building Performance
Waste Management	Supply waste management plans as part of the development application submission as per the NSW Waste Board.	YES
Water Conservation	Rainwater is not to be collected from roofs coated with lead- or bitumen-based paints, or from asbestos- cement roofs. Normal guttering is sufficient for water collections provided that it is kept clear of leaves and debris.	YES

Site configuration

Open space

Ground floor apartments are not provided with the minimum 25m² of private open space. The amenity of ground floor private open space, particularly associated within Building B is considered to be poor, with extensive cut proposed which would necessitate large retaining structures. Units B101 and B102/A108 have subterranean balcony/courtyard areas with a northerly outlook to a 4 metres high retaining wall.

Visual privacy

The proposal does not achieve the spatial separation required by the RFDC being a minimum 18 metres separation above 5 storeys. Instead of a 9 metres setback from the side boundary at the upper level, the proposal provides for a 6 metres setbacks which is less than is required. It is considered particularly important to provide a compliant setback in relation to No. 5 Corona Avenue, which is yet to be developed and will be unduly burdened by the 33% shortfall in the set back proposed by the development.

The relationship of windows and balconies between Units A102 and A103 (and the typical apartments above) is also unacceptable. The proposed design results in a poor amenity for future occupants.

Pedestrian access

The proposal does not have a clear building entrance that is identifiable from the street. Concern is expressed regarding the entry path which is located adjacent to the blank carpark wall, under Building A and the car park vents along the western wall of the driveway ramp. The entry path is circuitous and requires a beeline to be taken from the front of the property to some apartments.

Building A is not accessible from the street. The submitted plans show stairs to the front door of the building. The access report refers to a ‘turn back ramp’ which is not shown on plan. The access is unclear.

Building configuration

Apartment layout

Units A102 and A103 are too deep with kitchens being more than 8 metres from the window. Only four of thirty-one (13%) of units have a kitchen with an external window. This does not satisfy the RFDC requirement (p87).

The RFDC (p69) indicates minimum apartment sizes being 50m² for 1 bedroom apartments, 70m² for 2 bedroom apartments and 95m² for 3 bedroom apartments. Nine (9) of the proposed apartments are less than the minimum required. Therefore 29% of the apartments proposed are undersized.

Balconies

The proposal includes balconies which have a depth less than 2 metres which is the minimum depth required by the RFDC. The balcony associated with unit B401 has a depth of 1.2 metres and the balcony associated with B105 has a depth of 1.6 metres.

In addition, 19 of the 31 apartments (61%) balconies scale less than 2.4 metres which is the minimum depth required under DCP 55 control 4.5.5 C-4.

Ground floor apartments

The proposal does not provide for ground floor courtyards to have a minimum area of 25m². Separate entries to the street can also be provided but are not proposed.

Storage

Storage is required to be provided to each unit in addition to kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes based on the number of bedrooms. Only six of the thirty-one units (19%) are provided with compliant storage areas. Of these, four are completely reliant upon the study to achieve compliance. The basement does include storage but it is not allocated to specific units and therefore compliance has not been demonstrated.

Building amenity

Daylight access

The application indicates that 25 out of 31 (80%) apartments receive 3 hours sun mid midwinter, however insufficient documentation has been provided to verify this figure. The shadow diagrams provided (A116-A - A118A) do not clearly show the shadows and it appears that the context is incorrectly modelled, in particular the apartment building at 26A Pacific Highway to the north of the site.

It appears that at least A101 and A105 (and typical apartments above) do not receive 3 hours of sun to living spaces. The living space of A502 appear to be overshadowed by its balcony roof. Also, units B101 and B102 have questionable sunlight access given the topography and the northern neighbour. Including these units would mean that only 20 of 31 (65%) of units have adequate sunlight. This would be less than the 70% required.

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

BASIX Certificate 409246M dated 20/12/2011 has been submitted with the application. The proposed development shown on the architectural and landscape plans is inconsistent with the BASIX Certificate. Compliance cannot be conditioned and the proposal is unsatisfactory within the requirements of SEPP BASIX.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

The applicant has lodged an objection pursuant to SEPP 1 in relation to Clauses 25I(5) Maximum number of storeys, 25I(8) Maximum number of storeys and ceiling height and 25L zone interface of the KPSO. The objections are addressed below the relevant clauses under the KPSO.

SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

Matters for consideration under SREP 2005 include biodiversity, ecology and environmental protection, public access to and scenic qualities of foreshores and waterways, maintenance of views, control of boat facilities and maintenance of a working harbour. The proposal is not in close proximity to, or within view, of a waterway or wetland and is considered satisfactory in this respect.

Local Content (LEP, KPSO, etc)

Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO)

Part IIIA Clause 25A

The development is considered to be contrary to the aims and objectives under Clause 25C and 25D of the KPSO for the following reasons:

(i) The proposal does not encourage the protection of the natural environment 25C(2)(b)

(ii) The proposal does not achieve a high quality urban design and architectural design 25C(2)(c)

(iii) The proposal does not achieve a high level of residential amenity. The proposal results in unacceptable privacy impacts, poor outdoor living and landscape design and inadequate storage provision 25C(2)(g).

(iv) The proposal does not protect existing trees, does not provide sufficient viable deep soil landscaping and tall trees within the front and rear setback 25D(2)(b)

(v) The proposal does not provide side setbacks that enable effective landscaping 25D(2)(c)

(vi) The proposal does not minimise adverse impacts of car parking on landscape character. The proposed basement necessitates the removal of three significant trees on site 25D(2)(d)

(vii) The proposal does not provide viable deep soil landscaping to maintain and improve the tree canopy on site to ensure the tree canopy is in scale with the development. The reduced front setback and scale of Building A is contrary to this objective 25D(2)(e)

(viii) The proposal does not provide adequate waste management on site 25D(2)(q)

(ix) The proposal does not provide adequate storage for all residential apartments 25D(2)(r)

compliance table
Development standard	Proposed	Complies
Site area (min): 1200m²	2259.84m²	YES
Deep soil (min): 50% (1129.92m²)	<50%	Not known As the deep soil compliance plan is not to scale it is not possible to undertake a full assessment
Street frontage (min): 30m	30.56m	YES
Number of storeys (max): 3 + top storey (maximum of 4 storeys)	6 storeys	NO
Site coverage (max): 35% (790.094m²)	30%	YES
Top floor area (max): 60% of level below	Building B 66% Building A 5^th storey 100%	NO NO
Storeys and ceiling height (max): 3 storeys and 10.3m Car parking spaces (min): 8 (visitors) 48 (residents) 56 (total)	6 storeys Building A 9.51m Building A third storey 5 storey Building B 10.4m Building B third storey 8 48 56	NO YES NO NO YES YES YES
Zone interface setback (min): 9m	0m	NO
Manageable housing (min): 10% or 4 units	4 units nominated	YES
Lift access: required if greater than three storeys	All lifts service all floors including basement levels.	YES

Clause 25I(2) Deep soil landscape area

The site is required to provide a deep soil landscape area of 1129.92m². The submitted statement of environmental effects provides differing deep soil landscape area totals being 1259m² and 1265m² indicating compliance is achieved. However, the following areas have not been excluded from the calculation:

· garden areas less than 2.0m wide (as per LEP194 definition)

· proposed retaining walls (considered a structure)

· the sewer vent, sewer pit and sewer main (considered structures). Clarification is sought as to the size of the sewer main

· the front wall (considered a structure) NB: Plans unclear as to what is proposed

· fire hydrants/booster valves etc. are not shown on plan but usually required for this scale of development (considered structures)

· paths greater than 1.0m wide (as per LEP194 definition)

· attached louvres (part of structure)

· substation (if required)

· disabled circulation spaces as recommended by the Access Review Report

· letterbox structures

As the deep soil compliance plan is not to scale it is not possible to undertake a full assessment. As a result there would likely be additional areas that are excluded from the deep soil landscape area, as per LEP194 definition.

Clause 25I(5) Maximum number of storeys

By operation of clause 25I(5) and 25I(8) of the KPSO, the maximum number of storeys permitted on the site is four. Building A is calculated to contain 6 storeys and Building B to contain 5 storeys and both breach the development standard.

The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to this standard which is assessed as follows:

whether the planning control in question is a development standard

The requirement for a maximum number of storeys for land zoned Residential 2(d3) with an area greater than 1800m² but less than 2400m² pursuant to Clause 25I(5) is 4 storeys and is a development standard.

the underlying objective or purpose behind the standard

The applicant has provided the following response in relation to identifying the underlying purpose of the standard:

“Clause 25I(5), 25I(8) seek to limit the height of building in terms of number or storeys and in metres, These development standards go to the heads of consideration clause 25I(b), subject to consideration of clause 25K steep slope sites, Clause 25K applies to the site as the result of the topography namely a steep valley that runs up (across) the centre of this site.”

It is considered that the objectives and purpose of clause 25(I) 5 are not expressly stated within that clause, however, the KPSO provides guidance in relation to the aims and objectives of the instrument in the following clauses:

Clause 25D(2): Objectives for residential zones – provides the objectives for residential zones are as follows:

· to provide rear and side setbacks to enable effective landscaping between buildings

· to minimise impacts of carparking on landscape character

· to encourage the protection of existing trees within setback areas

· to provide built upon area controls and deep soil landscaping to maintain and improve the tree canopy

· to ensure sunlight access to neighbours and occupants of new buildings

· to encourage safety and security of private development by requiring a high standard of building design and landscape design

· to ensure that adequate provision of storage is made for residential development

Clause 25I(1): Heads of consideration for consent authority - provides a consent authority must take into account the following matters:

· deep soil landscaping

· overshadowing and loss of privacy

· building separation

· adequacy of landscaping

The express objectives and heads of consideration stipulated by the instrument provide guidance in relation to determining the underlying objects or purposes of the development standards. Whilst not stated within the clause , it is considered that the underlying objective and purpose of cl25(I) 5 is to provide for an outcome whereby buildings maintain a high proportion of landscaping and do not have detrimental environmental impacts on the public domain, streetscape or neighbouring properties. Such detrimental impacts include:

· overlooking of neighbouring properties

· overshadowing of neighbouring properties

· inappropriate bulk and scale inconsistent with the character of the streetscape

It is considered that the purpose of the provision is to:

· allow for development of multi storey residential flat buildings

· provide for a high quality residential outcome within a high quality landscaped setting

· minimise detrimental impacts on neighbouring properties

The proposal is considered contrary to the objectives of the development standard for the following reasons:

(i) The proposal has a nil setback along the eastern side boundary and cannot provide landscape screening in scale with the development along the side boundary. The proposal also does not provide a compliant side setback from the western boundary.

(ii) The proposal relies upon the right of way which is not zoned Residential 2(d3) to enable an additional storey entitlement which is not permitted.

(iii) The reliance upon the right of way which establishes the level in which the site is accessed could be offset by a reduced number of residential levels above. Rather, the design includes five residential levels above, of which levels 3 and 4 are not set back 9 metres in accordance with Clause 25L and the fifth floor levels does not have a reduced floor area to minimise the bulk of the building.

(iv) The proposal removes significant trees from within the rear setback.

(v) The proposal does not demonstrate compliance with the deep soil landscape area development standard Clause 25I(2).

(vi) The development has not demonstrated compliant solar access is provided to occupants.

(vii) The proposal results in poor internal amenity for occupants with privacy, private open space deficiencies and inadequate provision of storage.

(viii) The proposal does not result in a high quality residential outcome for the site.

whether compliance with the development standard is consistent with the aims of the policy and, in particular, whether compliance with the development standard hinders the attainment of the objectives specified under Section 5(A)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The applicant has provided the following comments in relation to this consideration:

The subject site was rezoned 2(d3) under Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan No 194.

The aim of LEP 194 is “to rezone land to facilitate the development of multi-unit housing and increase housing choice.”

Given the two (2) critical site constraints being the topography (ibid, clause 25K) and the two significant Blue Gums, the design presents the only viable option (of many considered by the architects) for the development of the site.

Strict compliance with the development standards would hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act and KPSO seeking to facilitate the development of multi-unit housing and increase housing choice.

It is not considered that compliance with the development standard would hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act. The site can accommodate a residential flat building which complies with the maximum number of storeys. The provision of poor internal and external amenity which occurs through reduced apartment sizes, non compliant private open space, privacy impacts and a lack of solar access and storage is not considered to provide the intended objective of the LEP 194 in providing increased housing choice. The increased housing choice should be achieved with high quality residential design within a high quality landscaped setting.

whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

The applicant considers that it is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the case to comply with the development standard for the following reasons:

a. Context – in terms of context the proposed unit blocks would have maximum roof height of 11m AHD to 113.7m AHD (excluding lift overrun). The neighbouring buildings in the adjoining zone to the north and the east occupy elevated sites and elevated podium, overlooking the subject site and have roof height ranging between 108.29m and 113.37AHD. If the site was flat or the site was above the neighbouring sites, the change in the zone and the need to have a reduced height and increased setbacks, to transition from the height density zone to the lower density zone would be paramount.

In Billgate Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council and Anor [2005] NSWLEC61, where an RFB was proposed on a zone boundary up-hill from dwelling houses the Court refused consent, including among its reason that it would be “visually dominating of the adjoining residences…situate well below (but nonetheless well within the viewing catchment, of the development site and the proposed development).” The existing neighbouring building to the north is set on higher ground and attains 4 storeys plus a bulky pitched roof. The buildings to the east side on higher ground and on elevated podiums. In terms of the relativities in building height and the juxtaposition of the built forms relative to each other, in this context, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary.

b. Topography – clause 25K of KPSO makes specific concessions for steeply sloping sites. The site in this case has an average fall from the south east to the western centre of the site of between 12% and 35%. The site has an average fall from the north eastern to western centre of the site of 19.2% and 35%. The site is effectively the termination point of a valley running up the side of the Pacific Highway ridge from the valley floor. In this context with a steep valley that dissects the site, the concession under clause 25K of KPSO as well as the juxtaposition of the neighbouring basement and podium boundary wall to the east it is submitted that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. Applying the 3m allowance for 25% of the footprint of the north west corner of Block A (having a height of 15.9m above EGL) the maximum height at this point would be 16.4m and the external wall height to the level 4 ceiling would comply. In summary the steep site 35%, at the north west corner of Block A, is the primary (but not only) driver of the non compliance in numerical height. It should also be noted that the development standard concession in Clause 25K does not appear to have regard to the valley topography of this site. Therefore the diagrams supplied at the pre-DA stage were not of a significant benefit in the context of this site (they assume a single slope).

c. Threatened species – it is generally agreed with the consent authority that among the primary aims and objectives of KPSO is the retention of healthy Blue Gum High Forest. Two (2) 30m high Blue Gums with a canopy spread of 25m, both having a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) of “1- Long, Life span greater than 40 years” dominate the centre of the site. These trees (No.20 and 22) in the arboricultural assessment and the ecological assessment have been considered so significant that the design of the development including its footprint, orientation, setbacks have dictated the final design option (among many considered) selected by the architect. The footprint with a maximum 10% encroachment on the TPZ drives the non compliances with these development standards. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary given the design steps taken to protect these trees.

d. Vehicular access – The shared use of the existing driveway is a desirable outcome as it reduced the number of visible garage entries and improves retention of on-street parking. The use of the shared driveway specifically satisfies clause 5.1 objective O-5 and controls C-6 and C-7ii of DCP 55. However, the use of the shared driveway and access levels to new basements dictate the basement floor (existing) and ceiling levels (garbage truck access at 2.6m). The design’s sensible use of shared driveway meeting DCP objectives and controls renders compliance with the development standard unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case. Please note, design options including car lifts, stackers and other mechanical devices were considered by the Architects and dismissed as unworkable.

e. 50% Deep soil and extensive landscaping – The 6m zone setback to the north, 6m to 24m setback to the western boundary, the 6m to 9m building line and 50% deep soil provision across the site complying with allow extensive planting detailed by the landscape plan meeting the objectives of the KPSO. The broken built form (separated by trees 20 and 22) also assist in reducing the bulk of the building. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary given the design steps taken to protect the trees and provide deep soil and extensive landscaping to meet KPSO objectives.

f. Shared driveway and neighbouring basement wall to podium – Along the eastern boundary there is an existing nil setback basement wall and elevated podium overlooking the site at a full storey above ground level. The neighbouring site obtains access via right of way over the site. It is proposed to obtain access through the existing driveway and to building basement access ramps adjoining the existing nil setback.

g. Cumulative impacts of site constraints and benefit of context and deep soil – The strict application of the development standards are unreasonable and unnecessary given the cumulative effects of the site constraints and the context.

Within Building A, the upper basement carparking level (RL93.800) protrudes approximately 3.43metres above natural ground. Drawing DA102-A indicates RL93.27 at the ground level of the basement at the western most point. The vertical distance from this point to floor level of the level above is used to calculate the height.

Clause 25I(9) states:

Any storey which is exclusively used for car parking, storage or plant, or a combination of them, in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance and no part of which (including any wall or ceiling which encloses or defines the storey) is more than 1.2 metres above ground level, is not to be counted as a storey for the purposes of the Table in subclause (8).

In accordance with this definition, only the storeys used exclusively for carparking, storage and plant or a combination and not protruding more than 1.2 metres above ground level would be excluded as a storey. Consequently, basement carparking level RL93.800 is a storey. There are 5 residential storeys above RL93.800. Therefore, Building A is 6 storeys in height and does not comply with Clause 25I(5) and Clause 25I(8) of the KPSO.

The applicant seeks to rely upon Clause 25K. By operation of Clause 25I(5) and 25I(8) of the KPSO, the maximum number of storeys permitted on the site is 5. Clause 25K(a) provides a limited “storey” concession to this control for sites with a slope greater than 15%.

Clause 25K states:

Consent may be granted to a building on a site with a site slope greater than 15% that would:

(a) exceed the number of storeys controls in clause 25I (8) by only one storey for up to 25% of the building footprint, or

(b) exceed the height controls in clause 25I (8), but only for up to 3 metres for up to 25% of the building footprint, or

(c) take advantage of the concessions conferred by both paragraphs (a) and (b), but only for up to the same 25% of the building footprint.

The SEPP 1 objection and submitted site analysis has not had regard to the definition of site slope and how it is calculated. The site slope is calculated with reference to the building footprint.

Clause 25B of the KPSO describes site slope and the building footprint as meaning:

Site slope means the proportion, expressed as a percentage, of the vertical difference in levels between the highest and lowest points of the ground level at the outer edge of the building footprint of proposed development to the horizontal distance between those two same points.

Building footprint means the total maximum extent of the two dimensions area of the plan view of a building including all levels, but excluding any part of the building below ground and minor ancillary structures such as barbeques, letterboxes and pergolas.

The documentation provided by the applicant appears to calculate the site slope with reference to the level change across the entire site and not underneath the building footprint. It has not been demonstrated on the level of detail on the plans, that there is a 15% slope across the building footprint to permit the concession permitted by Clause 25K. Based upon the level of information submitted, the site slope across the building footprint is calculated to be 7% and the site would not be eligible for the height concession under Clause 25K.

The proposal has been designed to rely upon both the area and the existing RL93.71 of the existing driveway (ROW) and as a result the upper car park projects above ground to create two (2) additional storeys within Building A. The reliance upon this driveway does not render compliance with the permitted number of storeys unreasonable of itself, as it is not considered to be either limiting or a constraint. The proposal has sought to exceed the permitted scale and bulk of Building A through reliance upon the driveway. Within Building A, the proposal does not comply with the side setback and therefore cannot be provided with landscape screening, the third and fourth levels represent a 100% shortfall in the required setback of Clause 25L, the fifth storey does not have a reduced floor space as required by Clause 25I(7) and the sixth storey exceeds the requirements of Clause 25I(7). The building contains a sixth storey, but does not benefit from Clause 25K.

The development does not achieve a high level of residential amenity of design and is contrary to the objectives of the standard. Compliance with the development standard in this circumstance is therefore not considered unreasonable or unnecessary.

whether the objection is well founded

The applicant argues that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded for the following reasons:

· The objective of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non compliance with the standard. The objectives of a considered transition between the zones is achieved by a 6 m rather than 9m setback and the building heights proposed are consistent with the building heights adjoining to the north and east where neighbours occupy a higher natural and built topography (podiums). The setbacks to the west range between 6m to 24 m provision extensive separation to the west…The nature of non-habitable adjoining room uses to the east and the 12m to 14m separation to the east ensure adequate privacy between the existing residential flat buildings and the proposed RFB… The reasonableness of and necessity for the proposal are justified in meeting the objectives of the Sydney Metropolitan Plan and the draft Sub-regional dwelling targets, in particular given the sites accessibility as detailed by this Statement of Environmental Effects.

· The underlying object of purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required therefore compliance is unreasonable. The application of the development standards would thwart the reasonable development of the site for the purpose for which the site was rezoned 2(d3) under LEP 194.

· The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary,. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the particular zone. Given the existing scale, bulk and the higher topography of the existing RFB development to the North and East of the site, the question is not one of the sites being inappropriately zoned. The question is, are the adjoining sites more appropriately zoned the same as the site. There are physically no substantial zone boundary impacts in this context. The transition between the zones is sympathetic and the amenity impacts at the zone boundary reduced by the topographical context of this site and the built form context of existing neighbouring buildings. The objectives of the Act, relevant EPI and DCP cannot be reasonable achieved and would in fact be thwarted by the strict application of the development standards in this circumstance. A fully complying building could be design in a single structure on the site if the Two (2) 30m high Blue Gums with a canopy spread of 25m, both having a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) of “1- Long, Life span greater than 40 years were removed. The objection in terms of context, topography and protection of threatened species is well founded.

The objection is not considered to be well founded for the reasons detailed above. The proposal does not achieve the objectives of the standard in failing to achieve a high quality residential design within a landscape setting. The proposal’s cumulative impacts associated with reduced setbacks, height breaches and likely shortfalls in deep soil landscape area contributes to the poor amenity and building performance and it is not unreasonable to expect compliance in this circumstance.

Clause 25I(7) Limit on floor area of top storey

Clause 25I(7) of the KPSO controls the floor area of the top storey at locations ‘where’ the maximum number of storeys have been attained. The maximum number of storeys is attained at the 4^th floor (pursuant to clause 25I(8)) and at the 5^th floor (pursuant to clause 25K). The 5^th storey and those parts of the 4^th storey that are considered the “top storey” (that is those parts of the 4^th storey that do not have another storey above them) are therefore subject to clause 25I(7).

Clause 25B Definitions of the KPSO defines gross floor areas as meaning:

The sum of the areas of each floor of a building where the area of each floor is taken to be the area within the inner faces of the external enclosing walls, as measured at a height of 1,400 millimetres above each floor level, but excluding:

(a) columns, fin walls, sun control devices, awnings and any other elements, projections or works outside the general lines of the outer face of the external walls, and

(b) lift towers, cooling towers, machinery and plant rooms, and air conditioning and ventilation ducts, and

(c) ancillary car parking and any associated internal designated vehicular and pedestrian access thereto, and

(d) space for loading and unloading of goods, and

(e) internal public areas, such as arcades, atria and thoroughfares, terraces and balconies with outer walls less than 1,400 millimetres high.

