105 Francis St, Bondi Beach NSW 2026– Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new dual occupancy development in cluding strata subdivision into two lots (DA226/2010) Report 29 July, 2010 from the Development and Building Unit. Recommendation : DBU & IHAP - Refusal in accordance with the reasons contained in this report. Referred to DCC / IHAP given the number of objectio ns received.

Development Assessment Report Of Dual Occupancy

Development Application No.

226/2010

Address

105 Francis St, Bondi Beach NSW 2026

Lodgement Date

19 May 2010

Proposal

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new dual occupancy development including strata subdivision into two lots.

Zoning and relevant controls

Residential 2(a) – WLEP 1996 Waverley DCP 2006

Owner

Yvette Goode

Applicant

Dunn Architects

Submissions

Eight (8)

Issues

Density, building height, front and rear building l ine, car parking, privacy, open space.

Recommendation

That the application be REFUSED as per the reasons given in the report

Site Map

7

1. PREAMBLE

1.1 The Site and its Locality The site is located on the northern side of Francis St, adjacent to the lower roadway. The land slopes away from the street to the north east. The site is currently occupied by a four bedroom Californian Bungalow style cottage. The site has a front and rear boundary length of 10.67m, eastern side boundary length of 34.625m and western boundary length of 34.615m. The site has a total area of 369.4sqm. Surrounding the subject site is a mix of development types. To the east of the site there are two storey terrace style dwellings, a 2 storey brick dwelling is located adjacent to the property on the western boundary. To the rear of the site there 2 neighbouring properties, both of which contain federation style dwellings. There are also a number of residential flat buildings in the close vicinity.

1.2 Background A search of Council records indicate that there is no relevant property history.

1.3 Proposal Description The proposed works include:

• Demolition of existing cottage • Construction of new 2 storey dual occupancy development • Construction of new dual hard stand car space in the front setback • Extension of existing road

2. ASSESSMENT The following matters are to be considered in the assessment of this development application under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2.1 Section 79C(1)(a) Planning Instruments.

2.1.1 State/Regional Environmental Planning Policie s There are no relevant state or regional environmental planning policies.

2.1.2 Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996

LEP 1996 – Compliance Check Control

Compliance

Clause 3 – Specific Aims No Clause 10 – Zone 2(a) Objectives No Clauses 21-26 - Environmental Considerations Yes Heritage Provisions – Landscape Conservation Area No Clause 29 – Development on unzoned land No Clause 39 – Preservation of trees No

8

Clause 3 – Specific Aims The proposal is not consistent with Clause 3(7) (d) and (f) as the proposal is not compatible with the surrounding development and does not improve the amenity of the residential area. Schedule 5 – Part C – Landscape Items and Sites (L6 3) The proposed extension of the road is located within the Landscape Conservation Area. The proposed works are considered to be unsatisfactory given that it will have a negative impact on an existing mature tree, which may have to be removed and stormwater infiltration area will be decreased. Clause 10 - Zone Objectives The zone objective for Residential 2(a) states as follows: “b. to maintain and improve the amenity and existing characteristics of localities

predominantly characterised by dwelling-houses.” The proposed development will not result in the maintenance or improvement of the character of the locality. The streetscape will be dominated by the provision of 2 off street car parking spaces and does not allow the architectural qualities of the dwelling to be the dominant component of the street frontage. The amenity of the locality will be adversely affected by the proposal. Clause 29 – Development on land, including footway restaurants on public roads, shown uncoloured on Zoning map The above Clause states as follows:

(1) A person must not carry out development on land, shown uncoloured on the Zoning map, except with the consent of the Council.

(2) Consent to a development application required by subclause (1) may only be granted if the Council is of the opinion that the development:

(a) is compatible with the nature of development permissible on neighbouring land and those development standards applicable to development on neighbouring land; and

(b) is consistent with the aims of this Plan and the objectives of the zoning applying to neighbouring land.