The fourth storey element in Building A, to which Clause 25I(7) applies, equates to 100% of the storey immediately below. The proposal therefore breaches the development standard.

A SEPP 1 objection has not been submitted and even if all other aspects of the proposal were to be acceptable, Council would be precluded from issuing a lawful development consent for this reason alone.

Additionally, a calculation of the floor areas proposed in Building B indicate that the top storey has a floor area equivalent to 100% of the storey below and results in a non compliance with the development standard. Neither Building A or B satisfy the development standard of Clause 25I(7) of the KPSO. Also, No SEPP 1 objection has been submitted in respect of this breach.

Clause 25I(8)(a) Maximum number of storeys and ceiling height

The standard states that:

Subject to subclause (5) and clause 25(k), buildings on land to which this Part applies are not to have

(a) more storeys than the maximum number of storeys specified in Column 2 of the Table in this subclause.

(b) given the number of storeys in the building a perimeter ceiling height greater than that specified in Column 3 of that Table.

The number of storeys in a building, not including top storey with floor area reduced because of subclause (7) is 3 storeys. Building A contains 5 storeys in addition to a top storey and Building B contains 4 storeys in addition to a top storey.

The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection in respect of this breach which is assessed as follows:

whether the planning control in question is a development standard

The limit on the number of storeys in a building for land zoned Residential 2(d3) for multi unit housing being 3 plus a top storey having regard to subclause (5) and 25K of the KPSO is a development standard.

the underlying objective or purpose behind the standard

The applicant has provided the following response in relation to identifying the underlying purpose of the standard:

The objectives and purpose of cl25I(8) are not expressly stated within the clause, however the KPSO provides guidance in relation to the aims and objectives of the instrument in the following clauses:

KPSO Cl 25D(2): Objectives for residential zones – provides the objectives for residential zones are as follows:

· to provide rear and side setbacks to enable effective landscaping between buildings

· to minimise impacts of carparking on landscape character

· to provide built upon area controls and deep soil landscaping to maintain and improve the tree canopy

· to ensure sunlight access to neighbours and occupants of new dwellings

· to encourage safety in the public domain by facing windows and building entries to the street

KPSO Cl 25I(1): Heads of consideration for consent authority - provides that a consent authority must take into account the following matters:

· deep soil landscaping

· overshadowing and loss of privacy

· building separation

· adequacy of landscaping

The stated objectives and heads of consideration in the KSPO provide guidance in relation to determining the underlying objects or purpose of the development standards. Whilst not stated within the clause, it is considered that the underlying objective and purpose of cl25I(8)(a) is to provide for an outcome whereby buildings maintain a high proportion of landscaping and do not have detrimental environmental impacts on the public domain, streetscape or neighbouring properties. Such detrimental impacts include:

· overlooking of neighbouring properties

· overshadowing of neighbouring properties

· inappropriate bulk and scale inconsistent with the character of the streetscape

It is considered that the purpose of the provision is to:

· allow for development of multi storey residential flat buildings

· provide for a high quality residential outcome within a high quality landscaped setting

· minimise detrimental impacts on neighbouring properties

The proposal is considered contrary to the objectives of the development standard for the following reasons:

(i) The proposal has a nil setback along the eastern side boundary and cannot provide landscape screening in scale with the development along the side boundary.

(ii) The design has not minimised the scale of the development, particularly by reducing floor space at the top storeys.

(iii) The reliance upon the right of way which establishes the level in which the site is accessed could be offset by a reduced number of residential levels above. Rather, the design includes five residential levels above, does not provide the 9 metres setback at Levels 3 and 4 in accordance with Clause 25L and is not entitled to be five storeys due to the site area.

(iv) The proposal does not demonstrate compliance with the deep soil landscape area development standard Clause 25I(2). Deep soil landscape area and setback requirements are necessary to provide a reasonable area in which landscaping which is sufficient to screen the scale of the development can be provided.

(v) The proposal results in poor internal amenity for occupants with poor privacy and solar access, private open space deficiencies and inadequate provision of storage.

(vi) The proposal does not result in a high quality residential outcome for the site.

The applicant has advanced the following arguments in relation to this consideration:

The subject site was rezoned 2(d3) under Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan No 194.

The aim of LEP 194 is “to rezone land to facilitate the development of multi-unit housing and increase housing choice.”

It is not considered that compliance with the development standard would hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act. The site can accommodate a residential flat building which complies with the maximum number of storeys. The provision of poor internal and external amenity which occurs through reduced apartment sizes, non compliant private open space, privacy impacts and a lack of solar access and storage is not considered to achieve the intended objective of LEP 194 in providing increased housing choice. The increased housing choice should be achieved with high quality residential design and within a high quality landscaped setting.

whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

The applicant considers that it is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the case to comply with the development standard for the following reasons:

a. Context – in terms of context the proposed unit blocks would have maximum roof height of 11m AHD to 113.7m AHD (excluding lift overrun). The neighbouring buildings in the adjoining zone to the north and the east occupy elevated sites and elevated podium, overlooking the subject site and have roof height ranging between 108.29m and 113.37AHD. If the site was flat or the site was above the neighbouring sites, the change in the zone and the need to have a reduced height and increased setbacks, to transition from the height density zone to the lower density zone would be paramount.

b. Topography – clause 25K of KPSO makes specific concessions for steeply sloping sites. The site in this case has an average fall from the south east to the western centre of the site of between 12% and 35%. The site has an average fall from the north eastern to western centre of the site of 19.2% and 35%. The site is effectively the termination point of a valley running up the side of the Pacific Highway ridge from the valley floor. In this context with a steep valley that dissects the site, the concession under clause 25K of KPSO as well as the juxtaposition of the neighbouring basement and podium boundary wall to the east it is submitted that comp0liance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. Applying the 3m allowance for 25% of the footprint of the north west corner of Block A (having a height of 15.9m above EGL) the maximum height at this point would be 16.4m and the external wall height to the level 4 ceiling would comply. In summary the steep site 35%, at the north west corner of Block A, is the primary (but not only) driver of the non compliance in numerical height. It should also be noted that the development standard concession in Clause 25K does not appear to have regard to the valley topography of this site. Therefore the diagrams supplied at the pre-DA stage were not of a significant benefit in the context of this site (they assume a single slope).

c. Threatened species – it is generally agreed with the consent authority that among the primary aims and objectives of KPSO is the retention of healthy Blue Gum High Forest. Two (2) 30m high Blue Gums with a canopy spread of 25m, both having a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) of “1- Long, Life span greater than 40 years” dominate the centre of the site. These trees (No.20 and 22) in the arboricultural assessment and the ecological assessment have been considered so significant that the design of the development including its footprint, orientation, setbacks have dictated the final design option (among many considered) selected by the architect. The footprint with a maximum 10% encroachment on the TPZ drives the non compliances with these development standards. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary given the design steps taken to protect these trees.

d. Vehicular access – The shared use of the existing driveway is a desirable outcome as it reduced the number of visible garage entries and improves retention of on-street parking. The use of the shared driveway specifically satisfies clause 5.1 objective O-5 and controls C-6 and C-7ii of DCP 55. However, the use of the shared driveway and access levels to new basements dictate the basement floor (existing) and ceiling levels (garbage truck access at 2.6m). The design’s sensible use of shared driveway meeting DCP objectives and controls renders compliance with the development standard unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case. Please note, design options including car lifts, stackers and other mechanical devices were considered by the Architects and dismissed as unworkable.

e. 50% Deep soil and extensive landscaping – The 6m zone setback to the north, 6m to 24m setback to the western boundary, the 6m to 9m building line and 50% deep soil provision across the site complying with allow extensive planting detailed by the landscape plan meeting the objectives of the KPSO. The broken built form (separated by trees 20 and 22) also assist in reducing the bulk of the building. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary given the design steps taken to protect the trees and provide deep soil and extensive landscaping to meet KPSO objectives.

f. Shared driveway and neighbouring basement wall to podium – Along the eastern boundary there is an existing nil setback basement wall and elevated podium overlooking the site at a full storey above ground level. The neighbouring site obtains access via right of way over the site. It is proposed to obtain access through the existing driveway and to building basement access ramps adjoining the existing nil setback.

g. Cumulative impacts of site constraints and benefit of context and deep soil – The strict application of the development standards are unreasonable and unnecessary given the cumulative effects of the site constraints and the context.

Within Building A, the upper basement car parking level (RL93.800) protrudes approximately
3.43 metres above natural ground. Pursuant to the definition of Clause 25I(9), only the storeys used exclusively for car parking, storage and plant or a combination and not protruding more than
1.2 metres above ground level would be excluded as a storey. Consequently, the basement car parking at level RL93.800 is a storey. There are 5 residential storeys above RL93.800. Therefore, Building A is 6 storeys in height and does not comply with Clause 25I(8) of the KPSO.

The applicant seeks to rely upon Clause 25K. By operation of Clause 25I(5) and 25I(8) of the KPSO, the maximum number of storeys permitted on the site is 4. Clause 25K(a) provides a limited “storey” concession to this control for sites with a slope greater than 15%. The SEPP 1 objection and submitted site analysis has not had regard to the definition of site slope and how it is calculated. The site slope is calculated with reference to the building footprint. Based upon the information submitted, the site slope across the building footprint is calculated to be 7% and the site would not benefit from the height concession of Clause 25K.

The reliance upon the existing driveway does not render compliance with the permitted number of storeys unreasonable. The proposal exceeds the permitted scale and bulk controls relating to Building A through the retention of the driveway. Within Building A, the proposal does not comply with the side setback and therefore cannot be provided with landscape screening, the third and fourth levels represent a 100% shortfall in the required setback of Clause 25L, the fourth storey does not have a reduced floor space as required by Clause 25I(7) and the fifth storey exceeds the requirements of Clause 25I(7). The building contains a sixth storey, which is not permitted by Clause 25K.

The development does not achieve a high level of residential amenity of design and is contrary to the objectives of the standard. Therefore, the variation in this circumstance is not considered reasonable or necessary.

whether the objection is well founded

The applicant indicates the SEPP 1 objection is well founded for the following reasons:

· The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary,. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the particular zone. Given the existing scale, bulk and the higher topography of the existing RFB development to the North and East of the site, the question is not one of the site being inappropriately zoned. The question is are the adjoining sites more appropriately zoned the same as the site. There are physically no substantial zone boundary impacts in this context. The transition between the zones is sympathetic and the amenity impacts at the zone boundary reduced by the topographical context of this site and the built form context of existing neighbouring buildings. The objectives of the Act, relevant EPI and DCP cannot be reasonable achieved and would in fact be thwarted by the strict application of the development standards in this circumstance. A fully complying building could be design in a single structure on the site if the Two (2) 30m high Blue Gums with a canopy spread of 25m, both having a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) of “1- Long, Life span greater than 40 years were removed. The objection in terms of context, topography and protection of threatened species is well founded.

The objection is not considered to be well founded for the reasons detailed above. The proposal does not achieve the objectives of the standard in failing to achieve a high quality residential design within a landscape setting. The breach of the development standard is not supported due to the cumulative impacts associated with reduced setbacks, height breaches and shortfalls in landscape screening and also poor amenity and building performance. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect compliance in this circumstance.

Clause 25L zone interface

The proposal has a nil set back from Lot 1 within DP 1148070 which is zoned Residential 2(d). The development standard requires a 9 metres setback at the third and fourth storeys at the zone interface. The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection seeking variation to the development standard, which is considered below. The objection indicates a 6 metres setback is provided, this is not correct as the objection did not consider the zoning of the right of way.

whether the planning control in question is a development standard

The setback requirement at the zone interface is a development standard.

the underlying objective or purpose behind the standard

The objectives and purpose of cl25L is expressed in Clause 25L(1) which states the objectives of the clause is to provide a transition in the scale of buildings between certain zones. In addition, Clause 25D(2)(c) indicates the objective for the zone is to provide side setbacks that enables effective landscaping, tree planting between buildings, separation of buildings for privacy and views from the street to rear landscaping.

The applicant has provided the following comments in relation to whether the development is consistent with the aims of the policy and whether compliance hinders the attainment of the objectives of the Act:

The subject site was rezoned 2(d3) under Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan No 194.

The aim of LEP 194 is “to rezone land to facilitate the development of multi-unit housing and increase housing choice.”

The aim of SEPP 1 is to:

Provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

In this regard, the objectives of Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are:

(a) To encourage:

1. the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment;

2. the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.

It is concluded that the non-compliance with the development standard is inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as it is reasonable and necessary in this instance (as discussed in detail below) to comply with the requirement. In this particular circumstance, compliance with the development standard would not hinder the attainment of the objectives specified in Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

The applicant considers that it is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the case to comply with the development standard for the following reasons:

b. Topography – clause 25K of KPSO makes specific concessions for steeply sloping sites. The site in this case has an average fall from the south east to the western centre of the site of between 12% and 35%. The site has an average fall from the north eastern to western centre of the site of 19.2% and 35%. The site is effectively the termination point of a valley running up the side of the Pacific Highway ridge from the valley floor. In this context with a steep valley that dissects the site, the concession under clause 25K of KPSO as well as the juxtaposition of the neighbouring basement and podium boundary wall to the east it is submitted that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. Applying the 3m allowance for 25% of the footprint of the north west corner of Block A (having a height of 15.9m above EGL) the maximum height at this point would be 16.4m and the external wall height to the level 4 ceiling would comply. In summary the steep site 35%, at the north west corner of Block A, is the primary (but not only) driver of the non compliance in numerical height. It should also be noted that the development standard concession in Clause 25K does not appear to have regard to the valley topography of this site. Therefore the diagrams supplied at the pre-DA stage were not of a significant benefit in the context of this site (they assume a single slope).

c. Threatened Species – it is generally agreed with the consent authority that among the primary aims and objectives of KPSO is the retention of healthy Blue Gum High Forest. Two (2) 30m high Blue Gums with a canopy spread of 25m, both having a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) of “1- Long, Life span greater than 40 years” dominate the centre of the site. These trees (No.20 and 22) in the arboricultural assessment and the ecological assessment have been considered so significant that the design of the development including its footprint, orientation, setbacks have dictated the final design option (among many considered) selected by the architect. The footprint with a maximum 10% encroachment on the TPZ drives the non compliances with these development standards. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary given the design steps taken to protect these trees.

Lot 1 within DP1148070 is zoned Residential 2(d) and is the zone interface. Building A provides for a nil setback from the right of way. The standard requires a 9 metres setback at the third and fourth storeys. Building A does not comply with the 6 metres setback required by control 4.3 of DCP 55. The proposal fails to provide landscaping along the eastern boundary, adjacent to Building A in accordance with the purpose for requiring the setbacks.

Whilst, some variation to the setback could be considered reasonable, a 100% departure from the standard in this circumstance is not acceptable. In addition to the significant shortfall at the zone interface, Building A contains two additional storeys which have not be reduced in floor area or set back from the edges of the building. The result is a building which exceeds the permitted scale on the site without any landscaping along the eastern boundary to ameliorate the scale. The development is contrary to the objective of providing landscaping commensurate with the built form.

whether the objection is well founded

The applicant indicates the SEPP 1 objection is well founded for the following reasons:

· The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary,. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the particular zone. Given the existing scale, bulk and the higher topography of the existing RFB development to the North and East of the site, the question is not one of the site being inappropriately zoned. The question is are the adjoining sites more appropriately zoned the same as the site. There are physically no substantial zone boundary impacts in this context. The transition between the zones is sympathetic and the amenity impacts at the zone boundary reduced by the topographical context of this site and the built form context of existing neighbouring buildings. The objectives of the Act, relevant EPI and DCP cannot be reasonable achieved and would in fact be thwarted by the strict application of the development standards in this circumstance. A fully complying building could be design in a single structure on the site if the Two (2) 30m high Blue Gums with a canopy spread of 25m, both having a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) of “1- Long, Life span greater than 40 years were removed. The objection in terms of context, topography and protection of threatened species is well founded.

In considering the SEPP 1 objection, including the arguments put by the applicant, it is considered the objection is not well founded and the development will not achieve the underlying objectives of the control. It is also concluded strict compliance with the prescribed development standard would not unnecessarily hinder the attainment of the objectives specified by Section 5(a) (i) & (ii) of the EP&A Act, 1979. The objection has failed to demonstrate how the proposal achieves the specified objective of the standard when the proposal exceeds the permitted scale by two storeys and does not provide landscaping within the subject site to screen the built form.

Clause 25K Steep slope sites

The applicant contends, Clause 25K applies to the site as a result of the topography, namely a steep valley that runs up (across) the centre of this site. It is unclear as to why SEPP 1 objections would be lodged pursuant to Clause 25I(5) and 25I(8) if the proposal is seeking to rely upon Clause 25K.

Clause 25K states:

Consent may be granted to a building on a site with a site slope greater than 15% that would:

(d) exceed the number of storeys controls in clause 25I (8) by only one storey for up to 25% of the building footprint, or

(e) exceed the height controls in clause 25I (8), but only for up to 3 metres for up to 25% of the building footprint, or

(f) take advantage of the concessions conferred by both paragraphs (a) and (b), but only for up to the same 25% of the building footprint.

The SEPP 1 objection and submitted site analysis has not had regard to the definition of site slope and how it is calculated. The site slope is calculated with reference to the building footprint.

Clause 25B of the KPSO describes site slope and the building footprint as meaning:

The documentation provided by the applicant appears to calculate the site slope with reference to the level change across the entire site and not underneath the building footprint. It has not been demonstrated by the level of detail on the plans that there is a 15% slope across the building footprint to permit the concession permitted by Clause 25K. Based upon the level of information submitted, the site slope across the building footprint is calculated to be 7% and the site and the proposal would not benefit from the height concession of Clause 25K.

Policy Provisions (DCPs, Council policies, strategies and management plans)

Development Control Plan No. 55 - Railway/Pacific Highway Corridor & St Ives Centre

COMPLIANCE TABLE
Development control	Proposed	Complies
Part 4.1 Landscape design:
Deep soil landscaping (min)
150m²per 1000m² of site area = 369.11m²	>369.11m²	YES
No. of tall trees required (min): 8 trees Private outdoor space differentiation Up to 1.2m solid wall with at least 30% transparent component	8 trees proposed No details provided	YES Unknown
Part 4.2 Density:
Building footprint (max):
35% of total site area	35%	YES
Floor space ratio (max):
1.0:1	1.26:1	NO
Part 4.3 Setbacks:
Street boundary setback (min):
10 - 12 metres <40% of the zone occupied by building footprint)	6 - 9m from Corona Avenue 100%	NO NO
Side and rear boundary setback (min):
6m	Nil setback from eastern 6m from northern, southern and western boundaries	NO YES
Setback of ground floor courtyards to street boundary (min):
11m	6m	NO
% of total area of front setback occupied by private courtyards (max):
15%	>15%	NO
Part 4.4 Built form and articulation:
Façade articulation:
Wall plane depth >600mm	>600mm	YES
Wall plane area <81m²	>81m²	NO
Built form:
Building width < 36 metres	24.8m	YES
Balcony projection < 1.2 metres	< 1.2metres	YES
Part 4.5 Residential amenity
Solar access:
>70% of units receive 3+ hours direct sunlight in winter solstice	65%	NO
>50% of the principle common open space of the development receives 3+ hours direct sunlight in the winter solstice	The principal common open space located to the north east of the development will receive 3+ hours of direct sunlight in the winter solstice	YES
<15% of the total units are single aspect with a western orientation	<15%	YES
Visual privacy:
Separation b/w windows and balconies of a building and any neighbouring building on site or adjoining site:
Storeys 1 to 4 12 metres b/w habitable rooms	6.6m from east	NO
5th Storey 18 metres b/w habitable rooms	9m from west	NO
Internal amenity:
Habitable rooms have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres	>2.7m	YES
Non-habitable rooms have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.4m	>2.7m	YES
1-2 bedroom units have a minimum plan dimension of 3m in all bedroom	27/58(47%) non compliant	NO
3+ bedroom units have a minimum plan dimension of 3m in at least two bedrooms	27/58(47%) non compliant	NO
Single corridors: serve a maximum of 8 units 1.8m wide at lift lobbies	5 units per floor Corridor B 1.5m	YES NO
Outdoor living:
Ground floor apartments have a terrace or private courtyard greater than 25m² in area	Not close to ground and less than 25m²	NO
Balcony sizes: - 10m² – 1 bedroom unit - 12m² – 2 bedroom unit - 15m² – 3 bedroom unit NB. At least one space >10m²	16/31 (52%) do not comply with minimum	NO
primary outdoor space has a minimum dimension of 2.4m Common Open space ( 30% Of the site area Private open space adjoining common open space not to be enclosed with high solid fences	19/31 (61%) are less than 2.4m <30% No details provided	NO NO Unknown
Part 4.7 Social dimensions:
Visitable units (min):
70%	68%	NO
Housing mix:
Mix of sizes and types	4 x 1 bedroom, 20 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom	YES
Part 5 Parking and vehicular access:
Car parking (min):
48 resident spaces 8 visitor spaces 56 total spaces	48 spaces 8 spaces 56 spaces	YES YES YES

Part 4.1 Landscape design

The proposal has not provided adequate details regarding the cut and fill on the site and any necessary retaining structures including top of wall heights. No details have been provided regarding courtyard fencing.

Part 4.2 Density

The site area is less than 2400m², being 2259.84m² and the control permits a FSR of 1.0:1. The proposal has a FSR of 1.26:1 and does not comply with the control. The additional floor space is results from the additional storeys and reduced setbacks which are contrary to development standards. The additional floor space is not considered appropriate and leads to unacceptable scale in the development.

Part 4.3 Setbacks

Front setback

The proposal provides a setback of between 6 – 9 metres from Corona Avenue. The control requires a setback between 10 – 12 metres. As a result of the non complying front setback, 100% of the specified setback area contains building footprint. The proposed front setback is considered inappropriate for the following reasons:

· the setback between 6 metres and 9 metres represents a significant shortfall in the control requirement.

· the setback of 9 metres is appropriate for sites zoned Residential 2(d) where the number of storeys is limited to three storeys. The proposal provides for 6 storeys with a setback which is 50% less than what is required by the control.

· the front setback has not taken into consideration the future development of 5 Corona Avenue where a 10 – 12 metre setback is required and the future streetscape character.

· the front setback requirement corresponds with the scale of development permitted on site, the reduced setback does not provide sufficient landscaping in scale with the height of the proposal and does not provide a consistent urban form.

Side setback

The proposal has a nil setback from the eastern side boundary and does not comply with the required side setback of 6 metres from the western boundary (in part) by virtue of fire stairs. Adequate space is not provided from the eastern side boundary to enable effective landscaping and tree planting between buildings. The south-eastern corner of the site is the high point and the building has the greatest scale when viewed from Corona Avenue at this point. The building has been sited to a reduced front setback and side setback with additional floor space located at this corner of the building. The full scale of the building will not be screened by any landscaping along its eastern elevation which is contrary to the objectives of the KPSO and DCP 55.

Part 4.5.2 Residential amenity

Solar access

It appears that at least A101 and A105 (and typicals over) do not receive 3 hours of sun to living spaces. The living space of A502 appear to be overshadowed by its balcony roof. Also, units B101 and B102 have questionable sunlight access given the topography and the northern neighbour. Including these units would mean that only 20 of 31 (65%) of units have adequate sunlight. This would be less than the 70% required and would not comply.

Visual privacy

Building A is set back 6.6 metres from the adjoining property at No. 2 – 14 Pacific Highway and does not comply with the separation requirement of between 9 and 12 metres. Building A contains balconies adjacent to the right of way, with a nil setback and orientated towards the eastern boundary. The adjoining properties contain windows in the western elevation associated with bathrooms. However, the separation distance does not contain any landscaping to filter the visibility between the built form and it is considered there will be poor amenity for the future occupants of the development.

The proposal is set back 6 metres from the western boundary at the fifth storey. The proposal is required to provide a 9 metres separation from the adjoining site, in order for both sites to achieve the required spatial separation of 18 metres. The reduced setback is considered unacceptable and impacts on the development potential at No. 5 Corona Avenue which will have to respond to a reduced setback to achieve adequate separation and privacy between properties.

Internal amenity

Bedrooms are required to have minimum dimension of 3 metres excluding wardrobes by control 4.5.4 C-3. Within the proposal, 47% of bedrooms are non compliant with this requirement and results in poor amenity for the future occupants.

The lift lobby within Building B is not 1800mm as required by the control. The reduced lobby width raises concerns with accessibility and functionality. All circulation spaces above the ground floor have been internalised and do not comply with DCP55 control 4.5.1 C-3 'Entry lobbies and common corridors should be naturally lit and ventilated.'

Outdoor living

The proposed ground floor balconies are not 25m² or located close to the ground level. The proposal results in 52% of balconies being smaller than the minimum required areas. Of these balconies, 61% are less than the minimum 2.4 metres dimension.

The proposal does not provide an adequate useable area of communal open space. The only available graded and grassed area is at the front of the site which due to the reduced setback and positioning to the south of the site is not considered an adequate useable communal open space.

Building B sits low in the ground, requiring substantial excavation. There is concern particularly regarding the amenity of ground floor units B101 and B102. It is unclear how the land is retained at this point, the architectural and landscape plans do not appear to match, however it is noted that DCP55 control 4.8.2 C-3(ii) states that the 'Natural ground level is to be maintained within 2m of a side and rear boundary.'

The proposal does not achieve an acceptable outdoor amenity for occupants.

Part 4.7 Social dimensions

Visitable apartments

The adaptable apartment layout does not comply with AS4299. The bedroom is too small and requires 1540mm at the foot of the bed; there is inadequate space in front of the laundry which requires 1550mm clearance; the bathroom basin encroaches on the clearance for the pan; and the circulation area is encroached on by the kitchen bench. The adapted plan also unnecessarily switches the location of the laundry.

21 of 31 (68%) apartments are visitable with 1250mm provided clear of the front of the toilet pan as required by AS4299 referencing AS1428.2 Clauses 24.3 and 6.2. This is less than the 70% required by DCP55 control 4.7 C-3.

Part 5 Parking and vehicle access

The distribution of disabled spaces in the car park does not correspond with the location of the adaptable units which are all in Building A. These should be reallocated.

Visitor spaces are provided under Building A, however there does not appear to be a pedestrian path to reach the lift of Building B which is a safety issue. Similarly, the Building A lift opens straight into the traffic aisle. A safe waiting and exiting space should be provided in front of the lift doors.

The garbage room is too small to accommodate the necessary number of bins in accordance with DCP55 control 4.8.3 C-2 and there is not a space for the garbage truck to stand while collecting the bins within the property. Collecting bins from the street kerb as proposed is not considered to be an acceptable solution. No space for a removalist vehicle appears to have been provided either.

Development Control Plan No. 31 Access

Matters for assessment under DCP 31 have been taken into account in the assessment of this application against DCP 55 and the proposal is unsatisfactory in this regard. Several issues and inconsistencies exist between the access report and the submitted architectural plans including:

· the distribution of disabled spaces in the car park do not correspond with the location of the adaptable units which are all in Building A. These should be reallocated

· the adaptable apartment layout does not comply with AS4299

· the access report conflicts with the architectural plans in relation to access to the site

· the proposal does not provide an accessible visitable parking space

Development Control Plan No. 40 - Construction and Demolition Waste Management

Matters for assessment under DCP 40 have been taken into account in the assessment of this application against DCP 55 and the proposal is considered unsatisfactory in this regard.

Development Control Plan No. 43 - Car Parking

Matters for assessment under DCP 43 have been taken into account in the assessment of this application against DCP 55 and the proposal is considered unsatisfactory in this regard.

Development Control Plan No.47 - Water Management

Matters for consideration under DCP 47 have been taken into account in the assessment of this application against DCP 55 and the proposal is considered unsatisfactory in this regard.

Development Control Plan No. 48 – Medium Density Residential Development

Matters for consideration under DCP 48 have been taken into account in the assessment of this application. The application involves minimal work to the existing right of way in which the land is subject to DCP 48.

Section 94 Plan

The development is subject to a Section 94 Contribution, however as the application is recommended for refusal no calculation has been made.

Likely Impacts

The likely impacts of the development have been considered within this report and are deemed to be unacceptable.

Suitability of the Site

The proposal is not considered suitable for the subject site for the reasons contained within this assessment report.

Public Interest

The public interest is best served by the consistent application of the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments, and by Council ensuring that any adverse effects on the surrounding area and the environment are minimised. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant environmental planning instruments and policy provisions and is deemed to be unacceptable. On this basis, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the public interest.

Conclusion

This application has been assessed under the heads of consideration in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments and policies.

There are fundamental concerns with the proposed development. These relate to the significant impact the proposal would have on the endangered ecological community on site which results from the removal of three of the five significant trees. A Species Impact Statement is to be submitted. The proposal is contrary to the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in failing to minimise the impact upon the Blue Gum High Forest on site.

The proposal seeks to rely upon the land zoned Residential 2(d) which is an existing right of way, in order to attain five storey development on the site. Additionally, the proposal seeks to utilise the storey concession of Clause 25K due to the site slope to further increase the scale of development on the site.

The proposal is non compliant with the suite of built form development standards in the KPSO. Building A is 6 storeys in scale and Building B is five storeys which breach the standard of 4 storeys. If the site slope is measured in reference to the building footprint and the proposal would not benefit from the storey concession of Clause 25K. The applicant has submitted SEPP 1 objections to Clause 25I(5) and Clause 25I(8) which have been assessed and are not considered to be well founded. The top floor area has not been reduced in accordance with Clause 25I(7). No SEPP 1 objection has been submitted and the application cannot be lawfully approved without a SEPP 1 objection being made.

Building A does not comply with the required front or side setbacks. The proposal provides a nil setback from the zone interface in circumstance where a 9 metre setback is required. The SEPP 1 submitted with respect of Clause 25L is also not considered to be well founded. The application has failed to demonstrate how the objective of the standard is achieved by the proposal. It is considered the nil setback does not achieve the objectives of the KPSO in providing landscaping in scale with the development within the subject site.

The proposal has not been supported by a compliant BASIX Certificate. Compliance cannot be conditioned and the proposal cannot be approved. The applicant has not demonstrated a compliant deep soil landscape area is achieved on site.

Other concerns exist regarding the general design and detail of the proposal. The application exceeds FSR, has inadequate setbacks, has not demonstrated compliant solar access, the internal amenity of apartments is considered poor due to apartment and bedroom size shortfalls, inadequate balconies, inadequate storage and access arrangements. The site does not contain any useable area of communal open space and provides inadequate spatial separation from adjoining properties.

The documentation submitted in support of the proposal is inadequate, conflicting and incomplete. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

Recommendation:

That Council, as the consent authority pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, refuse to grant consent to Development Application DA0700/11 for demolition of two dwellings and construction of two residential flat buildings, basement car parking, landscaping on land at 1 – 3 Corona Avenue, Roseville for the following reasons:

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT

1. The proposal is contrary to the Section 3 Objects of the Threatened Species -Conservation Act 1995.

Particulars:

(a) The site contains remanent Blue Gum High Forest which is listed as a critically endangered ecological community pursuant to Section 6 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

(b) The proposal fails to conserve the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site. The extent of the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site will be further reduced placing Blue Gum High Forest at further risk of extinction within the site and locality and is contrary to Section 3(1)(a) of the of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

(c) The ecological function/processes that occur at present within the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site and locality will be further reduced as a result of the proposed development. Development of the site will further reduce the availability of foraging habitat for birds and the Grey-headed Flying-Fox which is likely to result in a decrease in ecological processes such as the dispersal of fruit, pollen, gene flow (Cross-pollination) and recruitment which contributes to the survival of the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site and locality. The proposal is contrary to Section 3(1)(b) and (d) of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

(d) The proposal fails to encourage the conservation of the Blue Gum High Forest community. Development of the site will result in the loss of three canopy trees which is greater than 50% of canopy trees within the site and is contrary to Section 3(1)(f) of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

2. The impact assessment prepared for the Blue Gum High Forest community is unsatisfactory. An insufficient assessment has been undertaken in accordance with Section 5a of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Area 1979.

Particulars:

(a) The impact assessment fails to demonstrate the “extent” the physical area removed and/or to the compositional components of the habitat and the degree to which is affected, this in particular reference to the local occurrence of Blue Gum High Forest community within the site.

(b) The proposal is likely to result in a significant impact upon Blue Gum High Forest community for the following reasons:

(c) • The proposal will result in further loss of Blue Gum High Forest which will have a adverse affect on the local occurrence in the immediate future placing the community at further risk of extinction.

• The proposal will remove habitat which is important to the survival of Blue Gum High Forest within the locality.

• The proposal will further fragment the onsite and local patch of Blue Gum High Forest.

• The proposal will further exacerbate the Key Threatening - Clearing of native vegetation.

(d) As the proposal results in a significant impact, a Species Impact Statement is required to be submitted.

TREE IMPACTS

3. The proposal seeks to remove significant trees on site, including Tree 6 Eucalyptus saligna and Tree 17 Eucalyptus pilularis. The tree impact of the proposed development has not been adequately assessed.

Particulars:

(a) The arboricultural Impact Assessment does not adequately assess the TPZ incursion of the proposed development or its potential impact upon Tree 20 a Eucalyptus saligna.

(b) The report does not contain the results of the aerial inspection and resistograph testing of Tree 20. The report states decay was found, but the report fails to provide the results of the resistograph testing or detail the extent of decay.

(c) The report states ‘No significant impact’ regularly, but fails to identify if there is any impact and to what extent this impact may have to the subject tree, particularly where development works encroach within the TPZ and on more than one side.

(d) The report fails to justify the removal of existing significant trees. Trees of significance that are located within the proposed building footprint should still be assessed for their ongoing viability. Given these trees are part of a critically endangered plant community justification beyond a building footprint location is required.

(e) The report fails to identify or assess development impacts to trees on neighbouring properties eg drainage easement and proposed landscape works within the TPZ.

DEEP SOIL LANDSCAPE AREA

4. The development does not demonstrate compliance with the deep soil landscape area development standard in Clause 25I(2) of the KPSO. No objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (Development Standards) has been submitted.

Particulars:

(a) The site is required to provide 1129.92m² of deep soil landscape area.

(b) The statement of environmental effects provides differing deep soil landscape area totals of 1259m² and 1265m² relying upon a deep soil compliance plan. Council has not been provided with a scale copy of this plan. The plan is insufficiently detailed to enable an accurate assessment by Council staff.

(c) The definition of 25I(2)(a) states deep soil landscaping within a minimum width of 2 metres is to be provided on the site area.

(d) The following areas would not fall within the definition for deep soil landscape area as defined in the KPSO:

· garden beds less than 2.0m wide

· proposed retaining walls

· the sewer vent, sewer pit and sewer main.

· the front wall.

· fire hydrants/booster valves which are not shown on plan.

· paths greater than 1.0m wide

· attached louvers

· substation

· disabled circulation spaces as recommended by the Access Review Report

· letter box structures

(e) The extent of the development standard breach cannot be determined as a scaled deep soil landscape plan has not been provided. Conflicting calculations have been nominated.

(f) No objection has been made pursuant to SEPP 1. The development therefore cannot be approved without compliance being demonstrated.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY BASIX (2006)

5. The BASIX Certificate submitted with the development application and the nominated commitments are inconsistent with the submitted architectural plans.

Particulars:

(a) BASIX Certificate 409246M dated 20/12/2012 has been submitted with the application.

(b) The Certificate makes numerous landscape area and low water use/indigenous plant species commitments for both private and common landscape areas.

(c) The submitted architectural and landscape plans are inconsistent with the BASIX Certificate. The inconsistencies include:

· the area of common lawn is assessed as 806m² when certificate indicates 100.98m²

· the area of common garden is assessed as 433m² when certificate indicates 1237.1m²

· the level 1 units of Block B do not have the private courtyards included in the BASIX assessment. The BASIX compliance plan indicates 15.54m² and 12.83m² for each unit. These garden areas are only accessible from the units and are at the same level as the ‘balcony’.

(d) The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy BASIX (2006) and as a valid BASIX Certificate has not been provided, the proposal cannot be approved.

BULK AND SCALE

6. Building A and B, breaches the storey control in clause 25I of the KPSO. The SEPP1 objections are not well founded.

Particulars

(a) Clause 25I(5) and 25I(8) of the KPSO limits the maximum number of storeys permitted on the site to 4.

(b) Clause 25K(a) of the KPSO provides a limited “storey” concession to this control for sites with a slope greater than 15%. On such sites, the number of storeys may be exceeded by one storey for up to 25% of the building footprint.

(c) The entire uppermost car parking level in building A is to be counted as a storey by virtue of clause 25I(9) of the KPSO. Building A is calculated to be 6 storeys in scale. Building B contains 5 storeys. The proposal therefore breaches the development standard.

(d) The SEPP 1 objections fail to demonstrate the extent of non compliance,

7. The floor area of the top storey of each of buildings A and B exceeds the floor area allowed for each such storey by Division 5 of Part IIIA of the KPSO.

Particulars

(a) Clause 25I(7) of the KPSO controls the floor area of the top storey at locations “where” the maximum number of storeys have been attained.

(b) The maximum number of storeys is attained at the 4^th floor (pursuant to clause 25I(8)) and at the 5^th floor (pursuant to clause 25K).

(c) The 5^th storey and those parts of the 4^th storey that are considered the “top storey” (that is, those parts of the 5^th storey that do not have another storey above them) are therefore subject to clause 25I(7).

(d) The floor area of the 4^th storey in each of Building A and Building B is greater than 60% of the floor immediately.

(e) The proposal is contrary to control 4.3C-9(i) which states top storeys are to be set back from the outer face of the floors below on all sides and C-9(iii) requires them to be designed in a form of set back floor space, attics and dormers, lofts and clerestories in order to minimise the appearance of the top floor as viewed from the street. The proposal is not sufficiently set back on all sides, particularly to Corona Avenue.

8. The ceiling height of building B exceeds the maximum perimeter ceiling height permitted by Division 5 of Part IIIA of the KPSO.

Particulars

(a) Clause 25I(8) limits the maximum perimeter ceiling height of the building, not including those “top storeys” that have had their floor area reduced by operation of clause 25I(7), is 10.3 metres.

(b) The maximum perimeter ceiling height of the 4^th floor at the southern most point of Building B is greater than 10.3 metres at 10.4 metres.

ZONE INTERFACE

9. The proposal results in an unacceptable zone interface and fails to satisfy the required separation distance of the development standard of Clause 25L.

Particulars:

(a) Clause 25L requires a setback of 9 metres from the zone interface at levels 3 and 4.

(b) Building A has a nil setback from the zone interface.

(c) The proposal is contrary to the objective of the standard stated in Clause 25L(3) which requires landscaping to be provided within the subject site to screen built form.

(d) The proposal is contrary to the residential objective of Clause 25D(2)(c) which requires side setbacks to provide effective landscaping in scale with development.

(e) The SEPP 1 objection is not well founded and has failed to demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the standard.

OBJECTIVES OF KU-RING-GAI PLANNING SCHEME ORDINANCE

10. The proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of Clause 25C and D of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971.

Particulars

(a) The proposal does not encourage the protection of the natural environment 25C(2)(b)

(b) The proposal does not achieve a high quality urban design and architectural design 25C(2)(c)

(c) The proposal does not achieve a high level of residential amenity. The proposal results in unacceptable privacy impacts, poor outdoor living and landscape design and inadequate storage provision 25C(2)(g).

(d) The proposal does not protect existing trees, does not provide sufficient viable deep soil landscaping and tall trees within the front and rear setback 25D(2)(b)

(e) The proposal does not provide side setbacks that enable effective landscaping 25D(2)(c)

(f) The proposal does not minimise adverse impacts of car parking on landscape character. The proposed basement necessitates the removal of three significant trees on site 25D(2)(d)

(g) The proposal does not provide viable deep soil landscaping to maintain and improve the tree canopy on site to ensure the tree canopy is in scale with the development. The reduced front setback and scale of Building A is contrary to this objective 25D(2)(e)

(h) The proposal does not provide adequate waste management on site 25D(2)(q)

(i) The proposal does not provide adequate storage for all residential apartments 25D(2)(r)

SETBACKS

11. The proposal fails to provide adequate setbacks and spatial separation in relation to adjoining properties and results in an unacceptable scale to the streetscape as required by the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 and Development Control Plan No. 55.

Particulars:

(a) The proposal does not achieve the required setback at the top floors and exceeds the permitted 60% floor space of Clause 25I(7) of the KPSO.

(b) The proposal is contrary to control 4.3C-9(i) which states top storeys are to be set back from the outer face of the floors below on all sides and C-9(iii) which requires them to be designed in a form of set back floor space, attics and dormers, lofts and clerestories in order to minimise the appearance of the top floor as viewed from the street.

(c) The proposal is not sufficiently set back on all sides, particularly to Corona Avenue and does not reduce the apparent building scale from the street.

(d) The proposal is non compliant with the requirements of control 4.5.2 C-2 and the RFDC p28 (via 59) which requires an 18 metres separation for levels 5 and above. The proposal should provide a 9 metres setback from the boundary.

(e) The proposal does not comply with the required front setback of 10 – 12 metres. The proposal provides a setback of between 6 – 9 metres. The proposal breaches the permitted number of storeys and should provide for a greater front setback to alleviate the impact upon the streetscape and be consistent with the future development of the streetscape.

(f) Building A has a nil setback from the eastern boundary. Soft landscaping cannot be provided within the setback to screen the built from and is contrary to Clause 25D(2)(c) of the KPSO.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

12. The proposal results in poor residential amenity as a result of reduced internal and external areas contrary to the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 and Development Control Plan No. 55.

Particulars:

(a) 9 of 31 (29%) of apartments are smaller than the minimum sizes recommended by the RFDC (pg 69).

(b) 27 of 58 (47%) of first and second bedrooms are less than 3m in one or both dimensions as required by control 4.5.4 C-3 of DCP 55.

(c) Inadequate storage provision in accordance with 4.5.4 C-6 of DCP 55 is provided to 25 of 31 (80%) of apartments and of the four compliant apartments, compliance is achieved using the entire study for storage.

(d) 16 of 31 (52%) of apartments have balconies with do not comply with control 4.5.5 C-2 of DCP 55 and 19 of 31 (61%) of apartments have balconies scaling less than 2.4 metres as required by control 4.5.5 C-4.

(e) The balconies of Apartments A102, A202, A302 and A402 have a nil setback from the right of way which is unacceptable amenity impact upon occupants.

(f) The amenity of ground floor apartments B101 and B102 as a result of the extensive cut associated with the private open space.

(g) The relationship of the windows and balconies between A102 and A103 and the associated typical apartments above is unacceptable in terms of visual privacy.

(h) Units A102 and A103 are too deep, being more than 8m to the back of the kitchen. This can be rectified by incorporating windows as per the apartments above. Also, only 4 of 31 (13%) of units have kitchens with an external window. This does not satisfy the RFDC requirement of 25% (p87).

(i) The corridor for Building B does not comply with DCP55 control 4.5.4 C-5 being less than 1800mm wide at lift.

(j) 25 of 31 (80%) apartments are claimed to have 3 hours sun min midwinter, however insufficient documentation has been provided to verify this figure. It is calculated only 20 of 31 (65%) of units have adequate sunlight and does not comply with the control requirements.

(k) No useable principle communal open space has been proposed as required by SEPP 65 and DCP 55.

(l) The development is contrary to the aim of Part IIIA set out in Clause 25C(2)(g) of the KPSO which requires development to achieve a high level of residential amenity in building design for the occupants of the building through solar access, acoustic control, privacy protection, natural ventilation, passive security design, outdoor living, landscape design, indoor amenity and storage provision.

SOCIAL DIMENSIONS

13. Adequate pedestrian access is not provided to the development and raises concerns regarding accessibility throughout the development being contrary to the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 and Development Control Plan No. 31 and 55.

Particulars:

(a) Building A is not accessible from the street. Five stairs are shown to the front door of the building. The access report (p5) describes a 'turn back ramp' that is not visible on the drawings.

(b) The access report (p6) also states that a 1400mm x 1600mm clear internal lift dimension is required. As the lift shafts scale at 1600mm x 1600mm, this does not appear to be possible and could potentially impact apartment and car park planning.

(c) Access to the garbage room (particularly from Building B) and letterboxes is not provided as part of the development.

(d) The adaptable apartment layout does not comply with AS4299. The bedroom is too small and requires 1540mm at the foot of the bed; there is inadequate space in front of the laundry which requires 1550mm clearance; the bathroom basin encroaches on the clearance for the pan; and the circulation area is encroached on by the kitchen bench.

(e) 21 of 31 (68%) apartments are visitable with 1250mm provided clear of the front of the toilet pan as required by AS4299 referencing AS1428.2 Clauses 24.3 and 6.2. This is less than the 70% required by DCP55 control 4.7 C-3 and should be addressed.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE

14. The proposal fails to provide for legal discharge of stormwater runoff to the public drainage system.

Particulars:

(a) The site falls away from Corona Avenue to the extent that gravity drainage of stormwater to the street drainage system is not possible.

(b) The proposed development is Type 5 under Council’s DCP 47 Water management and as such, a drainage easement over the downstream properties is required to legally discharge runoff to the public drainage system.

(c) Neither No’s 1 nor 3 Corona Avenue have been shown to have the benefit of a drainage easement over the downstream property(ies) as far as the public drainage system.

(d) Section 5.7.4 of DCP 47 outlines the procedure for obtaining a drainage easement. The applicant is to submit the written consent of the downstream property owner to grant a drainage easement, as well as a survey plan showing an indicative route for the easement and the arborist’s recommendation for pipe installation methods, as there are large trees and structures within the subject and the downstream property.

(e) The written approval of the downstream neighbour(s) to grant a drainage easement was not submitted with the application.

(f) A survey of the proposed route of the easement was not submitted with the application.

(g) A design for a new pipe within the easement was not submitted with the application.

(h) It is not clear that the site can legally drain its stormwater to the public drainage system without adversely affecting trees and structures on the subject and the downstream properties.

WATER MANAGEMENT

15. The proposal fails to provide an adequate water management system for the site. This will result in adverse impacts on occupants, downstream properties and the environment.

Particulars:

(a) The BASIX water commitments include a 60 000 litres rainwater tank.