The proposal to extend the roadway is on unzoned land. The development is not considered to be compatible with the nature of development permissible on neighbouring land and those development standards applicable to development on neighbouring land. These works are not considered necessary or satisfactory and are not supported with this application. In this regard it is also noted that no application has been made under the Roads Act 1993 – Section 138 for the proposed extension of the road. Furthermore the extension of the road will result in the removal of a significant street tree, which is located in a landscape conservation area. Clause 39 – Preservation of trees Street trees will be impacted by the proposed extension of the roadway works. These works are not supported as per the comments stated later in this report. The application has been assessed having regard to the relevant provisions of the LEP and is not acceptable for the reasons discussed.

9

2.1.3 Waverley Development Control Plan 2006, Part D1 – Dwelling House & Dual Occupancy Development

COMPLIANCE CHECK Control

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Allotment size • 450 sqm (min) • 369.4 sqm No Floor Space Ratio (Dwelling)

• Based on site area 369.4sqm

• 0.68:1 (251.19sqm)

• 0.665:1 (245.685sqm)

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Dual Occupancy)

• Based on min site area 450sqm

• 0.5:1 (i.e. 184sqm)

• 0.665:1 (245.685sqm)

No (33% over)

Height • Pitched roof 7m & 8.5m

• Flat roof – 7.5m

Generally flat roof • 8.3m (maximum) • 9.5m (maximum)

No No

Setbacks • Side 900 to 1200mm • Front and rear est.

building line

• 1.2m on eastern and western boundaries

• Front and rear do not align

Yes No

Front fencing • 1.2 metres • 1.2m Yes Elevated external decks

• 10sqm in area • 1.5m depth

• Upper ground floor - 2.5m X 8.2m (20.5sqm)

• Lower ground floor – 2.5m x 8.2m (20.5sqm)

No No

Vehicular Access and Parking

• No. of spaces • Dimensions (5.5 m × 2.5m) • Behind building

setback

• 2 • 5.5m x 2.75m (both) • In front of building

line

Yes Yes No

Landscaping • 40% of site area • 15% of site as soft • 50% of front lands. • 50% of front lands.

as soft • On-site retention

required

• 38.58% • 24.5% • 51.8% • 44% • Yes

No Yes Yes No Yes

Minimum allotment size Clause 5.2.1 restricts the allotment size is to a minimum area of 450sqm where 2 attached dual occupancy are proposed on site. The proposal is located on a site measuring 369.4sqm and does not comply with the minimum allotment size for a dual occupancy development. The departure from the minimum control is considered to be excessive, which will set an undesirable precedent in the area should the application be approved. The proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment in this respect.

10

FSR The allowable FSR for a single dwelling on this site (369.4sqm) is 0.68:1. The FSR for a dual occupancy on minimum allotment site of 450sqm is 0.5:1. As the proposal is a dual occupancy on a site less than the minimum, it is deemed that the allowable FSR shall be consistent with minimum allotment size for a dual occupancy.

The proposal should retain an FSR of no greater than 0.5:1. As the proposal does not meet council’s minimum lot requirements, it is considered a reasonable compromise that a dual occupancy may be built with a smaller FSR. This will result in minimal impact on the neighbouring properties. In its current state, the proposal is in excess of the allowable FSR of 0.5:1 by 33% (40sqm) which contributes to its bulk and scale at the rear of the property. The proposal is neither reasonable nor acceptable in these circumstances. The proposal is located on a site that is too small and is not supported as it is not compatible with the existing character and density of the locality. The proposal is considered an overdevelopment of the site and cannot be supported in its current form. Building Height The non compliance with building height especially at the rear of the property is considered to be unsatisfactory. The proposed non compliance will result in excessive visual bulk related impact when viewed from the rear yards of the eastern adjoining properties. Having regard to the above it is not considered that a building height of 9.5m and an external wall height of 8.3m at the rear of the property are appropriate within the proposed setbacks. The non compliance with the rear building line results in the proposal having an excess in height at the rear of the property due to the slope in the land. This could be resolved with a compliance with the rear setback control, which would minimise visual bulk when viewed from the eastern adjoining properties. Having regard to the slope of the land and the established rear building line of adjoining properties, the height of the proposed development is considered to be unsatisfactory. Front and Rear Building Lines The northern side of Francis St has a well established front and rear building line as shown in the picture below:

The proposed building has been designed to be consistent with the footprint of the existing building. The desired outcome is that the building should be built in line with the front and rear

11

setbacks of the adjoining properties. Given that the proposal is to demolish the existing building the setbacks and footprint of the existing dwelling are not relevant and should not be taken as a guide for the new development. The non compliance with the rear building line will increase visual bulk to the rear of the dwelling as viewed from the rear yards of the adjoining properties. This non compliance is unreasonable and the visual amenity of the area will not be maintained or improved as a result of this non compliance. The Waverley DCP 2006 requires a detached dual occupancy to have a setback or 3.5m from the rear boundary. The proposal is not detached and therefore the rear building line shall be consistent with the established rear building lines of the adjoining properties. The proposed development is not consistent with the established front and rear building lines of the adjoining properties along the northern side of Francis St and this aspect of the proposal is considered unsatisfactory. Elevated External Decks The rear decks of both the upper and lower ground floors are 2.5m x 8.2m (i.e. 20.5sqm) which is significantly outside the controls requiring a maximum width of 1.5m and a maximum area of 10sqm. These rear decks are considered to have a significant impact on the privacy of the adjoining properties. The amenity of the locality will be compromised as a result of their size and location. It is noted that the surrounding properties do also contain rear decks which are much smaller and are set back significantly further from the rear boundary. Vehicular Access The proposed double hard stand car parking is located within the front setback of the dwelling. The car parking within the front building setback dominates the frontage of the site. This is inconsistent with Council policy and will create an undesirable precedent in this section of Francis Street. The frontage of the building should be designed such that the architectural elements should have more dominance rather than parking facilities. The proposed hard stand car space detracts from the architectural integrity of the dwelling in that the majority of the dwelling is hidden behind it. The proposed street frontage does not continue the streetscape of single and double garages set discretely back from the street. The dwellings are the focal points in each block and not the motor car. A double vehicular crossing is proposed where a single crossing could be sufficient to service the proposed off street car spaces and maximise on street parking which is at a premium in the area. Landscaping The landscaping non compliances are minor and are reasonable.

2.1.4 Other Matters Privacy There are a number of privacy concerns including:-

• Windows on the eastern elevation on both floors look directly into the decks and private open space of the adjoining property to the east.

• Lower ground floor doors on the western elevation look directly into the windows of the property to the west.

12

It is noted in the letter dated 5 July 2010 from Dunn Architects that meetings with the adjoining owners have resulted in positive outcomes and minor changes can be submitted to Council on request. It is however deemed that the proposal is not supported for a larger number of reasons as previously discussed. ESD A BASIX Certificate was submitted with the application demonstrating compliance with state regulated energy efficiency and water conservation targets. Safety and security The proposal does not provide any significant form of passive street surveillance as the hard stand car spaces completely dominate the front street alignment of the property. This is not an acceptable design solution, which is contrary to Section 5.10 of Waverley DCP 2006.

3 Referrals

3.1 Internal Stormwater The application was referred to technical Services and the following comments received:-

“The stormwater drawings by Dunn Architects, project number 2010-0207, dated 14 April 2010, have been checked and are considered not satisfactory with respect to the stormwater details. The drawings do not comply with the WDCP 2006 (Amendment No 4) with respect to:

i) Part G4 – Clause 1.2 – on-site stormwater detention is required.

ii) Part B – Clause 11

iii) Part B – Clause 11.2.4 – details of the proposed on-site stormwater detention system are required.

IMPORTANT NOTE: As the location does not fall within the areas identified on the infiltration map, if Infiltration method is proposed, a Geotechnical report on the suitability of the location for stormwater disposal by infiltration is required.

Comment: The proposal is deficient with regards to the above information and an approval cannot be supported. Traffic/Vehicular Access The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer and the following comments received:-

SPECIAL CONDITIONS Council considers it is not necessary to extend the roadway to the extent as shown on the submitted plans. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant is to submit amended plans of turning path of a B85 vehicle using Auto Track or similar software in accordance with Australian Standard (AS/NZS 2890.1). Internal check showed that the roadway could be

13

extended only up to the proposed extent of driveway wing and still provide satisfactory swept path for the proposed on-site car spaces.”