(b) This tank is shown as a 6 metres deep tank, approximately 5 metres by 2 metres in plan area, beneath the front path. This is an impractical shape to construct and waterproof.

(c) The top water level of the rainwater tank is shown on Drawing D04/A as RL96.45 whereas the level of the path is shown as RL96.10. This is possibly a typographical error.

(d) The development requires on site detention. The site storage requirement calculated using Section 6.7.2c) of Council’s DCP 47 Water management would be 42.4 cubic metres.

(e) The on site detention volume has been calculated by taking 25% of the rainwater tank volume instead of 75% of the Site Storage Requirement, as allowed under Section 6.7.2c)iii) of DCP 47.

(f) The detention tank would be undersized by some 25 cubic metres and would more frequently overflow, causing flooding within the basement carpark, and possibly erosion to the landscaped areas of the site and uncontrolled runoff to the downstream neighbouring property(ies).

(g) The detention tank location is not consistent on the stormwater and architectural plans. The location shown on the stormwater plans could compromise the headroom available in the lower basement.

(h) The emergency overflow from the detention tank would not flow down the stairs as indicated, due to the ground level outside the fire door, but would inundate the basement.

(i) The basement pump system wet well has been designed using a 1 hour 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm, when Section A7.1.1 of DCP 47 requires a 2 hours storm to be used. This would result in a shortfall in volume of some 6 cubic metres and could lead to flooding of the basement and possibly damage to valuable items such as lifts and stored items.

(j) The arborist’s report does not reference the stormwater plans, so it is not clear that the 225mm diameter pipe and the proposed absorption trenches around the lower basement can be installed without adverse tree impacts.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

16. The proposal fails to provide satisfactory waste management and collection arrangements

Particulars:

(a) The proposed development comprises 31 units. Council’s DCP 40 requires internal waste collection where the number of units exceeds six, however no waste storage and collection area is shown on the architectural plans.

(b) The documentation seems to indicate that it is proposed that the containers for the development (16 x 240 litres garbage and 8 x 240 litres each for paper and mixed recycling) be placed on the street for collection.

(c) Collection of waste must be achieved on site and the proposal in requiring collection at the street is contrary to Council’s policy and will result in adverse impacts on the streetscape and on residential amenity.

VISITOR PARKING

17. The proposal fails to provide a visitor parking space suitable for people with disabilities.

Particulars:

(a) The development requires eight visitor parking spaces, one of which is required to be suitable for people with disabilities under Section 5.1 C-3 iv of Council’s DCP 55 Railway/Pacific Highway Corridor and St Ives Centre.

(b) This is not addressed in the Access Report, which appears to be based on earlier architectural plans. (Revision P2, not A).

(c) None of the eight visitor spaces shown are of adequate width to comply with either AS2890.1 1993, which would be 3.2 metres, or AS2890.6:2009, which would be 2.4 metres but with a 2.4 metres wide shared zone adjacent.

LANDSCAPE PLAN AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS

18. The landscape plan and vegetation management plan is considered unacceptable and further design changes are required.

Particulars:

(a) The landscape plan is to identify the management units as per the vegetation management plan

(b) All species to be planted within areas containing blue gum high forest are to be native endemics to the Blue Gum High Forest community as per the scientific determination.

(c) The landscape plan is to detail the number of individuals of each species to be planted within management area as per the amended VMP.

(d) No monocultures are to be proposed to be planted within areas containing Blue Gum High Forest.

(e) Only native Blue Gum High Forest species in accordance with the scientific determination are proposed to be planted within landscape areas of the site containing Blue Gum High Forest. Consultation between landscape architect and ecologist may be required.

(f) The proposed removal of trees 6, 11 and 17 are not supported and these trees are to be nominated for retention on the landscape plan.

(g) The area of land to be managed under the VMP is to be amended to include the following Blue Gum High Forest trees 6, 11 and 17.

(h) The VMP is to include the approximate number of shrubs and groundcovers to be planted within the Blue Gum High Forest community within each management unit.

(i) (Reference point) photo monitoring point is to be established on plans within the Blue Gum High Forest. Baseline quadrate data is to be incorporated into the VMP.

(j) The VMP is to specify the number and species type to be planted within each management unit.

19. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION

Particulars:

(a) The site is partly affected by two drainage easements. One easement is located over the proposed basement excavation.

(b) The consent of the beneficiary(ies) of the easement to either the works or the extinguishment of the easement has not been submitted.

(c) The applicant has not demonstrated that existing infrastructure within the easement would not be affected by the works.

(d) A recent to scale survey plan has not been provided.

(e) A species impact statement is to be prepared for the Blue Gum High Forest community.

(f) An amended impact assessment shall be prepared that considers the extent of the local occurrence of the onsite Blue Gum High Forest and all impacts of the proposal upon the Blue Gum High Forest community.

(g) Amendments to the vegetation management plan and landscape plan are required in accordance with the aforementioned reason for refusal.

(h) Further arboricultural assessment is required for trees 6 and 17. Further investigation/assessment is required to demonstrate that the abovementioned trees have a Safe Useful Life Expectancy of 4.

(i) The proposal be amended to address the retention of the BGHF canopy trees upon the site.

(j) A final version of the traffic impact assessment is required.

(k) An updated accessibility report is required.

Kimberley Munn

Executive Assessment Officer

Richard Kinninmont

Team Leader- Development Assessment - Central

Corrie Swanepoel

Manager Development Assessment Services

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Attachments:	A1 View	Zoning extract	2012/183859
	A2 View	Locality sketch	2012/183858
	A3 View	Site analysis	2011/291877
	A4 View	Basement plans	2012/184090
	A5 View	Floor plans	2012/184093
	A6 View	Elevations	2012/184097
	A7 View	Sections	2012/184099
	A8 View	Landscape plan	2012/184111
	A9 View	SEPP 1 objection	2012/187077

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 August 2012	GB.4 / 210

Item GB.4	DA0053/12
	9 July 2012

development application

Summary Sheet

Report title:	5 - 15 Boundary Street Roseville - Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of two residential flat buildings containing 53 units, basement parking, landscaping and associated works
ITEM/AGENDA NO:	GB.4

Application No:	DA0053/12
Property Details:	5 – 15 Boundary Street, Roseville Lot & DP No: Lot 5 in DP 13310 (5 Boundary Street), Lot 6 in DP 13310 (7 Boundary Street), Lot 7 in DP 13310 (9 Boundary Street), Lot B in DP 369651 (11 Boundary Street) and Lot 2 in DP 570659 (15 Boundary Street). Site area : 4,289m² (inclusive of all land regardless of zoning) Zoning: Residential 2(d3) and Reserved for Road Widening
Ward:	Roseville
Proposal/Purpose:	To determine Development Application DA0053/12 for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 2 residential flat buildings containing 53 units, basement parking, landscaping and associated works
Type of Consent:	Integrated
Applicant:	Do-Gild Pty Ltd
OwnerS:	Ms CH Mustaca, Ms FM Mustaca, Ms ML Mustaca, Mrs J Crino, Ms A Mustaca, Ms L Mustaca and Mr A Mustaca and Mrs HA Mustaca
Date Lodged:	29 February 2012
Recommendation:	Approval.

Purpose of Report

To determine Development Application No.0053/12, for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 2 residential flat buildings containing 53 units, basement parking, landscaping and associated works.

Council is the consent authority for development where the capital investment value (CIV) is less than $20 million and not the Joint Regional Planning Panel as was the case before July 2011.

Executive Summary

Issues: Traffic

Spatial separation

Submissions: Sixteen (16) submissions

Land & Environment Court

Appeal: No

Recommendation: Approval

History

Site

Development Application No.0525/10

27 July 2010 Development Application DA0525/10 lodged. Application proposes demolition of existing dwellings, construction of two residential flat buildings comprising 46 units, basement car parking and landscaping.

This application was lodged pursuant to the Town Centres LEP (2010) and the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel was the consent authority.

Council raised significant concerns relating urban design, heritage, BCA, traffic and construction management and insufficient information being submitted.

The RTA did not grant its concurrence and as a result, the application was withdrawn on 29 November 2010

DA History

29 February 2012 Development Application DA0053/12 lodged.

7 March – 16 April 2012 Application notified.

14 May 2012 Council raises issues with deep soil landscape area, landscape plan, BASIX certificate, engineering concerns, further information for RailCorp and RMS, amended construction management plan and urban design issues.

8 June 2012 The applicant submits amended plans and information submitted.

5 July 2012 Council request an amended BASIX Certificate.

6 July 2012 The applicant submits an amended BASIX Certificate.

13 July 2012 RailCorp issues concurrence for the application.

1 August 2012 Roads and Maritime Services issues concurrence for the application.

The Site

Site Description

The site is located to the east of the intersection of Boundary Street and Hill Street. The site is rectangular in shape, with an area of 4289m² (3567m² zoned Residential 2(d3) and 722m² subject to County Road Reservation). The site comprises the following allotments:

· Lot 5 within DP 13310 known as 5 Boundary Street contains a two storey brick dwelling with tile roof and detached garage at the rear of the property with vehicular access via a right of way.

· Lot 6 within DP 13310 known as 7 Boundary Street contains a two storey brick dwelling with tile roof and detached garage at the rear of the property with vehicular access to the right of way.

· Lot 7 within DP 13310 and is known as 9 Boundary Street contains a two storey brick dwelling with tile roof and detached garage at the rear of the property with vehicular access via a right of way.

· Lot B within DP 369651 known as 11 Boundary Street contains a single storey brick dwelling with tile roof. The property contains a large pond within the front yard and has no vehicle access.

· Lot 2 within DP 570659 known as 15 Boundary Street contains a single storey rendered brick dwelling with tile roof. The site has vehicular access from Boundary Street.

The consolidated allotment is generally rectangular in shape although the rear (northern) boundary alignment is staggered. The site has a total frontage of 96.01 metres variable depth of between 42.8 and 45.72 metres.

The front of the site measuring 722m² is ear marked for future road widening which reduces the developable area of the site to 3,567m². The site contains a number of trees the majority of which are located around its perimeter. The site has a fall of approximately 8 metres. The subject property is burdened by a right of way which runs across the rear of 5 and 7 Boundary Street providing vehicular access to these sites and a number of adjoining properties.

The site is characterised by an established landscape setting with mature trees and shrubs within formal garden beds and grassed expanses. The individual properties are in varying states of upkeep\condition, from unkempt to well maintained properties. The site is dominated by numerous trees, mostly exotic species, planted along the boundaries. No native endemic or remnant species are located on or adjacent to the site.

Surrounding Development

The site is located at the south-eastern segment of the block defined by Boundary, Spearman, Victoria and Hill Streets, which are zoned Residential 2(d3) for the most part with the exception of sites fronting Boundary Street which are partially reserved for County Road Widening.

Immediately to the west, at 3 Boundary Street is a three storey residential flat building which is a listed heritage item. Vehicular access to the heritage item is via a right of way accessed from Victoria Street. To the north, the side is adjoined by 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 Victoria Street which are occupied by one and two storey dwellings. No. 5 Victoria Street is a listed heritage item. The site is adjoined to the east by a single storey dwelling.

The locality is visually distinctive in its overall cohesiveness of high-quality, mainly single storey houses from the Federation and Inter War periods complemented by a small number of residential flat buildings.

The Proposal

The application as amended involves the following:

Demolition of the five existing dwellings and ancillary structures.

Construction of two residential flat buildings containing 53 units (7 x 1 bedroom, 42 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom), basement parking over two levels with a total of 72 car parking spaces.

Details of each floor level are as follows:

Basement 1

RL 95.50 – 98.15 11 residential car parking spaces, 15 visitors car parking spaces including 6 (1 nominated as visitor) disabled spaces, garbage storage area, 20 x bicycle parking and service vehicle space. 2 lifts, stair access, WC, accessible garbage area, separate storage for 09 -21, storage for 01 – 08 at rear of parking spaces and condensers units.

Basement 2,

RL 95.15 – 92.20 39 residential car parking spaces, 1 disabled space, 32 storage units, 2 lifts, stair access.

Building A

Ground Floor

RL 101.5 6 units (6 x 2 bedrooms including 1 adaptable unit)

First Floor

RL104.5 6 units (6 x 2 bedrooms including 1 adaptable unit)

Second Floor

RL107.5 6 units (2 x 1 bedroom including 1 adaptable unit & 4 x 2 bedrooms)

Third Floor

RL110.5 6 units (4 x 1 bedroom including 1 adaptable & 2 x 2 bedrooms)

Fourth Floor

RL113.5 2 units (2 x 3 bedrooms)

Building B

Ground Floor

RL98.5 6 units (6 x 2 bedrooms)

First Floor

RL 101.5 6 units (6 x 2 bedrooms including 1 adaptable)

Second Floor

RL 103.5 6 units (6 x 2 bedrooms including 1 adaptable)

Third Floor

RL 107.5 6 units (6 x 2 bedrooms)

Fourth Floor

RL 110.5 3 units (1 x 2 bedrooms & 2 x 3 bedrooms)

Vehicular access to the basement car park area is from Boundary Street via an entry/exit driveway ramp located on the eastern boundary of the site. A central pedestrian entrance is located centrally within the site and provides separate access to both Building A and B.

Consultation

Community

In accordance with Council's Notification DCP, owners of adjoining properties were given notice of the application on 16 March 2012. In response, Council received sixteen (16) submissions from:

1. JH Drabble 18 Boundary Street, Roseville

2. Kyle Seto and Lin Li Lim (3) 7/3 Boundary Street, Roseville

3. Sharon Richards Victoria Street, Roseville

4. Gladys Berejiklian MP 18 Boundary Street, Roseville

5. Jade Petitat 10/3 Boundary Street, Roseville

6. Margaret Haines 7 Victoria Street, Roseville

7. Julianna and George Gluck (2) 9 Victoria Street, Roseville

8. Vivienne Fries 11 Victoria Street, Roseville

9. Suranga Wanasundera & Michelle Box 4/3 Boundary Street, Roseville

10. Anne Carpenter 5/3 Boundary Street, Roseville

11. Dominic and Katie Bishop 2/3 Boundary Street, Roseville

12. Mr and Mrs Hayes 5 Victoria Street, Roseville

13. Laurence Priddle (2) 3 Victoria Street, Roseville

14. Dawbin Architects 11 Victoria Street, Roseville

15. Mr & Mrs Currie 23 Victoria Street, Roseville

16. Ian RP White 56 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

The submissions raised the following issues:

The 6 metre setback from Victoria Street properties will result in loss of privacy and amenity and possible structure damage to these properties.

The proposal complies with the required rear setback of 6 metres and provides for an increased setback at the top storeys to 9 metres consistent with the control provisions. The proposal does not result in an adverse loss of privacy or amenity to the properties fronting Victoria Road.

Condition 13 requires dilapidation reports to be prepared for surrounding properties prior to the commencement of works.

Traffic impacts upon Boundary Street, Hill Street and the Archer Street intersection

The site access point is east of both the Archer Street and Hill Street intersections, and residents of the development will be restricted to left turn in and out. The impact on traffic flows in Hill Street or Archer Street and the increase in traffic in Boundary Street due to the development will be negligible and will constitute a small percentage of the overall traffic flow. Roads and Maritime Services has raised no objections to the development on the basis of increased traffic flow.

The construction work will result in traffic congestion

Traffic impacts during the construction phase will be managed in a construction management plan. Conditions of consent required by Roads and Maritime Services prohibit construction vehicle movements to and from the site during the morning and afternoon peak periods as well as School Zone periods (Condition 15).

The traffic report does not discuss the closure of Hill Street or the widening of Boundary Street and the additional traffic impact which will result

The closure of Hill Street will have no material effect on the development or other properties in this section of Boundary Street. Access to Boundary Street is left in/ left out only, and vehicles travelling to the site from, say, Roseville shops east of the railway line, will be redistributed via other streets to Pacific Highway, noting that the site will only generate in the order of 1 vehicle movement per 3 to 5 minutes during peak periods.

The traffic report underestimates the additional vehicular movements associated with the development

The applicant’s traffic report used a peak hour traffic generation rate of 0.29 vehicle trips per peak hour per unit to calculate a net traffic generation of 12 vehicle trips per peak hour, or 1 vehicle movement every 5 minutes. This is the rate given in the RTA (now Roads and Maritime Services) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments for high density developments (specified as a multi-level building containing 20 or more dwellings in a metropolitan sub-regional centre). The rate for larger units in a medium density residential flat building is approximately 0.5 vehicle trips per peak hour per unit, which leads to a net traffic generation of 22 vehicle trips per peak hour, or 1 vehicle movement every 3 minutes. The difference is not significant given the existing traffic flows in Boundary Street and has not been raised by Roads and Maritime Services in providing their concurrence for the development.

There is a conflict of interest in the RTA previously owning 15 Boundary Street and now being a consent authority

Council is the consent authority and pursuant to Clause 104 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and Section 138 of the Roads Act concurrence is required from the Roads and Maritime Services for the proposed development, regardless of their previous ownership of 15 Boundary Street. The concurrence has been issued by RMS for the proposed development.

Loss of sunlight to units 2, 3,6, 10 and 7/3 Boundary Street

The proposal results in an additional shadow impact at 9am to the heritage item. The additional shadow impact affects the north-eastern apartments and the additional shadow impact occurs to the bedroom and bathroom. These are not primary living areas, with the bathroom not being a habitable room.

The heritage property is not overshadowed between 12 noon or 3 pm by the proposed development.

The proposal will result in an increased shadow at 9am, affecting the side entrance of the heritage building. As the shadow moves through out the morning, the south-eastern apartments will be affected between 9am and 12 noon. The submissions indicate sunlight is achieved to the living areas through the kitchen windows. The living rooms do not have a direct window within the external elevation. The submissions indicate that sunlight is attained between 9am – 11am. This is contrary to solar access diagrams and the officer’s assessment. In June, the windows do not receive solar access at 9am. Sunlight is received later in the morning period.

The proposal results in additional sunlight being available to the south-eastern apartments of the heritage building with a reduction in shadow impact particularly at 12 noon. This occurs as a result of the increased side setback the residential flat building provides as opposed to the existing dwelling which is sited closer to the shared boundary.

Clause 4.5.1 of DCP 55 C-6 states development shall allow for the retention of at least 3 hours of sunlight between 9:00am and 3:00pm on June 21 to the habitable rooms and the principal portion of the outdoor living area of adjoining houses in single house zones (2(c1) and 2(c2) zones). The adjoining property is zoned Residential 2(a).

The proposal would satisfy the control requirements due to the zoning of the heritage building. Notwithstanding, the proposal does result in an increased shadow impact after 9am, with the biggest impact occurring at 10am. However, the resultant shadow impact occurs from a development which is compliant with setbacks and height and consistent with the zoning of the site. The proposal also results in a reduced shadow impact between 11am and 12 noon.

Loss of privacy to units 2, 3,6, 10 and 7/3 Boundary Street

The proposal will not result in an unreasonable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties as it provides compliant side setbacks and landscape screening within the side and rear setbacks.

Additional community problems such as crime as result of increased population

The site is zoned for multi residential dwellings. There is no evidence to demonstrate this development will result in additional crime in the locality.

Loss of trees including Tree 50

The development proposes the removal of all existing trees and vegetation on site. The most significant tree to be removed is Tree 50, a mature Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum), located within the rear setback. The following comments have been made with respect of Tree 50 by Council’s Senior Landscape Assessment Officer:

Tree 50, Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) is the dominant tree on site, and considered significant within the broader landscape setting, providing landscape amenity to the site and surrounding properties. The tree is in good health and condition with a long SULE greater than 40 years. The trees location centrally within the existing rear setback, conflicts with the proposed development, and given its current size and canopy spread effectively sterilises a large portion of the site from development if retained. The tree while native is not endemic, and has been planted by previous land owners. The tree’s location is within the numeric building setback controls, and its retention would require a significant design change. While its retention is preferred, its removal due to other site constraints can be supported.

All other trees proposed for removal have either low or moderate landscape significance being small in size, exempt or weed species (under council’s TPO). Subject to tree replenishment being undertaken across the site to reinstate and enhance landscape amenity, the tree removal is acceptable.

The set back from the heritage item is unacceptable and dwarfs the item

The proposal provides a compliant side setback and zone interface setback from the heritage item at 3 Boundary Street.

The scale of the development is consistent with that permissible under the zoning and the increased setback at Levels 3 and 4 is consistent with the zone interface objectives of the KPSO. The proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard.

The proposal is not sympathetic to the architectural style of the locality

The amended proposal provides stone cladding to the ground and first floors of the building consistent with the recommendations of Council’s Urban Designer and Heritage Adviser in providing a stronger base to the buildings. The proposal utilises a variety of materials which are represented elsewhere in the locality.

Invalid application as the applicant and ABN do not match

An incorrect ABN was quoted on the application form but the correct ABN was subsequently submitted to Council. This error does not invalidate the application as the applicant was correctly identified on the notification letters and on the application form as Do-Gild Pty Ltd.

No specific subsurface geotechnical measurements have been performed at the site and the entire Geotechnical Assessment letter is of little value

Further investigation will be required following demolition and before commencement of bulk excavation, so that recommendations for excavation methods and support, dilapidation survey of adjoining properties and vibration monitoring can be finalised. This is required by Conditions 14, 28, 74 and 75.

The proposal does not comply with deep soil landscape area in accordance with the definition

During the assessment Council raised concerns with areas included within the deep soil landscape area calculation. As a result, the applicant submitted an amended deep soil landscape calculation plan which demonstrates compliance.

DCP55 Section 4.1 Design Control C-1 requires concentration of the site area of deep soil planting to be towards the rear or middle of the site the proposal is non complaint at the rear.

The proposal provides a consolidated deep soil landscape area within the middle of the site which is consistent with the control requirement.

DCP55 Section 4.5.5 Design Control C-9 requires at least 30% of the site area is to be common open space principally for tall tree planting. The proposal amounts to 774.06 sq. m and does not comply

The site satisfies the communal open space requirements in providing 1279.88m² of common open space on site.

The plans show six-storey trees at the centre and sides of the proposed buildings. There is very little substantial screening vegetation shown at the rear of the proposed development. This is contrary to DCP55 Section 4.1 Design Control C-1 about concentration towards the rear or middle of the site.

Condition 35 requires the provision of two (2) additional trees within the rear setback. The proposal is considered acceptable subject to this requirement.

The proposal does not include provision of tall trees in front of the building

The landscape works include the planting of twenty one (21) canopy trees capable of attaining a minimum 13 metres in height, which exceeds the minimum requirements of DCP55 including the provision of canopy trees within the front setback.

Poor sight lines for driveway which will be used by 53 units

Council’s Team Leader Development Engineers considers the proposal satisfactory with respect of sight lines. Additionally, Condition 27 requires confirmation of acceptable sight lines which are not obstructed by fencing or landscaping prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The site access is impractical being located at 5 Boundary Street where there is no driveway

Vehicular access is proposed at 15 Boundary Street where there is existing vehicular access. No concerns have been raised by RMS regarding the positioning of the driveway access.

Impact on on-street carparking from the development overflow

The proposal provides 72 parking spaces, exceeding the control requirement of 71 spaces. The development provides compliant resident and visitor parking spaces.