Comment: The proposed extension of the road by 12.47m is considered to be excessive, which is not warranted and can be reduced by redesigning and moving the parking area closer to the north western boundary. Building Code of Australia Compliance The application was referred to Council’s Fire Safety Officer and the following comments received:-

“I refer to the application for construction of a three level dual occupancy building at the subject premises. An assessment of the plans indicates that there appears to be a number of non-compliances with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia including but not limited to; Clause C3.2 – Protection of openings in external walls Clause C2.6 – Vertical separation of openings (if Type A Construction). In addition the building may be required to be constructed in accordance with Type A Fire Resisting Construction requirements of the BCA should it have a rise in storeys of 3 as determined under Part C1 of the BCA. Therefore the plans should be modified to comply with the above requirements of the BCA.

Comment:- The application is not supported given that the application does not adequately demonstrate compliance under the provisions of the BCA. Public Domain/Tree Preservation The application was referred to the Tree Preservation Officer and the following comments received:-

“This site is a demolition site and it is considered that all trees on this site should be removed to allow this to occur. The specimens on site shown for retention are not viable enough to withstand the pressures of a building site, nor are they considered valuable enough to retain. It shall be recommended that all vegetation be removed from the site and replaced with appropriate species. There has been no landscape plan supplied with this application so before any approval is granted a detailed landscape plan is to be presented to Council for assessment. The landscape plan shall provide: Species and location of existing trees with trees proposed for removal clearly shown;

• Tree management plan in accordance with AS 4970-2009, Protection of trees on development sites, if it is considered that the trees at the rear of the property are to be retained. (Consideration should be given to their removal and replacement as it is considered they will not be viable to retain);

• Provision for the planting of at least one specimen tree in the rear yard of each dwelling with any replacement trees shall be planted no closer than 1.0 metres

14

from any structure, boundary or underground services. There shall also be provision for understory planting;

• Details relating to the location of landscaped areas; • Species, pot size, planting location and mature height of all plantings; • Representation of a minimum of 50% local native species on the site.”

The application was also reviewed by Council’s Strategic Tree Planning Officer who commented as follows:

“The extended roadway as indicated on the plans will have a negative impact on a mature street tree. The tree is a Casuarina glauca, 20 metres in height and in good condition. It is located on the nature strip in front of 103 Francis Street. Extending the roadway six metres beyond the boundary line would involve excavations within 50% of the tree’s critical root zone. Limiting the length of the extension to two metres beyond the boundary would allow for a three metre buffer from the base of the tree. A Eucalypt street tree, shown on the plans for removal and located on the slope between the footpath and roadway has recently been removed.

The width of the driveway entrance is at odds with the other street frontages in Francis Street that have narrow entrances and landscaping treatments of hedges. The width of the proposed driveway should be narrowed to allow for a planting bed 3 metres by 2 metres with the longer edge along the front eastern boundary.”

Section 79C(1)(b) - The likely impacts of that deve lopment, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality. For the reasons discussed above the proposed alterations and additions result in unreasonable impacts upon the built environment, particularly in regards to the impact on the streetscape at lower Francis St. The proposal will have a negative impact on the natural environment with the removal of a significant tree from the landscape conservation area. Socially, the proposal will reduce the number of car spaces available to residence. It is considered that there will be no adverse economic impacts due to the proposed development. Section 79C(1)(c) - The suitability of the site for the development. The proposed development is not considered suitable for the site having regard to the reasons discussed above.

4. PUBLIC SUBMISSION The application was notified for 14 days. Eight (8) submissions were received. The issues raised in the submission are summarised and discussed below.

Property Location Summary of Objections Unknown Unknown • Increased density will impact on car

parking. 99 Francis St 3 Houses to the

east • Loss of on street car parking. • The increased density is not

consistent with the locality

15

Property Location Summary of Objections 92 Francis St Opposite on

Francis St • Loss of on street car parking. • The increased density is not

consistent with the locality and puts additional pressure on existing services.

101 Francis St 2 houses to the east

• Loss of on street car parking.