The application proposes a change of use to the rear laneway by allowing 11 and 15 Boundary Street access

The application does not propose a change of use to the right of way, consent is not sought to amend the terms of the easement in which the allotments both benefit and are burdened by the right of way.

The areas of apartments are inadequate and do not comply

The proposal includes a mix in the housing choice in which all apartments satisfy the minimum area requirements of the Residential Flat Design Code. Additionally, the bedrooms within the apartments satisfy the DCP 55 control requirement of 4.5.4 C-3 and C-4 which requires bedrooms to have minimum plan dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space).

Loss of views from 3,5, 7, 9 Victoria Street

The existing views available from 3, 5, 7 and Victoria Street are attained across the site and are available due to the two storey scale of development. The views are district views of Chatswood. They are not considered to be significant or iconic views. The site is zoned to permit five storey residential development. It is considered an unreasonable constraint in order to maintain the existing views by limiting the height of development to two storeys. It is noted, these views will be attained if the Victoria Street properties were to development to their five storey potential as permitted in the zone.

Isolation of 3 Victoria Street

The submission indicates that due to 1 Victoria Street being substantially affected by easements associated with the railway and 5 Victoria Street being heritage listed, the proposal isolates 3 Victoria Street from being developed pursuant to its 2(d3) zoning.

The properties at 1, 3 and 5 Victoria Street are zoned Residential 2(d3) which permits residential flat development, varying in scale dependant upon site area. Similarly, under Draft LEP (Local Centres) 2012, the properties are zoned Residential R4. However, it is noted 5 Victoria Street is not listed as a heritage item under the Draft instrument.

For residential flat development a deep soil landscape area between 40 – 50% of the site area is required. Whilst, the underground easements affecting 1 Victoria Street may prevent use of this land for built structures it would not be excluded from use on a site as deep soil landscape area.

It is further noted, that no development has been proposed or consented to for the properties fronting Victoria Street and it could not be said, that 3 Victoria Street is isolated by the proposed development.

Unacceptable noise levels from demolition and construction upon children

Conditions 48, 59, 60, and 70 are recommended which regulates construction noise levels and hours of work.

The proposal contravenes the right of way

The proposal does not contravene the right of way. Amended plans were lodged which deleted landscaping works initially proposed on the right of way. Further, Condition 35 of consent requires a rear boundary fence to be erected and prevents the addition of gates.

Unsatisfactory heritage impact report and consideration of heritage items in the applicant’s statement of environmental effects

The assessment provided by the applicant has been considered by Council’s Heritage Adviser who has not raised any issues with the proposal on heritage grounds or the supporting information.

Does not comply with the minimum setback requirements for heritage items

The proposal complies with the minimum side setback and zone interface setbacks. The proposal is non compliant with the spatial separation requirements in relation to the heritage item. The proposal is considered acceptable on merit in regards to this issue and this aspect is also discussed in the body of this report.

Inadequate screening and landscaping

Council’s Senior Landscape Assessment Officer assessed the application and considers the proposed landscaping and screening satisfactory subject to conditions.

Redevelopment should include Victoria Street properties which would address access and topography issues

The site complies with the minimum site area and street frontage standards to facilitate a residential flat building and does not need to rely on the Victoria Street properties to be developed.

Proposal will restrict development opportunity of Victoria Street properties due to shadow impacts

The proposal is not considered to restrict the development potential of Victoria Street properties. The proposed development is compliant with setbacks, height and with only minor variations to visual separation. As no development application has been lodged on the adjoining sites, an assessment cannot be undertaken of a potential future development application and subsequent impacts.

Height and massing of the buildings introduces unprecedented scale of development in the locality

The site is zoned for multi-unit housing development to a scale of five storeys. The proposal is consistent with the development standards for the zoning. The scale and height is consistent with the approved development at 27 – 33 Boundary Street currently under construction. This scale of development is the desired future character of the area envisaged by the current zoning and the proposal zonings under the Draft LEP (Local Centres) 2012.

Significant privacy impacts upon 11 Victoria Street from upper levels and balconies

The proposal will not result in a significant loss of visual privacy to 11 Victoria Street. The top storey is set back and contains planter boxes for screening around the terraces. The existing swimming pool at 11 Victoria Street is located approximately 1.5 metres from the shared boundary and it is recommended that horizontal privacy lourves to a height of 1.5 metres be provided to units 36, 37, 48, 49, 53 to prevent downward looking (Condition 34).

The proposed development is located unacceptably close to the rear boundary

The proposal complies with the rear setback requirement of 6 metres and is considered acceptable.

The proposal plans to replace the current private laneway at the rear of the property with a public thoroughfare

The proposal does not propose any works to the existing right of way. The sites are required to be consolidated (Condition 21) prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. This may have implications for the terms of the easement, only in so far as Lots 5, 6 and 7 within DP 13310 will no longer exist. The development itself does not rely upon the right of way for vehicular of pedestrian access. The landscape plan shows pedestrian access is maintained from Building A, however Condition 35 requires a fence to be provided along the rear boundary and gate access restricted.

Lack of adequate parking will diminish the value of supporting properties

The proposal complies with the minimum number of parking spaces for residents and visitors.

The increase in residents using the pathway to Chatswood will result in a loss of privacy to 3 Boundary Street.

The footpath is a public pathway which any member of the public is entitled to use. Residents of the site would not need to cross the front boundary of 3 Boundary Street as the subject site has a frontage to the main pedestrian stairs and crossing to Archer Street. The proposal will not result in a loss of privacy from the increased use of the public footpath.

Impact on surrounding heritage items from excavation

Excavation works from the proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact upon surrounding heritage items. Further geotechnical investigations are required by Condition 14 prior to the commencement of excavation works which will inform site specific conditions and recommendations to ensure impacts upon all surrounding properties and infrastructure is minimised.

The 5:1 height difference detracts from the heritage value of 5 Victoria Street

The proposal complies with the relevant indices relating to height and bulk and it is not considered to result in an adverse impact upon 5 Victoria Street. Council’s Heritage Adviser did not raise any issues in this regard. It is noted this site is no longer listed as a heritage item under Draft LEP (Local Centres) 2012.

The application proposes only a very narrow strip for deep soil planting at the rear due to the proposed 3.05 metre ROW, a rear footpath and private planting between the rear boundary and 5 Victoria Street.

The application does not propose a 3.05 metre right of way. This is an existing driveway which benefits surrounding properties. The proposal provides a compliant 6.0 metre rear setback and Condition 35 requires additional landscaping at the rear of the site. The proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard.

Within Council

Landscaping

The application was referred to Council’s Senior Landscape Assessment Officer who provided the following comments:

“Tree impacts

Tree 50, Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) is the dominant tree on site, and considered significant within the broader landscape setting, providing landscape amenity to the site and surrounding properties. The tree is in good health and condition with a long SULE greater than 40 years. The trees location centrally within the existing rear setback, conflicts with the proposed development, and given its current size and canopy spread effectively sterilises a large portion of the site from development if retained. The tree while native is not endemic, and has been planted by previous land owners. The tree’s location is within the numeric building setback controls, and its retention would require a significant design change. While its retention is preferred, its removal due to other site constraints can be supported.

Tree 69 Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) is a mature specimen in good health and condition located adjacent to the eastern site boundary within a proposed private courtyard. The species is typical for the era of housing that currently exists on site, and is a species that characterises many parts of Roseville and neighbouring Chatswood. As the species is readily able to be transplanted, it will be conditioned for the palm to be relocated and reused on site for instant landscape amenity.

It is noted that with the exception of Tree 70, existing trees located within the RTA Road Reservation are being retained. Subject to the finalisation of road widening plans it is anticipated that all these existing trees will be removed with any road widening.

Arborist report

An updated arborist’s Development Impact Assessment Report has been submitted in response to previous concerns raised by council. The amended report provides appropriate information to enable assessment.

Landscape plan/tree replenishment

The landscape plan proposes the planting of Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) within the western side setback adjacent to the neighbouring heritage listed unit block. Due to the size of the trees (>20m) and their fast growth rate it is recommended a more appropriate species be utilised within the limited side setback area. Condition 35 is recommended in this regard.

No tall trees in scale with the development have been proposed within the rear setback of the western building, contrary to the requirements of LEP194 and DCP55. The existing right of way restricts available planting area and in conjunction with the proposed private courtyards and level changes there is no opportunity for replenishment tree planting. The proposed courtyards of Units 3 and 4 exceed the minimum 25m² as defined by DCP55 and it is recommended (Condition 35) that the extent of private courtyard area be reduced to the line of the basement below and the retaining wall, as depicted on DA02’E’ which has been amended in response to councils concerns. It has been conditioned (Condition 35) for the landscape plan to be amended and additional trees to be planted within the communal planting area to satisfy the objectives and controls of LEP194 and DCP55. As this is the northern setback it is recommended that proposed trees be exotic deciduous species for solar amenity.

Other amendments required are considered minor and can be conditioned as necessary.

DCP55 (4.1 C8) requires the planting of one tall tree per 300m² of site area or part. For the site area of 3567m² a minimum of twelve (12) canopy trees is required. The landscape works include the planting of twenty one (21) canopy trees capable of attaining a minimum 13 metres in height, which exceeds the minimum requirements of DCP55.

Stormwater plan

The proposed works as detailed on the submitted stormwater plans can be supported on landscape grounds.

BASIX

BASIX Certificate No.417099M_03 dated 06/07/2012 has been submitted with the application. Numerous landscape commitments and areas are detailed within the certificate. The proposed landscape works is consistent with the BASIX Certificate regarding landscape areas.

Deep soil

The proposed development will result in a deep soil landscape area1785.98m² or 50.06% of site area as per the applicant’s calculations (allowing a 2.48m² buffer). The assessing landscape officer is in agreement with the areas included within the deep soil calculable area.

Conclusion

The application can be supported on landscape grounds subject to conditions of consent (Condition 35)

Engineering

The application was referred to Council’s Team Leader Development Engineers who provided the following comments:

“Water management

The BASIX water commitments still include a central rainwater tank of 53 000 litres, collecting runoff from 550m² of roof area, with re-use for toilet flushing and clothes washing in all units.

The stormwater plans show two equally sized (26.5m³) rainwater tanks, one for each building. Each overflow’s separately into a detention tank, and the discharge to the kerb is separate for each building as well. It appears that this arrangement satisfies the BASIX commitments, as they are equally sized and the units are equally distributed between the two buildings.

Regarding the heights of the retention and detention tanks, Drawing D04 has now been provided with a note “Structural engineer to employ upturn beams in tank to minimise slab thickness”. The stormwater management drawings will be stamped with the DA stamp, so it will be the responsibility of the structural designer to ensure that the details on these plans can be reproduced on the Construction Certificate plans.

Traffic and parking

The right of way at the rear of the property has been shown on the landscape plan as being left unchanged. This is best and is consistent with the continuing use of the right of way by the benefitting property(ies).

Some levels have been provided for the new vehicular crossing, although there does not seem to be any basis for the selection of RL 94.00 at the future boundary. There is some flexibility with the final level, since much of the entry driveway is level, so could be adjusted up or down without compromising vehicular access.

Roads and Maritime Services has requested that Council ensure that vehicles do not queue out onto Boundary Street while waiting for the small waste collection vehicle to turn in the basement, or while waiting for the roller shutter to open. This would be fairly unlikely given that the traffic report estimates a peak hour traffic generation of one vehicle movement per 5 minutes, there is space for three vehicles to wait behind the future front boundary and the waste collection area is another 20 metres beyond the security door. A condition is recommended that the owner’s corporation relocate the door further inside the basement if directed by Council in the future due to queuing out into Boundary Street.

It is proposed to provide pedestrian access by means of steps either side of the new crossing until such time as the road widening is acquired by Roads and Maritime Services. A temporary accessible pathway inside the property is shown on the architectural plan titled “Ground Floor existing” (but not on the landscape plan). Prior to the use of this pathway by the public, a public right of way will need to be created over it.

It is noted that the Access Report does not address the accessibility of the public footpath at all (in fact it seems to be based on an earlier plan). Beginning the assessment at the boundary seems pointless if there is no access to that location from the public domain.

Waste management

A longitudinal section has been provided on Drawing DA08/D which demonstrates that 2.6 metres of headroom would be available for the small waste collection vehicle. Because of the setback from the existing front boundary, this is acceptable. The headroom will need to be confirmed on the Construction Certificate drawings (Condition 49).

Construction traffic management

Roads and Maritime Services has now advised that the demolition and construction traffic management documentation submitted is acceptable for DA purposes. Conditions are recommended for the submission of the final versions of these documents prior to commencement of the respective stages of works on the site. These are incorporated into the recommended conditions of consent.

Geotechnical investigation

The report submitted is the same report submitted with the previous application, and is in the form of a letter based on a desktop study. Further investigation will be required following demolition and before commencement of bulk excavation, so that recommendations for excavation methods and support, dilapidation survey of adjoining properties and vibration monitoring can be finalised. This is included in the recommended conditions.”

Heritage

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser, who provided the following comments:

Heritage status

The site does not contain any heritage items. The site is within the vicinity of several heritage items and directly adjoins items at No 3 Boundary Street and No 5 Victoria Street. There are several other heritage items within the vicinity including:

· 1 Hill Street

· 2 Victoria Street

Clause 61 E of the KPSO requires Council to consider assess and consider the effects of development on the heritage significance of items within the vicinity of the site.

The site in within the National Trust Urban Conservation Area (UCA) No 3 – Roseville. The UCA is a relatively broad area roughly from the railway line to Archbold Road with Boundary Street being the southern boundary and Lindfield the northern boundary of the precinct. A Trust classification is non-statutory however Council may consider the values identified by the Trust in their classification.

Background

A pre DA consultation was undertaken in December 2008. At that time the proposed site included Nos 5 – 11 Boundary Street and the relevant controls were the KPSO and DCP 55.

The site was included in the Town Centres LEP and a development application was received in 2010 – DA0525/10. That application was refused. The Town Centres LEP was found to be invalid and the zoning of the land reverted back to 2d3 under the KSPO and DCP 55.

Demolition of existing houses

Given that Council has rezoned the site, demolition of the houses was predicted and there is no heritage objection to demolition. Before demolition occurs, photographic archival recording of each house will be required as a standard condition of consent (Condition 12). It is also recommended that materials salvaged from demolition should be reused on the site. This would include stone from footings and bases for garden edges or planters and the like (see condition).

DCP 55

Council has prepared specific objectives and controls to assist applicants in preparing applications for medium density development within the vicinity of heritage items – DCP 55.

Design controls for development within an UCA

Comment: The proposed new building is clearly a contemporary building and not related to the predominant architectural character of the UCA which is primarily characterized by one and two storey residential houses with complementary in gardens. There are some institutional buildings in the area including churches and a school. There are some existing two to three storey flat and commercial buildings in the UCA, primarily along Hill Street.

C – 2 Facades well articulated to avoid long continuous facades.

Comment: The proposed development is designed as two buildings 35m in length and stepped at its western elevation where it adjoins a heritage item. There is reasonable articulation in the main street facades.

C – 3 Scale and massing should be proportioned the respect and enhance character of adjacent development.

Comment: The scale and massing of the proposed development is consistent with the zoning of the site which is 2 (d) 3 and allows residential flat buildings up to 5 storeys in height.

C – 4 Form and outline of new development to respect existing development, particularly roof forms.

Comment: The roof form is flat and inconsistent with the surrounding housing which is characterized by pitched roof forms. However, this is considered acceptable for an RFB in this location as it reduces the overall building height and possible conflicts with the adjoining flat building which is a listed heritage item.

C – 5 Setback should not be located forward of existing development.

Comment. The setback of the proposed development is not forward of adjoining buildings and the proposed building to Boundary Street is set back about 3.5m behind the heritage item at 3 Boundary Street.

C – 6 Buildings should not be orientated across a site contrary to the existing lot pattern.

Comment: The proposed new buildings replace five existing houses which would alter the existing lot pattern. It would be seen from the main street as two adjoining buildings which replaces five existing low scale houses.

C – 7 Development should be good contemporary design complimentary to the existing UCA.

Comment: The proposed development is of contemporary design.

C – 8 Different building materials should be chosen for external finishes and the colour range should blend with existing development

Comment: The external finishes are face brickwork, rendered and painted masonry, concrete frames and lightweight cladding. Windows are prefinished aluminium frames and balcony balustrades are obscure glass in aluminium frames.

C – 9 Colours and building textures to be complimentary to UCA

Comment: The proposed face brickwork is a dark grey – Austral Blackstone and the majority of the rendered masonry is off white – Dulux “Limed White”, with some feature panels of a mid grey colour. These colours need to be revised to provide a more complementary relationship with the UCA and adjoining heritage items.

C – 10, 11 & 12.

Comment: The proposed front fence is a metal palisade type with masonry piers and low base which is considered acceptable in the context.

Design controls for development within the vicinity of a heritage item

C – 1 Setbacks from the heritage item must be a minimum of 10m for the first and second floor and 15m at the third and fourth floor levels. The setback of the development from the front boundary must not be closer than the heritage item. Measurement of the setback is taken form any structure on the site including ancillary buildings such as sheds or garages.

Comment: The proposed development achieves the minimum setbacks from the heritage item at No 3 Boundary Street and No 5 Victoria Street.

C- 2 – Screen plantings should achieve visual screening with a height of at least 4 meters along the boundary of the adjoining items.

Comment: Screen planting between the proposed development and the adjoining heritage item at No 3 Boundary can achieve a minimum height of 4m and should be acceptable. The area between the item at No 5 Victoria Street and the proposed building is required as a right of carriageway. The right of carriageway also provides access to the rear of the heritage item at No 3 Boundary Street.

C – 3 – The new development should respect the aesthetic character of nearby heritage items but should not mimic design features or motifs.

Comment: This is achieved.

C – 4 – Colours should be complimentary to heritage items.

Comment: The colours need amendment to reduce the impact of the new development. Colours should be more related to the existing colours commonly found in the existing area.

C – 5 – The front fence should be no higher than the front fence of the heritage item.

Comment: the front fence is acceptable and is shown at the new street alignment.

C – 6 – A heritage impact statement must be submitted and should discuss any impacts on the item including its garden and setting.

Comment: The applicant has submitted a HIS prepared by an experienced consultant. It concludes that the proposed development is a reasonable response to the zoning of the site and limited and acceptable impacts on the adjoining items, the UCA and the nearby HCA in the Willoughby area which is located on the opposite side of Boundary Street. .

Comments

The proposed development has reasonable impacts on the adjoining and nearby heritage items and the UCA as considered against the controls in DCP 55. However, there are a number of issues that need to be further considered.

The proposal effectively removes the ability for the heritage item at No 3 Boundary Road to use the existing right of way that provides both pedestrian and vehicular access to Victoria Street. The scheme as proposed shows the driveway paving removed and the area landscaped with a 1m wide path running around the perimeter of the site including Building A & B. While the garage to the heritage item “Ku-ring-gai Court” has access to Hill Street, it also has vehicular access to the right of way and vehicles can access either entrance and the garage has doors on both the Hill Street and the right of way side. As this is an existing site feature and benefits the residents of the heritage item, it should be retained in any development of the site.

The proposed colours of the new development are very dark face bricks to the ground and first floor with an off-white for most of the remaining wall surfaces with vertical feature panels of a mid to dark grey and metal prefinished panels. In a UCA, the colours and materials should assist in blending the development into the area rather than making it stand out in relation to the surrounding area. The colour scheme should be amended to reflect the colours and materials commonly found in the existing area. It is recommended that more earthy tones should be selected.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Amendment to the proposed colours and materials needs to be made to assist blending the new development into the existing built environment existing.

The existing right of way that provides both pedestrian and vehicular access to the heritage item at No 3 Boundary Road needs to be retained.

The applicant has amended the proposal in providing new materials and finishes. The materials and elevations have been amended to incorporate a stone base and the Dulux ‘limed white’ was replaced with ‘soft dove’. The proposal is for smooth faced sandstone. It is considered rock faced sandstone is more sympathetic in the streetscape. Additionally, the light coloured rendered walls are not considered adequate and Condition 36 is recommended, which requires a darker earthier tone to be provided.

The architectural plans do not rely upon access to the right of way. However, the landscape plan has not been amended to delete the gates and pedestrian access to the right of way. Condition 35 is recommended to require a rear boundary fence without gates to ensure the right of way is not used for access by the proposal.

Urban Design

The application was referred to Council’s Urban Design Consultant who provided the following comments:

1.1 Executive Summary

This urban design review is not an assessment against Council’s Planning Scheme

Ordinance, LEP 194 or DCP 55. It is a review of the proposal against SEPP 65 and the

associated RFDC.

The proposal is generally acceptable, however could benefit from some further improvements as discussed below.

1.2 Context

The sites are zoned residential 2(d3); RFBs are permissible in the zone. The 2(d3) zone is the zone for the entire street block from 3-33 Boundary Street and continues for the full street block on Victoria Street. The southern and opposite side of Boundary Street is where the local government area changes to Willoughby Council. Generally the existing local character is single story bungalows set in dense landscape. The sites are well located to public transport and services which is appropriate for the zoning.

A two/three storey heritage item is to the immediate west of the subject site at 3 Boundary Street. There are also heritage items at 5 Victoria Street and 1 Hill Street. The RTA proposes to resume a 7.5m strip along the site frontage for road widening, however we have been advised by Council’s planner that this will not be happening in the near future. The National Trust has included this area in Area 3 Roseville East Urban Conservation Area.

1.3 Scale

A residential flat building is a significant change in scale to that of the existing generally single storey homes in Boundary Street. However these sites are zoned for this change. It is important that the current character of building-landscape-building is maintained even at the larger scale of an RFB.

The topography falls from west to east and this assists in blending in the change of scale from the three storey heritage item at 3 Boundary with the proposal. The change in height is less readily apparent.

The site has an approximate area of 3563m² and a frontage of over 96 m, (depth 38m). The building depth is generally 18m which is appropriate.

The interface with the adjoining detached house immediately east is satisfactory as the setback meets the DCP controls and the detached house is zoned 2(d3). The setbacks to the adjoining heritage item at 3 Boundary Street are in accordance with the DCP controls. Separation of the proposal from the heritage item is appropriate.

It is important to ensure that the dense landscape remains and is enhanced at the frontage of the site, buffers the heritage item to the west and existing detached house to the east.

1.4 Built form

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

The articulation and modulation of the architecture is generally acceptable. There could be better definition of a base for the buildings which could be reinforced using different materials such as a stone cladding or similar. The windows could also be better defined by having deeper reveals.

The photomontage illustrates the proposal with dense planting. Council’s planner should ensure that larger species are retained at the street frontage in particular and mature new species as appropriate are planted at the end of construction. It is important to provide a planted buffer between 3 Boundary Street and the subject proposal.

There is good surveillance provided to the communal open space between the buildings, however at the ground level privacy and overlooking should be considered carefully. The large scale of the built form will impact on the views to and from heritage items. The proposed masonry fencing to the street defines entry to the site and reflects the current fencing used in Boundary Street.

Access

Both of the proposed building have a single access point to a lobby and then from the central corridor a prospective resident or visitor access their apartment. The need to meet BCA compliance for egress to the fire stair and the single access is driving the layout of the RFB. The dark corridors entering the apartments could be reduced and this area be better designed as a true lobby space.

It would be better that apartments 01, 06, 27 and 32 had individual access from the street. This would better articulate the building at street level and provide ownership of apartments. Apartments 02, 05, 28 and 31 could also benefit from separate individual entry from Boundary Street.

It is commendable that natural light will be able to enter the access corridor from the second (3rd level) to fourth floors (5th level)

Lobby

The present main entry point into Buildings A and B result in arrival at a blank wall within a corridor. An improvement would be to design an appropriate arrival space which does not need to be large but will define a sense of arrival.

1.5 Density

As discussed under scale the proposed building typology is a significant change for the local context. The site is well located to public transport and local services generally. The proposal is nearly at maximum at 1.24:1. The density is acceptable.

1.6 Resource, energy and water efficiency

Passive solar and ventilation have been designed into the proposed buildings. On each floor plate, Building A has 3/5 livings areas per floor that received northern sun while the Building B has 4/5. To better receive sunlight typical apartments 03 and 29 could possibly be flipped over as a bedroom currently blocks the northern sun. Typical apartments 02 and 28 will receive western sun in summer and need careful consideration for shading. These units are ventilated which will allow hot air to escape.

1.7 Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain. Landscape design builds on the existing site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways. It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values. It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character.

Landscape design should optimise useability, privacy and social opportunity, equitable access and respect for neighbours’ amenity, and provide for practical establishment and long term management.

The communal open space forms a focus between the two buildings, aligns with the main entry from the street and has good surveillance. The RLs show level areas to permit usability of approximately 18m² and 35m² in area, and a children’s playground has been provided.

As stated previously landscape buffers of a mature height are essential for all edges of the site. This proposal will set a benchmark for others to follow. The associated pathways form more passive areas of open space and also access to the site.

1.8 Amenity

The units are generally receiving sunlight to their balconies and living spaces. However as discussed in Built Form some units could be flipped over to achieve more solar access. True cross ventilation is received to 8/12 units per typical floor. Therefore of the total 52 units 16 are not cross ventilated. The proposal achieves 69.24% natural ventilation. The RFDC requires a minimum of 60%.

The lobby has been discussed in Built Form as has the need for individual entries from the street.

The long corridor entries to type 01, 02, 05 and 06 (and Building B 27/28 and 31/32) could be amended to increase the lobby size and reduce these long dark corridors into these units.

It is assumes that bicycle storage is in the basement and noted that storage is located both in units and the basement.

Privacy and overlooking in regards to the communal open space has been addressed in Built Form.

1.9 Safety and security

Good surveillance from the building to the street. Basement car parking is contained within the building footprint. Communal open space well surveilled.

1.10 Social dimensions and housing affordability

Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities. New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community. New developments should address housing affordability by optimising the provision of economic housing choices and providing a mix of housing types to cater for different budgets and housing needs.

The DCP provides minimums as detailed in the RFDC and is acceptable.

1.11 Aesthetics

Generally the aesthetic are acceptable. Attention to the detailing using a difference material for the base would assist in anchoring the building to the ground and stone cladding seems appropriate considering the context. Also as the proposal is immediately adjacent to the three storey brick heritage item face brick is appropriate.

Recommendations

1. That the layout of apartments be reviewed in terms of their entry, further improved access to sunlight, individual entry from the street and possible overlooking from the communal open space.

2. That the windows be considered in having deeper reveals to show depth and shadowing.

3. That the lobby be reviewed and designed as an arrival space.

4. That it is ensured that mature landscape is retained and added to all edges of

the site.

5. That the materials and design be considered in giving the buildings a base.”

The amended plans undertook the following design changes in response to the recommendations of the urban designer:

· Enclosed amended ground floor unit entry areas.

· Window reveals have not been identified or detailed at this stage, but applicant is willing to accept a condition of consent by Council if required. This is not considered necessary.

· The lobby area was reviewed and slightly increased, by the applicant. The applicant indicated that the design cannot be modified further without compromising compliance with the BCA and functionality of the building egresses from both basement and the upper floor levels.

· The materials and elevations are amended and provide a solid base to the buildings.

The layout of entries was not requested to be amended as they are considered to function satisfactorily. Further changes were not requested in relation to sunlight access, given the already compliant solar access provided to the development. The windows outlook onto the communal open space is acceptable and provides for casual surveillance.

Outside Council

Roads and Maritime Services

The application was referred to Roads and Traffic Authority pursuant to SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 and for concurrence in accordance with the Roads Act 1993. The RTA reviewed the development application and indicated it would give concurrence to the application subject to Council’s approval and conditions included in the development consent (Conditions 6, 7, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 52, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 100)

RailCorp

The application was referred to RailCorp for concurrence pursuant to Clause 86(1) of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. The application was assessed in accordance with the requirements of Clause 86(4) and concurrence has been issued pursuant to conditions of consent (Conditions 8, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 66 and 101).

Statutory Provisions

Acts (E P & A, DDA, etc

State Environmental Planning Policies

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development RFDC)

SEPP65 aims to improve the design quality of residential flat buildings across NSW and provides an assessment framework, the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC), for assessing ‘good design’.

The SEPP requires the assessment of any development application for residential flat development against 10 principles contained in Clauses 9-18 and Council is required to consider the matters contained in the publication “Residential Flat Design Code”. As such, the following consideration has been given to the requirements of the SEPP and Design Code.

Residential Flat Design Code Compliance Table

	*Guideline*	*Consistency with Guideline*
PART 02 SITE DESIGN
Site Configuration
Deep Soil Zones	A minimum of 25 percent of the open space area of a site should be a deep soil zone; more is desirable. Exceptions may be made in urban areas where sites are built out and there is no capacity for water infiltration. In these instances, stormwater treatment measures must be integrated with the design of the residential flat building.	YES
Open Space	The area of communal open space required should generally be at least between 25 and 30 percent of the site area. Larger sites and brown field sites may have potential for more than 30 percent.	YES
Planting on Structures	In terms of soil provision there is no minimum standard that can be applied to all situations as the requirements vary with the size of plants and trees at maturity. The following are recommended as minimum standards for a range of plant sizes: Medium trees (8 metres canopy diameter at maturity) - minimum soil volume 35 cubic metres - minimum soil depth 1 metre - approximate soil area 6 metres x 6 metres or equivalent	YES
Safety	Carry out a formal crime risk assessment for all residential developments of more than 20 new dwellings.	YES
Visual Privacy	Refer to Building Separation minimum standards	NO Refer to discussion.
Pedestrian Access	Identify the access requirements from the street or car parking area to the apartment entrance.	YES
	Follow the accessibility standard set out in Australian Standard AS 1428 (parts 1 and 2), as a minimum. Provide barrier free access to at least 20 percent of dwellings in the development.	YES
Vehicle Access	Generally limit the width of driveways to a maximum of six metres.	YES
	Locate vehicle entries away from main pedestrian entries and on secondary frontages.	YES
PART 03 BUILDING DESIGN
Building Configuration
Apartment layout	Single-aspect apartments should be limited in depth to 8 metres from a window.	YES
	The back of a kitchen should be no more than 8 metres from a window.	YES
	The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments over 15 metres deep should be 4 metres or greater to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts.	YES
	If Council chooses to standardise apartment sizes, a range of sizes that do not exclude affordable housing should be used. As a guide, the Affordable Housing Service suggest the following minimum apartment sizes, which can contribute to housing affordability: (apartment size is only one factor influencing affordability) - 1 bedroom apartment 50m² - 2 bedroom apartment 70m² - 3 bedroom apartment 95m²	YES
Apartment Mix
Balconies	Provide primary balconies for all apartments with a minimum depth of 2 metres. Developments which seek to vary from the minimum standards must demonstrate that negative impacts from the context-noise, wind – can be satisfactorily mitigated with design solutions.	YES
Ceiling Heights	The following recommended dimensions are measured from finished floor level (FFL) to finished ceiling level (FCL). These are minimums only and do not preclude higher ceilings, if desired. - in residential flat buildings or other residential floors in mixed use buildings: - in general, 2.7 metre minimum for all habitable rooms on all floors, 2.4 metres is the preferred minimum for all non-habitable rooms, however 2.25m is permitted. - for two storey units, 2.4 metre minimum for second storey if 50 percent or more of the apartment has 2.7 metre minimum ceiling heights	YES
Ground Floor Apartments	Optimise the number of ground floor apartments with separate entries and consider requiring an appropriate percentage of accessible units. This relates to the desired streetscape and topography of the site.	YES
	Provide ground floor apartments with access to private open space, preferably as a terrace or garden.	YES
Internal Circulation	In general, where units are arranged off a double-loaded corridor, the number of units accessible from a single core/corridor should be limited to eight. Exceptions may be allowed: - for adaptive reuse buildings - where developments can demonstrate the achievement of the desired streetscape character and entry response - where developments can demonstrate a high level of amenity for common lobbies, corridors and units, (cross over, dual aspect apartments).	YES
Storage	In addition to kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes, provide accessible storage facilities at the following rates: - studio apartments 6m³ - one-bedroom apartments 6m³ - two-bedroom apartments 8m³ - three plus bedroom apartments 10m³	YES
Building Amenity
Daylight Access	Living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70 percent of apartments in a development should receive a minimum of three hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm in mid winter. In dense urban areas a minimum of two hours may be acceptable.	YES
	Limit the number of single-aspect apartments with a southerly aspect (SW-SE) to a maximum of 10% of the total units proposed. Developments which seek to vary from the minimum standards must demonstrate how site constraints and orientation prohibit the achievement of these standards and how energy efficiency is addressed (see Orientation and Energy Efficiency).	YES
Natural Ventilation	Building depths, which support natural ventilation typically range from 10 to 18 metres.	YES
	Sixty percent (60%) of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated.	YES
Building Performance
Waste Management	Supply waste management plans as part of the development application submission as per the NSW Waste Board.	YES
Water Conservation	Rainwater is not to be collected from roofs coated with lead- or bitumen-based paints, or from asbestos- cement roofs. Normal guttering is sufficient for water collections provided that it is kept clear of leaves and debris.	YES

Building separation and visual privacy

The following separation distances between buildings are required under the RFDC for five storey buildings:

- 18 metres between habitable rooms/balconies

- 13 metres between habitable/balconies and non-habitable rooms

- 9 metres are provided between non-habitable rooms.

The following separation distances between buildings are required under the RFDC for ground to the fourth floors in buildings:

- 12 metres between habitable rooms/balconies

- 9 metres between habitable/balconies and non-habitable rooms

- 6 metres are provided between non-habitable rooms.

The objectives of the suggested dimensions are to provide visual and acoustic privacy for existing and new residents, control overshadowing and ensure that new development is scaled to support the desired area character with appropriate massing and spaces between buildings, to allow for the provision of open space and to provide deep soil zones.

The proposal does not achieve the minimum separation distances as follows:

· The ground and first floor of Building A is set back 10.65 metres from the heritage building to the west and does not achieve the 12 metre separation distance.

Building A has a wall height of 7 metres to the finished floor level of the second floor. This height is relative to a two storey single dwelling where a 2.5 metre side setback would be required. The proposed side setback from the western side boundary accommodates a variety of plants and trees including Blueberry Ash which attains a height of 12 metres along the fence line. It is considered the separation distance provided combined with the proposed landscaping will not result in an adverse loss of visual privacy and an acceptable separation from the heritage item.

· The external wall of Building A is generally set back 15.085 metres at the second floor from the heritage item, however there is a reduced area whereby the balcony and associated planter box at 10.4 metres which does not achieve the 12 metre separation.

The openings of Building A at the second floor level satisfy the separation distance from the heritage item. The terraces are sited within the 12 metre separation distance. The terraces contain planter boxes which accommodates landscaping that grows to a height of 2.0 metres and would therefore screen any outlook from the terraces.

· Building B is set back 7 metres at the ground, first and second floor from the eastern boundary and does not achieve the 12 metre separation distance.

· Building B is set back 8.5 metres at the ground, first and second floor from the northern boundary and does not achieve the 12 metres separation distance.

The proposal provides more than half the required separation distance and the future development of properties such as those to the east and north will mean the required separate distance will be achieved when those properties are similarly developed. The proposal is considered satisfactory and provides for landscape screening within the compliant side and rear setback areas comprising Blueberry Ash which attains a height of 12 metres along the fence line.

· The separation distance between Buildings A and B is 14 metres and does not satisfy the 18 metres separation distance.

The separation distance between Buildings A and B is 14 metres and does not satisfy the 18 metres separation distance due to the terraces associated with the top storeys. The window to window distance achieves the 18 metres separation. The terraces contain planter boxes with a small trafficable area, 1.8 metres in width within the reduced separation distance. Given the width and landscape screening it is unlikely this area will be utilised for anything other than access and is not considered likely to result in a loss of visual privacy between apartment buildings.

State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007 (SEPPI 2007)

Pursuant to Clause 104 in SEPPI 2007, the application was referred to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration under the provisions of Clause 104 and Column 3 of Schedule 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. The RMS has granted its concurrence under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 to the development application subject to condition of consent (Conditions 6, 7, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 52, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 100)

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

A valid BASIX certificate has been submitted with the application (Certificate No. 417099M_03 dated 06/07/2012. The certificate demonstrates compliance with the provisions of the SEPP and adequately reflects all amendments to the application.

SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

Local Content (LEP, KPSO, etc)

Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO)

Zoning, permissibility and aims and objectives for residential zones

Clause 13

The RTA has advised Council in writing that no objection is raised to the proposed works. It is therefore felt that the purpose for which the land is reserve will not be carried into effect within a reasonable time, given the appointed day referred to in Clause 13(1) of the KPSO is 1 October 1971.

The front portion of the site is vacant land reserved for widening of existing county roads. Clause 13 of the KPSO states:

Buildings, etc, not to be erected on reserved land without consent

13. (1) Except as provided in subclause (2) of this clause a person shall not on land reserved under this Division erect a building or carry out or alter a work of a permanent character or make or alter a permanent excavation other than a building or a permanent work or a permanent excavation required for or incidental to the purpose for which the land is so reserved.

(2) Where it appears to the responsible authority that the purpose for which the land is reserved under this Division cannot be carried into effect within a reasonable time after the appointed day the owner of such land may with the consent of the responsible authority and of the Commissioner for Main Roads erect a building or carry out or alter a work of a permanent character or make or alter a permanent excavation.

(3) Any such consent shall be subject to such conditions with respect to the removal or alteration of the building, work or excavation or any such alteration of a work or excavation or the reinstatement of the land or the removal of any waste material or refuse, with or without payment of compensation, as the responsible authority thinks fit, and to such conditions as the Commissioner for Main Roads requires to be imposed.

(4) Nothing in this clause shall operate to prohibit the erection of a fence on any land reserved under this Division.

The appointed day referred to is 1 October 1971. Clause 13(1) is the control which prohibits the proposed works on the road reserve. Council Officers do not have the delegated authority to form the essential opinion under Clause 13(2) which provides for the circumstance where the responsible authority may lift the prohibition. The proposal seeks consent to carry out work of a permanent character on the road reserve. For the development to be permissible, an opinion would need to be formed pursuant to Clause 13(2) of the KPSO that the purpose for which the road reserve is reserved could not be carried into effect within a reasonable time after the appointed day.

The construction of a driveway is development that involves carrying out of works of a permanent character on the road reserve within the meaning of Clause 13(1) of the KPSO. The prohibition in clause 13(1) of the KPSO applies and the need for the exercise of the dispensing power in clause 13(2) is relevant.

If Council were to form the requisite opinion it would need to resolve that it is satisfied that the purpose for which the land is reserved under Division 3 of the KPSO cannot be carried into effect within a reasonable time after the appointed day.

If Council does not form the requisite opinion then Clause 13(2) does not apply to the development and the proposal is prohibited pursuant to Clause 13(1) of the KPSO. This is a decision for the Council to make.

The following reasons are advanced for consideration by Council to reach the conclusion required under clause 13(2):

- the road reserve is for the purpose of “widening of existing county roads”

- the appointed day referred to in Clause 13(1) of the KPSO is 1 October 1971.

- the RTA raises no objections to the proposed works

- the RTA advises the roadwork on land, within 5-15 Boundary Street Roseville subject to Clause 13(2) of KPSO, has not yet been carried out and accordingly Roads and Maritime Services, subject to conditions contained in its letter dated 4 April 2012, consents to the proposed development of a permanent driveway over the land shown for road widening.

On this basis, it is open for Council (the responsible authority) to make the decision whether the purpose for which the land is reserved can be carried into effect within a reasonable time.

Part IIIA Clause 25A

Under Clause 25B (definitions) of KPSO – LEP 194, a residential flat building is defined as ‘a building containing three or more dwellings’. The residential flat buildings proposed on the land zoned 2(d3) is permissible with consent. Subject to the Council forming the requisite opinion under Clause 13(2) of the KPSO the approval of works within the road reservation is also permissible with the consent of the responsible authority.

The development is considered to be consistent with the aims and objectives under Clause 25C and 25D of the KPSO as the proposal utilising the land within the road reservation will achieve the required balance between soft landscape area and built form. The proposal provides an acceptable level of internal amenity for future occupants and does not result in any significant adverse impacts upon adjoining properties or the streetscape.

compliance table
Development standard	Proposed	Complies
Site area (min): 1200m²	4289m² (all land) 3567m² (zoned 2(d3)	yes
Deep landscaping (min): 50% (1783.5m²)	50%	YES
Street frontage (min): 23m	96.01m Boundary	YES
Number of storeys (max): 4 + top storey (maximum of 5 storeys)	Building A: 5 storeys Building B: 5 storeys	YES YES
Site coverage (max): 35% (1248.45m²)	34% (1220m²)	YES
Top floor area (max): 60% of level below	Building A = 256.6m² (60%) Building B = 299.24m² (60%)	YES YES
Storeys and ceiling height (max): 5 storeys and 13.4m Car parking spaces (min): 􀁹 14(visitors) 􀁹 57 (residents) 􀁹 71 (total)	Building A = 5 & 12.6m Building B = 5 & 13m 14 58 72	YES YES YES YES YES
Zone interface setback (min): 9m	Adjoining 2(d3) sites	YES
Manageable housing (min): 10% or 6 units	6 units (3,4,9,10,35,36)	YES
Lift access: required if greater than three storeys	All lifts service all floors including basement levels.	YES

Clause 33 – Aesthetic appearance

The subject site adjoins a main road, being Boundary Street and the proposed development will be visible from the main road. The proposed development complies with the height requirement and number of storeys. The development is considered to provide adequate setbacks and separation from surrounding properties and the streetscape. The modulated built form and landscaping proposed will mean an acceptable aesthetic appearance is presented to the streetscape. The proposal is therefore considered satisfactory.

Clause 61E – Development in the vicinity of heritage items

The site is in the vicinity of three heritage items (No. 1 Hill Street, 5 Victoria Street and 3 Boundary Street) and is located within vicinity of a Heritage Conservation Area and listed item in the Willoughby Local Council Area. The proposed development is not considered to result in any significant impact upon the heritage items or conservation area and is satisfactory with respect of Clause 61E of the KPSO.

Policy Provisions (DCPs, Council policies, strategies and management plans)

Development Control Plan No. 55 - Railway/Pacific Highway Corridor & St Ives Centre

Clause 1.3 of DCP 55 states that this plan applies to land zoned Residential 2(d3) under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1974 (as amended). Therefore, the front portion of the land which is identified for road widening is excluded from all calculations. The proposal does not rely upon the front portion of land with the exception of the driveway for the proposal.

COMPLIANCE TABLE
Development control	Proposed	Complies
Part 3.5 Development within the vicinity of a Heritage Item
Setbacks: - 10m first and second - 15m third and forth - Setback from front boundary no closer than heritage item	10.65m to first and second 15.085m from third 17.072 from forth Set back approximately 4.5m behind heritage item	YES YES YES YES
Screening planting on boundaries 4m in height	Blueberry Ash height of 12 metres	YES
Aesthetics and materials sympathetic	Stone base, face brick and render subject to condition	YES
Part 4.1 Landscape design:
Consolidated deep soil landscaping (min)
150m²per 1000m² of site area = 535.05m²	600m²	^YES
No. of tall trees required (min): 17 trees Private outdoor space differentiation Up to 1.2m solid wall with at least 30% transparent component	21 trees Up to 1.8 timber fencing	YES YES
Part 4.2 Density:
Building footprint (max):
35% of total site area	34%	YES
Floor space ratio (max):
1.3:1	1.25:1	YES
Part 4.3 Setbacks:
Street boundary setback (min):
10-12 metres <40% of the zone occupied by building footprint)	Building A and B 10 - 12 metres Boundary Street frontage <40% Boundary Street frontage	YES YES
Side and rear boundary setback (min):
6m	Building A and B – 6m from eastern boundary – 6 m from western boundary	YES YES
Setback of ground floor courtyards to street boundary (min):
8m	Building A and B 8m	YES
% of total area of front setback occupied by private courtyards (max):
15%	<15% Boundary Street frontage	YES
Part 4.4 Built form and articulation:
Façade articulation:
Wall plane depth >600mm	>600mm	YES
Wall plane area <81m^²	<81m²	YES
Built form:
Building width < 36 metres	35 metres	YES
Balcony projection < 1.2 metres	All < 1.2metres	YES
Part 4.5 Residential amenity
Solar access:
>70% of units receive 3+ hours direct sunlight in winter solstice	>70%	YES
>50% of the principle common open space of the development receives 3+ hours direct sunlight in the winter solstice	The principle common open space located to the north east of the development will receive 3+ hours of direct sunlight in the winter solstice	YES
<15% of the total units are single aspect with a western orientation	0% single aspect with western aspect. All single units northern aspect.	YES
Visual privacy:
Separation b/w windows and balconies of a building and any neighbouring building on site or adjoining site:
Storeys 1 to 4 12 metres b/w habitable rooms	Ground Floor Building A - minimum 10.65m to west Building B – minimum 7m to east Building A – 17.995m from north Building B – 8.5m from north Between Building A and B 12m Floors 1, and 2 Building A - minimum 10.65m to west Building B – minimum 7m to east Building A – 17.995m from north Building B – 8.5m from north Between Building A and B 12m Floor 3 Building A 15.085m external wall from heritage building east 10.4m from planter box	NO NO YES NO YES NO NO YES NO YES YES YES
5th Storey 18 metres b/w habitable rooms	Building A - minimum 15m to building but 12.4m to boundary Building B – minimum 7m to east 10.2m to external wall Building A – 9m from north balcony Building B – 6m from north balcony 9m to external wall Between Building A and B 14m 18m between external walls	N/A N/A N/A N/A NO
Internal amenity:
Habitable rooms have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres	>2.7m	YES
Non-habitable rooms have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.4m	>2.7m	YES
1-2 bedroom units have a minimum plan dimension of 3m in all bedroom	All bedrooms have 3 metres minimum dimension	YES
3+ bedroom units have a minimum plan dimension of 3m in at least two bedrooms	All bedrooms have 3 metres minimum dimension	YES
Single corridors: - serve a maximum of 8 units 1.8m wide at lift lobbies	Max 6 units per floor 1.8m at lift	YES YES
Outdoor living:
Ground floor apartments have a terrace or private courtyard greater than 25m² in area	^>25m²	YES
Balcony sizes: - 10m² – 1 bedroom unit - 12m² – 2 bedroom unit - 15m² – 3 bedroom unit NB. At least one space >10m²	10m² - m² (Units 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, & 22) 12m² (min) – 30.10m² (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 23, 24, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 45 & 52) ^{34.37 – 47.49m² (Units 25, 26, 51, 53)}	YES YES YES
primary outdoor space has a minimum dimension of 2.4m Common Open space ( 30% Of the site area Private open space adjoining common open space not to be enclosed with high solid fences	>2.4 metres >30% No high solid fencing, timber to be used.	YES YES YES
Part 4.7 Social dimensions:
Visitable units (min):
70%	100%	YES
Housing mix:
Mix of sizes and types	7 x 1 bedroom, 42 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom units	YES
Part 5 Parking and vehicular access:
Car parking (min):
57 resident spaces 14 visitor spaces 71 total spaces	58 spaces 14 spaces 72 spaces	YES YES YES

Part 3.5 Development within the vicinity of a Heritage Item

The materials and elevations were amended to incorporate a smooth faced sandstone base and the Dulux ‘limed white’ was replaced with ‘soft dove’. It is considered rock faced sandstone is more sympathetic in the streetscape and the rendered walls should be darker. Condition 36 is recommended which requires a darker earthier tone to be provided and rock faced sandstone to be used.

Part 4.5 Residential amenity

Visual privacy

The following separation distances between buildings are required under the DCP for five storey buildings:

- 18 metres between habitable rooms/balconies

- 13 metres between habitable/balconies and non-habitable rooms

- 9 metres are provided between non-habitable rooms.

The following separation distances between buildings are required under the DCP for ground to the fourth floors in buildings:

- 12 metres between habitable rooms/balconies

- 9 metres between habitable/balconies and non-habitable rooms

- 6 metres are provided between non-habitable rooms.

The proposal does not achieve the minimum separation distances as follows:

· The ground and first floor of Building A is set back 10.65 metres from the heritage building to the west and does not achieve the 12 metre separation distance.

· Building B is set back 7 metres at the ground, first and second floor from the eastern boundary and does not achieve the 12 metre separation distance.

· Building B is set back 8.5 metres at the ground, first and second floor from the northern boundary and does not achieve the 12 metres separation distance.

· The separation distance between Buildings A and B is 14 metres and does not satisfy the 18 metres separation distance.

Development Control Plan No. 31 Access

Matters for assessment under DCP 31 have been taken into account in the assessment of this application against DCP 55 and the proposal is satisfactory in this regard. The amended plans have been supported by updated access report.

Development Control Plan No. 40 - Construction and Demolition Waste Management

Matters for assessment under DCP 40 have been taken into account in the assessment of this application against DCP 55 and the proposal is satisfactory in this regard.

Development Control Plan No. 43 - Car Parking

Matters for assessment under DCP 43 have been taken into account in the assessment of this application against DCP 55 and the proposal is satisfactory in this regard.

Development Control Plan No.47 - Water Management

Matters for consideration under DCP 47 have been taken into account in the assessment of this application against DCP 55 and the proposal is satisfactory in this regard.

Section 94 Plan

The development attracts a section 94 contribution of $1,105,280.88 which is required to be paid prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate (Condition 57).

Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012

The Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 was exhibited on 21 May 2012 to 18 June 2012. On 31 July 2012, Council resolved to adopt and forward the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 to the Minister of Planning and Infrastructure with a request that the plan be made.

The development application was lodged on 29 February 2012. This was before the exhibition of the draft LEP.

The provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) require an assessment to take into account:

the provisions of any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved).

The property was previously included within the Roseville Town Centres under the LEP (Town Centres) 2010. The Town Centres LEP was found to be invalid by the Land and Environment Court in June 2011. Following this determination, a review of the Ku-ring-gai Town Centres LEP was undertaken in 2011 - 2012 and placed on public exhibition in May 2012. The Draft LEP 2012 has not altered the development standards applicable to the property as those gazetted in the Town Centres LEP. The draft LEP 2012 has however introduced additional controls in Part 6.1 and further objectives for the LEP.

The provisions of the Draft LEP 2012 are therefore relevant considerations. Any such assessment must consider the degree of weight placed upon such provisions and whether the implementation of the draft LEP is certain and imminent. It must also consider the effect of any savings provisions contained within the instrument. The precise terms and effect of such provisions have not been decided. There appears to be no doubt that the Draft LEP 2012 will eventually be made and, to that extent, it is certain and imminent. However, the precise final form of the LEP is not certain at this stage, for that depends upon any amendments that might be required by the Minster for Planning. However, given the consistency with the Town Centres LEP (2010) the draft form is considered highly likely to be maintained.

The weight to be given to the Draft LEP is found in authorities established in the Land and Environment Court.

In Blackmore Design Group Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 279, Lloyd J summarises the authorities on the weight to be given to a draft LEP. The fact the Town Centres LEP (2010) was gazetted with identical development standards significant weight should be placed on the Draft LEP 2012.

In Blackmore at [30], Lloyd J states:

30. Whether one applies the test of “significant weight”, or “some weight”, or “considerable weight” or “due force” or “determining weight” to the later instrument is not, however, the end of the matter. The savings clause still has some work to do. The proposed development is a permissible development by dint of the savings clause. In giving the 2001 LEP the weight of being imminent and certain, that does not mean that there is no further inquiry. It is necessary to look at the aims and objectives of the later instrument and then see whether the proposed development is consistent therewith. Various expressions have been used to define this concept, but the approach which has been favoured in the Court of Appeal is to ask whether the proposal is “antipathetic” thereto (Coffs Harbour Environment Centre Inc v Coffs Harbour City Council [1991] 74 LGRA 185 at 193).

As an identical Roseville Town Centres Area was gazetted as part of the Town Centres LEP (2010), its provisions should be given significant weight and a key question is whether the proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of LEP 2012 in relation to residential flat development.

It is necessary to consider whether the proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of LEP (Town Centres) 2012 and that allowing the development would not detract from those objectives. The aims of the LEP are found at cl 1.2(2) and state:

(2) The particular aims of this Plan are as follows:

(a) establish a hierarchy of centres for Ku-ring-gai,

(b) to guide the future development of land and the management of environmental, social, economic, heritage and cultural resources within Ku-ring-gai for the benefit of present and future generations,

(c) to facilitate the development of the centres to enhance Ku-ring-gai’s economic role and cater to the retail and commercial needs of the local community,

(d) to provide a variety of housing choice within and adjacent to the centres,

(e) to protection, enhance and sustainably manage the biodiversity, natural ecosystems. Water resources and ecological processes within the catchments of Ku-ring-gai,

(f) to recognise, protect and conserve Ku-ring-gai’s indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage,

(g) to encourage a diversity of employment within Ku-ring-gai,

(h) to achieve land use relationships that promote the efficient use of infrastructure,

(i) to facilitate good management of public assets and promote opportunities for social, cultural and community activities, and

(j) to protect the character of low density residential areas, and the special aesthetic values of land in the Ku-ring-gai area.

Of these aims, (b), (d), (h) and (j) are relevant. The LEP provides a variety of housing choice by way of adopting different residential zones across the area to which the plan applies ranging from low density residential to high density residential. The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential which permits residential flat buildings and SP2 Infrastructure. The objectives for the Residential R4 zone are:

· to provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment

· to provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment

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

· to provide for high density residential housing close to public transport, services and employment opportunities

The front portion of the site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure and the objectives for this zone area:

· to provide for infrastructure and related uses

· to prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure

It is necessary for the proposed development to be consistent with the aims of LEP (Town Centres) 2012 and the future anticipated character that will result over time when development takes place under the provisions of the LEP 2012. The zoning of the front part of the site as SP2 Infrastructure emphasises the intent of the zone is for the use of this land for infrastructure and related uses. The proposed development does not propose works other than a driveway within the land reserved for road widening and zoned SP2 Infrastructure under the Draft LEP.

The proposal is consistent with the aims of the Draft LEP (Town Centres) 2012 for the following reasons:

· the proposal for a residential flat development is consistent with the zoning of the land

· the proposed development is consistent with the future development of land zoned for multi unit housing and does not adversely impact the surrounding heritage items

· the proposal provides for a variety of housing choice with a mixture of unit types and sizes

· the proposal provides for high density housing within walking distance to the Roseville Train Station and within proximity to services

· the application does not proposed residential uses upon the land zoned SP2 Infrastructure

· the provision of vehicular access on land zoned for infrastructure purposes is compatible with future use of this land.

Part 4 of the LEP 2012 establishes the principal development standards. The following development standards are relevant:

· the maximum floor space ratio is 1.3:1

· the minimum lot size is 1200m²

· the maximum height is 17.5 metres

The proposal would comply with the maximum permitted FSR of 1.3:1, has a site area greater than 1200m² and a height less than 17.5 metres.

Part 5.10(5) of LEP 2010 relates to Heritage assessment. The Draft LEP maintains 3 Boundary Street as a listed heritage item but 5 Victoria Street is no longer a listed item. The proposal is next to a listed item and a heritage management document would be required to be prepared which assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item. The application has been supported by a heritage impact report which is considered satisfactory by Council’s Heritage Adviser.

Part 6.1 of LEP 2012 Particular site requirements for multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings establishes the following objectives:

(a) to provide site requirements for development for the purposes of multi dwelling housing and residential flat building so as to provide for the orderly and economic development of residential land while maintaining the local character, and

(b) to ensure that lot sizes and dimensions of medium and high density residential sites allow for generous landscaped areas and setback to ensure the amenity of adjoining properties and to supported the desired future character of these areas.

The proposal is consistent with these objectives in proposing a residential flat building development which is orderly and consistent with local character. The proposal provides for compliant setbacks and high quality landscape design which provides a high level o0f residential amenity and is consistent with the desired future character of the area. The site satisfies the requirement of Part 6.1(2)(b) in having a frontage greater than 30 metres.

Likely Impacts

The likely impacts of the development have been considered within this report and are deemed to be acceptable, subject to conditions.

Suitability of the Site

The site is zoned to permit 5 storey residential flat buildings. The proposal is considered to be reasonable development which does not result in adverse impacts upon adjoining properties or the streetscape. The site is suitable for the proposed development and this has been demonstrated in the above assessment.

Public Interest

The public interest is best served by the consistent application of the requirements of the relevant Environmental Planning Instruments, and by Council ensuring that any adverse effects on the surrounding area and the environment are minimised. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant environmental planning instruments and policy provisions and is deemed to be unacceptable. On this basis, the proposal is not considered to be contrary to the public interest.

Conclusion

This application has been assessed under the heads of consideration of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments and policies.

The site is partially zoned Residential 2(d3) to permit 5 storey residential flat buildings and contains unzoned land identified as being for County Road Reservation. Pursuant to Clause 13(1) of the KPSO the proposed driveway is of a permanent nature and prohibited without the concession of Clause 13(2). The written advice from the RTA, dated 2 August 2012, allows the responsible authority to make the decision whether the purpose for which the road reserve is so reserved can be carried out within a reasonable time frame from the appointed day.

The proposed development is compliant with the relevant development standards within the KPSO and results in a non compliance with the visual separation requirements of the RFDC and DCP 55. On merit, the proposal is not considered to result in any adverse impact upon the visual privacy to adjoining properties.

The development results in a shadow impact to the adjoining heritage item at 3 Boundary Street. The shadow impact occurs from a development which has compliant setbacks and height. The development does result in a reduction in the shadow impact at 12 noon to this development.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant Council statutory and policy controls. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of these controls. It is, therefore, recommended that the application be approved.

Recommendation:

A. That the Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the proposal includes works of a permanent character on land reserved for the purpose of widening of existing county roads and in accordance with Clause 13(2) of the KPSO, the Council, as the responsible authority is of the opinion that the purpose for which the land is reserved cannot be carried into effect within a reasonable time after the appointed day, 1 October 1971.

AND

B. That the Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to DA0053/12 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 2 residential flat buildings containing 53 units, basement parking, landscaping and associated works at 5 - 15 Boundary Street, Roseville for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions that identify approved plans:

1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Plan no.

Drawn by

Dated

Site Plan DA00 Amendment D

Ground floor plan existing DA01 Amendment D

Ground floor plan future DA02 Amendment D

Plans -1 DA03 Amendment D

Plans -2 DA04 Amendment D

Plans -3 DA05 Amendment D

Elevations -1 DA06 Amendment D

Elevations -2 DA07 Amendment D

Sections -1 DA08 Amendment D

Sections -2 DA09 Amendment D

Compliance Diagrams -1 Amendment D

Excavation Plan DA14 Amendment D

Environment Management Plan DA15 Revision C

Site Analysis DA16 Amendment D

Street Elevation DA17 Amendment D

Ground floor landscape plan and plant schedule L01A

Second and fourth floor plans & section C L02A

Specifications and Details L03

Area landscape calculations L04A

Gelder Architecture

janebrittdesign

24/05/2012

28/02/2012

24/05/2012

01/6/12

25/5/12

25/02/12

01/06/12

Structural concept plan S01 Revision 2

Stormwater Management basement D01 Revision B

Stormwater Management ground level D02 Revision B

Stormwater Management Notes & Details D03 Revision B

Stormwater Management tank details D04 Revision B

Stormwater Management first and second floor D05 Revision A

Stormwater Management third, fourth & roof D06 Revision B

Northrop

Northern Beaches Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

08.06.12

23/05/2012

17/05/2012

28/02/2012

23/05/2012

Document(s)	Dated
Colours and finishes schedule 2-1423-E08-02 prepared by Gelder Architecture	date stamped received by Council 8 June 2012
Basix certificate No. 417099M_03	06/07/2012
Access Report prepared by Mark Relf Development Impact Assessment Report prepared by Earthscape Horticultural Services Road Traffic Noise and Vibration Assessment Report No. nss 21751 Revision A - Final prepared by Noise and Sound Services Report 07196 prepared by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates Engineering Assessment 120314 prepared by Northrop Construction Traffic Management Plan 2243011145 prepared by Gelder & Associates Solar Study 2/1423/C03/07 prepared by Gelder Architecture Crime Risk Assessment 1423/C03/05DS prepared by Gelder Architecture Waste Management Plan 2-1423-C03-04-WMP prepared by Gelder Architects	amended 4th June 2012 May 2012 May 2012 24 May 2012 7 June 2012 4 June 2012 February 2012 February 2012 Received by Council 28/02/2012
BCA compliance report J120065 prepared by Vic Lilli & Partners Geotechnical Assessment Ref 441 prepared by D. Katauskas Consulting Geotechnical Engineer Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by NBRS + Partners	20 February 2012 9 February 2012 February 2012

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

2. Inconsistency between documents

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

3. Approved landscape plans

Landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the following landscape plan(s), listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
# L01A – L04A	Jane Britt Design	25/02/2012

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:

4. Road opening permit

Reason: Statutory requirement (Roads Act 1993 Section 138) and to maintain the integrity of Council’s infrastructure.

5. Post-development stormwater discharge

Detailed design plans and hydraulic calculations of any changes to the stormwater drainage system are to be submitted to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for approval, prior to the commencement of any works.

Details should be forwarded to :

The Sydney Asset Management

Roads and Maritime Services

PO Box 973 Parramatta CBD 2124

A plan checking fee will be payable and a performance bond may be required before RMS' approval is issued. With regard to the Civil Works requirement please contact RMS' Project Engineer, External Works Ph: 8849 2114 or Fax: 8849 2766.

Reason: To ensure RMS' assets function effectively.

6. Road widening

The subject property is affected by a road proposal. New buildings or substantial structures are not to be erected on the land required for future road widening or encroach on RMS land acquired for road.

The area affected by the proposed road widening should be identified as a separate lot in any proposed plan of subdivision.

Reason: To allow any future widening of the road to be carried out in a timely and cost effective manner.

7. Demolition traffic management plan

No demolition, remediation or other work is to occur on site until such time as Roads and Maritime Services have been provided with, and approved, a Demolition Traffic Management Plan detailing vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control arrangements associated with the demolition and/or remediation of the site.

Reason: To comply with Roads and Maritime Services requireemnts for concurrence.

8. Dilapidation Report on RailCorp Infrastructure

Prior to the commencement of works and prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, a joint inspection of the rail infrastructure and property in the vicinity of the project (especially the retaining wall and rail track formation) is to be carried out by representatives from RailCorp and the Applicant. These dilapidation surveys will establish the extent of any existing damage and enable any deterioration during construction to be observed. The submission of a detailed dilapidation report will be required unless other notified by RailCorp.

Reason: To satisfy RailCorp’s requirements.

9. Notice of commencement

Reason: Statutory requirement.

10. Notification of builder’s details

Reason: Statutory requirement.

11. Dilapidation survey and report (public infrastructure)

Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures of the following public infrastructure, has been completed and submitted to Council:

Public infrastructure

· Full road pavement width, including kerb and gutter, of Boundary Street over the site frontage.

The report must be completed by a consulting structural/civil engineer. Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording (both written and photographic) existing damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing any damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development.

The developer may be held liable to any recent damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded by the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of works.

Note: A written acknowledgment from Council must be obtained (attesting to this condition being appropriately satisfied) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any excavation works.

Reason: To record the structural condition of public infrastructure before works commence.

12. Archival recording of buildings

Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that an archival report has been submitted to Council’s Heritage Advisor.

The report must consist of an archival standard photographic record of the building (internally and externally), its garden and views of it from the street illustrating its relationship to neighbouring properties and the streetscape. Recording shall be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines for “Photographic Recording of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture (2006)” prepared by the New South Wales Heritage Office.

Information shall be bound in an A4 report format. It shall include copies of photographs, referenced to plans of the site. Two (2) copies (one (1) copy to include negatives or CD of images shall be submitted to Council's Heritage Advisor. The recording document will be held in the local studies collection of Ku-ring-gai Library, the local historical society and Council’s files.

Reason: To ensure the proper management of historical artefacts and to ensure their preservation.

13. Dilapidation survey and report (private property)

Prior to the commencement of any demolition or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures upon the following lands, has been completed and submitted to Council:

Address

· 1, 3 Hill Street, Roseville and 17 Boundary Street

· 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 Victoria Street, Roseville

The dilapidation report must include a photographic survey of adjoining properties detailing their physical condition, both internally and externally, including such items as walls ceilings, roof and structural members. The report must be completed by a consulting structural/geotechnical engineer as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the proposal and the recommendations of the submitted geotechnical report.

In the event that access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied by a property owner, the applicant must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise the affected property owner of the reason for the survey and that these steps have failed.

Note: A copy of the dilapidation report is to be provided to Council prior to any excavation works been undertaken. The dilapidation report is for record keeping purposes only and may be used by an applicant or affected property owner to assist in any civil action required to resolve any dispute over damage to adjoining properties arising from works.

Reason: To record the structural condition of likely affected properties before works commence.

14. Geotechnical report

Prior to the commencement of any bulk excavation works on site, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority, the results of the detailed geotechnical investigation comprising a minimum of three cored boreholes to at least 1 metre below the proposed basement level. The report is to address such matters as:

· appropriate excavation methods and techniques

· vibration management and monitoring

· dilapidation survey

· support and retention of excavates faces

· hydrogeological considerations

The recommendations of the report are to be implemented during the course of the works.

Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.

15. Construction and traffic management plan

The applicant must submit to Council separate Demolition and Construction Traffic Management Plans, which are to be approved prior to the commencement of any works on site.

Each of these must also be approved by Roads and Maritime Services as required by other conditions of this consent.

The plans are to consist of a report with Traffic Control Plans attached.

The reports are to contain commitments which must be followed by the demolition and excavation contractor, builder, owner and subcontractors. The CTMP applies to all persons associated with demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

The reports must contain hours of construction and must include and comply with Roads and Maritime Services requirements that no heavy vehicle movements are to occur in the AM and PM peak traffic periods and "School Zone" periods.

The reports are to contain construction vehicle routes for approach and departure to and from all directions.

The reports are to contain a site plan showing entry and exit points. Swept paths are to be shown on the site plan showing access and egress for an 11 metre long heavy rigid vehicle.

The Traffic Control Plans are to be prepared by a qualified person (red card holder). One must be provided for each of the following stages of the works:

· Demolition

· Excavation

· Concrete pour

· Construction of vehicular crossing and reinstatement of footpath

· Traffic control for vehicles reversing into or out of the site.

Traffic controllers must be in place at the site entry and exit points to control heavy vehicle movements in order to maintain the safety of pedestrians and other road users. Traffic controllers are not to stop traffic on Boundary Street and are only to indicate breaks in traffic on Boundary Street.

When each satisfactory plan is received, a letter of approval will be issued with conditions attached. Traffic management at the site must comply with the approved plans as well as any conditions in the letter issued by Council and any conditions issued by Roads and Maritime Services. Council’s Rangers will be patrolling the site regularly and fines may be issued for any non-compliance with this condition.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures have been considered during all phases of the construction process in a manner that maintains the environmental amenity and ensures the ongoing safety and protection of people.

16. Temporary construction exit

A temporary construction exit, together with necessary associated temporary fencing, shall be provided prior to commencement of any work on the site and shall be maintained throughout the duration and progress of construction.

Reason: To reduce or eliminate the transport of sediment from the construction site onto public roads.

17. Erosion and drainage management

Earthworks and/or demolition of any existing buildings shall not commence until an erosion and sediment control plan is submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority. The plan shall comply with the guidelines set out in the NSW Department of Housing manual "Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction" certificate. Erosion and sediment control works shall be implemented in accordance with the erosion and sediment control plan.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the natural environment.

18. Construction waste management plan

Prior to the commencement of any works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a waste management plan, prepared by a suitably qualified person, has been prepared in accordance with Council’s DCP 40 – Construction and Demolition Waste Management.

The plan shall address all issues identified in DCP 40, including but not limited to: the estimated volume of waste and method for disposal for the construction and operation phases of the development.

Note: The plan shall be provided to the Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure appropriate management of construction waste.

19. Noise and vibration management plan

Prior to the commencement of any works, a noise and vibration management plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified expert addressing the likely noise and vibration from demolition, excavation and construction of the proposed development and provided to the Principal Certifying Authority. The management plan is to identify amelioration measures to achieve the best practice objectives of AS 2436-2010 and NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change Interim Construction Noise Guidelines. The report shall be prepared in consultation with any geotechnical report that itemises equipment to be used for excavation works.

The management plan shall address, but not be limited to, the following matters:

· identification of the specific activities that will be carried out and associated noise sources

· identification of all potentially affected sensitive receivers, including residences, churches, commercial premises, schools and properties containing noise sensitive equipment

· the construction noise objective specified in the conditions of this consent

· the construction vibration criteria specified in the conditions of this consent

· determination of appropriate noise and vibration objectives for each identified sensitive receiver

· noise and vibration monitoring, reporting and response procedures

· assessment of potential noise and vibration from the proposed demolition, excavation and construction activities, including noise from construction vehicles and any traffic diversions

· description of specific mitigation treatments, management methods and procedures that will be implemented to control noise and vibration during construction

· construction timetabling to minimise noise impacts including time and duration restrictions, respite periods and frequency

· procedures for notifying residents of construction activities that are likely to affect their amenity through noise and vibration

· contingency plans to be implemented in the event of non-compliances and/or noise complaints

Reason: To protect the amenity afforded to surrounding residents during the construction process.

20. Support for Council roads, footpaths, drainage reserves

Council property adjoining the construction site must be fully supported at all times during all excavation and construction works. Details of shoring, propping and anchoring of works adjoining Council property, prepared by a qualified structural engineer or geotechnical engineer, must be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), before the commencement of the works. A copy of these details must be forwarded to Council. Backfilling of excavations adjoining Council property or any void remaining at completion of construction between the building and Council property must be fully compacted prior to the completion of works.

Reason: To protect Council’s infrastructure.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:

21. Consolidation of lots

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must consolidate the existing Torrens Title lots which will form the development site. Evidence of lot consolidation, in the form of a plan registered with Department of Lands, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure continuous structures will not be placed across boundaries.

22. Road traffic noise

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that the development has been designed such that road traffic noise from Boundary Street is mitigated by durable materials in order to satisfy the requirements for habitable rooms under Clause 102 subdivision 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

Reason: To comply with EPA reuqirements.

23. Gutter crossing

The design and construction of the gutter crossing on Boundary Road shall be in accordance with Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) requirements. Details of these requirements should be obtained from RMS' Project Services Manager, Traffic Projects Section, Parramatta.

Detailed design plans of the proposed gutter crossing are to be submitted to RMS for approval prior to the commencement of any road works.

It should be noted that a plan checking fee (amount to be advised) and lodgment of a performance bond may be required from the applicant prior to the release of the approved road design plans by RMS.

Reason: To comply with RMS requirements for concurrence.

24. Vehicular access to and from development

All ingress and egress from Boundary Street shall be restricted to left turn movements only. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the specific design of the driveway incorporates an angled physical barrier in the form of a raised concrete island to restrict vehicular movements to left in/left out and to prohibit right turn vehicular movements into and out of the development.

Reason: To maintain the classified road network capacity and efficiency.

25. Demolition traffic management plan

Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the Demolition Traffic Management Plan required by other conditions of this consent has been approved by Roads and Maritime Services.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Roads and Maritime Services for concurrence.

26. Construction traffic management plan

A Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control should be submitted to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To maintain the classified road network capacity and efficiency and to comply with RMS requirements for concurrence.

27. Sight distance

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that any proposed landscaping and/or fencing will not restrict sight distance to pedestrians and cyclists travelling along the footpath of Boundary Street.

Reason: To maintain pedestrian safety.

28. Geotechnical and Structural Report

Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant shall prepare and provide to RailCorp for approval/certification the following items:

1. A final detailed Geotechnical and Structural report/drawings that meet RailCorp’s requirements. The Geotechnical Report must be based on actual borehore testing conducting on the site closet to the rail corridor.

2. Final construction methodology with construction details pertaining to structural support during excavation based on the Final Geotechnical Report. The Applicant is to be aware that RailCorp will not permit any rock anchors/bolts (whether temporary or permanent) within its land or easements.

The applicant is also advised that the following will be required:

a. Final cross sectional drawing showing ground surface, rail tracks, sub soil profile, proposed basement excavation and structural design of sub ground support adjacent to the Rail Corridor.

b. If required by RailCorp, an FE analysis which assesses the different stages of loading-unloading of the site and its effect on the rock mass surrounding the rail corridor.

c. If required by RailCorp, a tunnel/track monitoring plan (including instrumentation and the monitoring regime during excavation and construction phases).

d. If required by RailCopr, a Rail Safety Management Plan and Construction Vibration Management Plan

e. Machinery to be used during excavation/construction.

The Principle Certifying Authority shall not issue the Construction Certificate until written confirmation has been received from RailCorp confirming that this condition has been satisfied.

Any conditions issues as part of RailCorp’s approval/certification of the above documents will also form part of the consent conditions that the Applicant is required to comply with.

Reason: To satisfy RailCorp’s requirements.

29. Acoustic assessment

An acoustic assessment assessing rail noise and vibration from the adjoining rail tunnel is to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate demonstrating how the proposed development will comply with the Department of Planning’s document titled “Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads Interim Guidelines.” The Applicant must incorporate in the development all measures recommend in the report.

Reason: To satisfy RailCorp’s requirements.

30. Electrolysis Risk Assessment

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Applicant is to engage an Electrolysis Expert to prepare a report on the Electrolysis Risk to the development from stray currents. The Applicant must incorporate in the development all the measures recommended in the report to control that risk. A copy of the report is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority with the application for a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To protect the amenity of future occupants from stray currents.

31. Safe Work Method Statement

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a Risk Assessment/Management Plan and detailed Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) for the proposed works are to be submitted to RailCorp for review and comment on the impacts on rail corridor. The Principle Certifying Authority is not to issue the Construction Certificate until written confirmation has been received from RailCorp confirming that this condition has been satisfied.

Reason: To ensure no adverse impacts upon the rail corridor.

32. Demolition safety/vibration/movement control plan

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a demolition safety/vibration/movement control plan is to be submitted to RailCorp for review and endorsement. The Principle Certifying Authority is not to issue the Construction Certificate until written confirmation has been received from RailCorp confirming that this condition has been satisfied.

Reason: To satisfy RailCorp’s requirements.

33. Aerial Operations

Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the Applicant is to submit to RailCorp a plan showing all craneage and other aerial operations for the development and must comply with all RailCorp requirements. The Principal Certifying Authority shall not issue the Construction Certificate until written confirmation has been received from RailCorp confirming that this condition has been satisfied.

Reason: To ensure the use of machinery does not interfere with the rail corridor.

34. Privacy screen

Amended plans and specifications are required to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate showing horizontal privacy screens 1.5 metres in height above the finished floor level of the balconies associated with units 36, 37, 48, 49, 53. The combined height of the screen may be inclusive of the balustrade if it is solid.

Reason: To maintain privacy to the swimming pool area of 11 Victoria Street.

35. Amendments to approved landscape plan

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the approved landscape plans, listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, have been amended in accordance with the requirements of this condition as well as other conditions of this consent:

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
L01A	Jane Britt Design	25/02/2012

The above landscape plan(s) shall be amended in the following ways:

· The proposed planting of Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) adjacent to the western site boundary are to be amended and replaced with exotic tree species capable of attaining a minimum height of 13.0m eg Nyssa sylvatica (Tupelo), Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm), Ginkgo biloba (Maidenhair Tree), Michelia champaca (Golden Champa), or similar.

· The proposed lawn areas within the private courtyards of Units 3, 4 & 5 is to be deleted and replaced with paving.

· For landscape amenity the private courtyard areas for units 3, 4 & 5 is to be reduced to the basement line consistent with the Ground Floor Plan DA02’E’ by Gelder Architects. The courtyard fence is to be relocated to be on top of the retaining wall.

· For resident and neighbour amenity an additional deciduous tree eg Pyrus nivalis (Snow Pear), Pyrus usseriensis (Manchurian Pear) is to be planted centrally adjacent to the private courtyards of Units 3 & 4 within the communal garden area, between the courtyard fence and the proposed path.

· For resident and neighbour amenity the proposed planting of a Lagerstroemia ‘Natchez’ (Crepe Myrtle) to the north of Unit 5 is to be amended to an Angophora costata (Sydney Redgum).

· The proposed planting of Acmena smithii (Lillypilly) when used as a screening hedge is to be replaced with a hybrid Lillypilly shrub species.

· The proposed planting of Phormium ‘Purpureum’ immediately adjacent to the western site boundary is to be replaced with an evergreen shrub species capable of attaining a height of 4.0m eg Camellia sasanqua (Chinese Camellia), Viburnum odoritissimum (Sweet Viburnum).

· A timber paling fence 1.8 metres in height is to be provided along the rear northern boundary. No gates are permitted within the fence to provide pedestrian access to the right of way. Consent is not granted to pedestrian access to the right of way.

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the landscape plan has been amended as required by this condition.

Note: An amended plan, prepared by a landscape architect or qualified landscape designer shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate landscaping of the site

36. Materials and Finishes

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, an amended schedule of materials and finishes is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. The schedule should include the following:

(a) The smooth faced stone shall be replaced with rock faced sandstone.

(b) The rendered walls using Dulux ‘Soft Dove” shall be replaced with a darker earthier tone such as Dulux ‘Pale Grey’, ‘Sandstone”, “Buff” or “Deep Sienna”.

(c) The windows are not be white. The windows are to be consistent with the tone of the rendered walls as described in (b) but a shade lighter.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable aesthetic presentation in the streetscape.

37. Long service levy

Reason: Statutory requirement.

38. Builder’s indemnity insurance

The applicant, builder, developer or person who does the work on this development, must arrange builder’s indemnity insurance and submit the certificate of insurance in accordance with the requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 to the Certifying Authority for endorsement of the plans accompanying the Construction Certificate.

It is the responsibility of the applicant, builder or developer to arrange the builder's indemnity insurance for residential building work over the value of $20,000. The builder's indemnity insurance does not apply to commercial or industrial building work or to residential work valued at less than $20,000, nor to work undertaken by persons holding an owner/builder's permit issued by the Department of Fair Trading (unless the owner/builder's property is sold within 7 years of the commencement of the work).

Reason: Statutory requirement.

39. Outdoor lighting

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all outdoor lighting will comply with AS/NZ1158.3: 1999 Pedestrian Area (Category P) Lighting and AS4282: 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

Note: Details demonstrating compliance with these requirements are to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To provide high quality external lighting for security without adverse affects on public amenity from excessive illumination levels.

40. Air drying facilities

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a common open space area dedicated for open air drying of clothes is provided. This area is to be located at ground level behind the building line and in a position not visible from the public domain.

In lieu of the above, written confirmation that all units will be provided with internal clothes drying facilities prior to the Occupation Certificate is to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: Amenity & energy efficiency.

41. External service pipes and the like prohibited

Proposed water pipes, waste pipes, stack work, duct work, mechanical ventilation plant and the like must be located within the building. Details confirming compliance with this condition must be shown on construction certificate plans and detailed with construction certificate specifications. Required external vents or vent pipes on the roof or above the eaves must be shown on construction certificate plans and detailed with construction certificate specifications. External vents or roof vent pipes must not be visible from any place unless detailed upon development consent plans. Where there is any proposal to fit external service pipes or the like this must be detailed in an amended development (S96) application and submitted to Council for determination.

Vent pipes required by Sydney Water must not be placed on the front elevation of the building or front roof elevation. The applicant, owner and builder must protect the appearance of the building from the public place and the appearance of the streetscape by elimination of all external services excluding vent pipes required by Sydney Water and those detailed upon development consent plans.

Reason: To protect the streetscape and the integrity of the approved development.

42. Access for people with disabilities (residential)

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that access for people with disabilities to and from and between the public domain, residential units and all common open space areas is provided. Consideration must be given to the means of dignified and equitable access.

Compliant access provisions for people with disabilities shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate. All details shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All details shall be prepared in consideration of the Disability Discrimination Act, and the relevant provisions of AS1428.1, AS1428.2, AS1428.4 and AS 1735.12.

Reason: To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.

43. Adaptable units

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the nominated adaptable units within the development application, 4,10, 16, 22, 36, 42 are designed as adaptable housing in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS4299-1995: Adaptable Housing.

Note: Evidence from an appropriately qualified professional demonstrating compliance with this control is to be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: Disabled access & amenity.

44. Excavation for services

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that no proposed underground services (ie: water, sewerage, drainage, gas or other service) unless previously approved by conditions of consent, are located beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council’s Tree Preservation Order, located on the subject allotment and adjoining allotments.

Note: A plan detailing the routes of these services and trees protected under the Tree Preservation Order shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees.

45. Recycling and waste management

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the development provides a common garbage collection/separation area sufficient in size to store all wheelie garbage bins and recycling bins provided by Council for the number of units in the development in accordance with DCP 40. The garbage collection point is to be accessible by Council’s Waste Collection Services.

The responsibility for:

· the cleaning of waste rooms and waste service compartments; and

· the transfer of bins within the property, and to the collection point once the development is in use;

shall be determined when designing the system and clearly stated in the Waste Management Plan.

Note: The architectural plans are to be amended and provided to the Certifying Authority.

Reason: Environmental protection.

46. Noise from road and rail (residential only)

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall submit evidence to Council demonstrating that the development will be acoustically designed and constructed to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded:

(a) in any bedroom in the building—35 dB(A) at any time between 10 pm and 7 am,

(b) anywhere else in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway)—40 dB(A) at any time.

Plans and specifications of the required acoustic design shall be prepared by a practicing acoustic engineer and shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To minimise the impact of noise from the adjoining road or rail corridor on the occupants of the development.

47. Noise from plant in residential zone

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate an acoustic design report shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant identifying all mechanical ventilation equipment and other noise generating plant including, but not limited to car park exhaust, proposed as part of the development. The report shall provide acoustic design detailing and recommendations to address any potential noise impacts to ensure that the operation of an individual piece of equipment or operation of equipment in combination will not exceed more than 5dB(A) above the background level during the day when measured at the nearest adjoining residential property boundary and shall not be audible within a habitable room in any residential premises between the hours of 10.00pm and 7.00am.

Reason: To comply with best practice standards for residential acoustic amenity.

48. Location of plant (residential flat buildings)

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all plant and equipment (including but not limited to air conditioning equipment) is located within the basement.

C1. Note: Architectural plans identifying the location of all plant and equipment shall be provided to the Certifying Authority.

Reason: To minimise impact on surrounding properties, improved visual appearance and amenity for locality.

49. Basement car parking details

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, certified parking layout plan(s) to scale showing all aspects of the vehicle access and accommodation arrangements must be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority. A qualified civil/traffic engineer must review the proposed vehicle access and accommodation layout and provide written certification on the plans that:

· all parking space dimensions, driveway and aisle widths, driveway grades, transitions, circulation ramps, blind aisle situations and other trafficked areas comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 – 2004 “Off-street car parking”

· a clear height clearance of 2.6 metres (required under DCP40 for waste collection trucks) is provided over the designated garbage collection truck manoeuvring areas within the basement

· no doors or gates are provided in the access driveways to the basement carpark which would prevent unrestricted access for internal garbage collection at any time from the basement garbage storage and collection area

· the vehicle access and accommodation arrangements are to be constructed and marked in accordance with the certified plans

Reason: To ensure that parking spaces are in accordance with the approved development.

50. Car parking allocation

Car parking within the development shall be allocated in the following way:

Resident car spaces	57
Visitor spaces	14
Total spaces	71

Each adaptable dwelling must be provided with car parking complying with the dimensional and location requirements of AS2890.1 – parking spaces for people with disabilities.

At least one visitor space shall also comply with the dimensional and location requirements of AS2890.1 – parking spaces for people with disabilities.

Consideration must be given to the means of access from disabled car parking spaces to other areas within the building and to footpath and roads and shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure equity of access and appropriate facilities are available for people with disabilities in accordance with federal legislation.

51. Number of bicycle spaces

The basement car park shall be adapted to provide 18 bicycle spaces in accordance with DCP 55. The bicycle parking spaces shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3. Details shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To provide alternative modes of transport to and from the site.

52. Design of works in public road (Roads Act approval)

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that engineering plans and specifications prepared by a qualified consulting engineer have been approved by Roads and Maritime Services and Council’s Development Engineer. The plans to be assessed must be to a detail suitable for construction issue purposes and must detail the following infrastructure works required in Boundary Street:

· new vehicular crossing and driveway.

· changes to footpath to accommodate new driveway and maintain pedestrian access in Boundary Street.

Development consent does not give approval to these works in the road reserve. The applicant must obtain a separate approval under sections 138 and 139 of The Roads Act 1993 for the works in the road reserve required as part of the development. The Construction Certificate must not be issued, and these works must not proceed until Council has issued a formal written approval under the Roads Act 1993.

The required plans and specifications are to be designed in accordance with the General Specification for the Construction of Road and Drainage Works in Ku-ring-gai Council, dated November 2004. The drawings must detail existing utility services and trees affected by the works, erosion control requirements and traffic management requirements during the course of works. Survey must be undertaken as required. Traffic management is to be certified on the drawings as being in accordance with the documents SAA HB81.1 – 1996 – Field Guide for Traffic Control at Works on Roads – Part 1 and RTA Traffic Control at Work Sites (1998). Construction of the works must proceed only in accordance with any conditions attached to the Roads Act approval issued by Council.

A minimum of three (3) weeks will be required for Council to assess the Roads Act application. Early submission of the Roads Act application is recommended to avoid delays in obtaining a Construction Certificate. An engineering assessment and inspection fee (set out in Council’s adopted fees and charges) is payable and Council will withhold any consent and approved plans until full payment of the correct fees. Plans and specifications must be marked to the attention of Council’s Development Engineers. In addition, a copy of this condition must be provided, together with a covering letter stating the full address of the property and the accompanying DA number and the approval of Roads and Maritime Services.

Reason: To ensure that the plans are suitable for construction purposes.

53. Energy Australia requirements

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must contact Energy Australia regarding power supply for the subject development. A written response detailing the full requirements of Energy Australia (including any need for underground cabling, substations or similar within or in the vicinity the development) shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

Any structures or other requirements of Energy Australia shall be indicated on the plans issued with the Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and Energy Australia. The requirements of Energy Australia must be met in full prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of Energy Australia.

54. Utility provider requirements

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must make contact with all relevant utility providers whose services will be impacted upon by the development. A written copy of the requirements of each provider, as determined necessary by the Certifying Authority, must be obtained. All utility services or appropriate conduits for the same must be provided by the developer in accordance with the specifications of the utility providers.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of relevant utility providers.

55. Underground services

All electrical services (existing and proposed) shall be undergrounded from the proposed building on the site to the appropriate power pole(s) or other connection point. Undergrounding of services must not disturb the root system of existing trees and shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the relevant service provided. Documentary evidence that the relevant service provider has been consulted and that their requirements have been met are to be provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All electrical and telephone services to the subject property must be placed underground and any redundant poles are to be removed at the expense of the applicant.

Reason: To provide infrastructure that facilitates the future improvement of the streetscape by relocation of overhead lines below ground.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate or prior to demolition, excavation or construction (whichever comes first):

56. Infrastructure restorations fee

To ensure that damage to Council Property as a result of construction activity is rectified in a timely matter:

c) The Infrastructure Restoration Fee must be paid to the Council by the applicant prior to both the issue of the Construction Certificate and the commencement of any earthworks or construction.

e) In this condition:

Reason: To maintain public infrastructure.

57. Section 94 Contributions - Centres.

(For DAs determined on or after 19 December 2010)

This development is subject to a development contribution calculated in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010, being a s94 Contributions Plan in effect under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as follows:

Key Community Infrastructure	Amount
Local parks and local sporting facilities	$496,847.10
Local recreation and cultural facilities; Local social facilities	$82,851.86
Local roads, local bus facilities & local drainage facilities (new roads and road modifications)	$41,640.42
Local roads, local bus facilities & local drainage facilities (townscape, transport & pedestrian facilities)	$483,941.50
Total:	$1,105,280.88

The contribution shall be paid to Council prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, Linen Plan, Certificate of Subdivision or Occupation Certificate whichever comes first in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.

The contributions specified above are subject to indexation and will continue to be indexed to reflect changes in the consumer price index and housing price index until they are paid in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 to reflect changes in the consumer price index and housing price index. Prior to payment, please contact Council directly to verify the current payable contributions.

Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 may be viewed at www.kmc.nsw.gov.au and at the Council Chambers.

Reason: To ensure the provision, extension or augmentation of the Key Community Infrastructure identified in Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 that will, or is likely to be, required as a consequence of the development.

Conditions to be satisfied during the demolition, excavation and construction phases:

58. Prescribed conditions

· The work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia

Reason: Statutory requirement.

59. Hours of work

Note: Failure to obtain a permit to work outside of the approved hours will result in on the spot fines being issued.

Reason: To ensure reasonable standards of amenity for occupants of neighbouring properties.

60. Vibration

Vibration emitted from activities associated with the demolition, excavation, construction and fitout of buildings and associated infrastructure shall satisfy the values referenced in Table 2.2 of the DECC Environmental Noise Management Assessing Vibration a Technical Guideline'.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents during the construction process.

61. Recycling of building materials (special condition)

During demolition and construction, the PCA shall be satisfied that in addition to building materials generally suitable for recycling being forwarded to an appropriate registered business dealing in recycling of materials the following materials have been retained on site and reused in landscaping or new building works:

Stone salvaged from footings and retaining walls.

Reason: To facilitate recycling of materials.

62. Road occupancy licence

A Road Occupancy Licence should be obtained from Transport for NSW, Traffic Management Centre, for any works that may impact in traffic flows in Boundary Street during construction activities. Application forms and information can be obtained from the Roads and Maritime Services website at http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au.

Reason: To comply with Roads and Maritime Services' requirements.

63. Vehicles entering the site

All demolition and construction vehicles are to be contained wholly within the site and vehicles must enter the site before stopping. A construction zone will not be permitted on Boundary Street.

Reason: To reduce the impact of construction vehicles on existing road users as required by Roads and Maritime Services.

64. Signposting

All works/regulatory signposting associated with the proposed development are to be at no cost to Roads and Maritime Services.

Reason: To comply with Roads and Maritime Services' requirements.

65. Public utility works

The developer shall be responsible for all public utility adjustment/relocation works necessitated by the above work and as required by the various public utility authorities and/or their agents.

Reason: To comply with Roads and Maritime Services' requirements.

66. Piling and excavation works

All piling and excavation works with 25m of rail corridor are to be supervised by a geotechnical engineer experience with such excavation projects.

Reason: To satisfy RailCorp’s requirements.

67. Approved plans to be on site

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

68. Engineering fees

For the purpose of any development related inspections by Ku-ring-gai Council engineers, the corresponding fees set out in Councils adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges are payable to Council. A re-inspection fee per visit may be charged where work is unprepared at the requested time of inspection, or where remedial work is unsatisfactory and a further inspection is required. Engineering fees must be paid in full prior to any final consent from Council.

Reason: To protect public infrastructure.

69. Statement of compliance with Australian Standards

The demolition work shall comply with the provisions of Australian Standard AS2601: 2001 The Demolition of Structures. The work plans required by AS2601: 2001 shall be accompanied by a written statement from a suitably qualified person that the proposal contained in the work plan comply with the safety requirements of the Standard. The work plan and the statement of compliance shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Australian Standards.

70. Construction noise

During excavation, demolition and construction phases, noise generated from the site shall be controlled in accordance with best practice objectives of AS 2436-2010 and NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change Interim Construction Noise Guidelines and the recommendations of the approved noise and vibration management plan.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents during the construction process.

71. Site notice

A site notice shall be erected on the site prior to any work commencing and shall be displayed throughout the works period.

The site notice must:

· be prominently displayed at the boundaries of the site for the purposes of informing the public that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted

· display project details including, but not limited to the details of the builder, Principal Certifying Authority and structural engineer

· be durable and weatherproof

· be mounted at eye level on the perimeter hoardings/fencing and is to state that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted

Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.

72. Dust control