107 Francis St Immediately west • W1, W3 and W4 pose significant privacy concerns.

• D3, D4 and D5 pose significant privacy concerns.

• W22 should be opaque glass • The rear deck on Lot 2 is too big and

will cause noise and privacy concerns.

• The side fence can be replaced but only with green colour bond and the necessary retaining wall installed.

• Common areas insufficient to service the strata properties.

• The courtyard on the western entrance to lot 2 is right next to windows at 107 Francis St and will have significant impacts on noise and privacy.

• Loss of on street car parking. • Non compliance with minimum

allotment size for dual occupancy. • The proposal is an

overdevelopment. 17 Rickard Ave North and behind • Rear building setback is too small

(3.5m). • Loss of privacy from lower ground

floor elevated deck. • Lower ground floor decks provide a

large entertainment area that has potential to create significant noise.

• Loss of privacy from upper ground floor deck.

• The proposal is to high and has excessive bulk.

• Non compliance with minimum allotment size for dual occupancy.

19 Rickard Ave North and behind • Non compliance with minimum allotment size for dual occupancy.

• Privacy and noise will impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.

• The increased density is not consistent with the locality.

• Inconsistent rear setback will impact on privacy.

• Both balconies will have a significant impact on privacy to 19 Rickard Ave.

• The trees are not high enough to

16

Property Location Summary of Objections eliminate privacy concerns.

103 Francis St Immediately east • The street tree on Francis St is in a conservation area and should be retained

• Development is proposed on land shown uncoloured on the zoning map.

• Non compliance with minimum allotment size for dual occupancy.

• Non compliance with rear building line.

• Non compliance with side setbacks where the wall height exceeds controls.

• Non compliant with front setback. • Flat roof non compatible with the

locality. • Excess over shadowing at the rear • View corridors affected at the rear • Proposal is inconsistent with local

architecture. • Inconsistent with the street pattern

and has a bulky appearance. • Loss of privacy from the rear decks. • Considerable glazing along the

eastern wall will transmit noise greater than through a constructed wall.

• Non compliance with open space. Issue: Undesirable density increase Comment – Dual occupancies are permitted with consent in the Residential 2(a) zone however the proposed dual occupancy is non compliant with the minimum allotment size control in Waverley DCP 2006. The density increase is not supported. Issue: Increased density is not consistent with the locality Comment – The locality consists of a mixture of free standing dwellings and semi detached housing. The site and surrounds is zoned Residential 2(a) under the Waverley LEP 1996 where dual occupancies are permitted with consent. The proposed increase in density is considered to be inconsistent within the locality given that the site does not comply with the minimum allotment size for a dual occupancy or the FSR control as discussed above. Issue: Loss of on street parking Comment – The proposal will result in the loss of 1 on street car parking space for the provision of 2 off street hard stand car parks. The current stacking arrangements fitting 4 cars employed by the residents for car parking in the cul-de-sac is not legal and an assessment cannot be made on this arrangement.

17

Issue: W1, W3 and W4 pose significant privacy concerns to 107 Francis St. Comment – The proposed windows on the western elevation are offset from any windows at 107 Francis St. It is not considered that these windows will result in a breech in privacy so as to warrant refusal of the application. Issue: D3, D4 and D5 pose significant privacy concerns to 107 Francis St. Comment – The proposed doors on the lower ground level western elevation result in significant privacy concerns to the property to the west. A 1.8m fence is proposed along the western boundary however the noise that will be generated may have an adverse impact on the adjoining property and thus the number of doors on this elevation are considered unsatisfactory. Issue: W22 should be opaque glass Comment – Should the application be approved conditions will be included to this affect. Issue: The rear decks on the upper and lower ground levels are too big and will have an impact on amenity with noise and privacy loss. Comment – No privacy screens are proposed on the eastern or western sides of the lower ground floor rear deck. This is a large entertaining area that will overlook into the properties rear yards on either side as well as over the back fence. It is noted that a similar deck is currently in place, an assessment is made however on the proposed deck. The deck is non compliant with council controls and is not supported as the adverse impacts on the adjoining neighbours far outweighs the amenity gained by Lot 2. The proposed deck on the upper ground floor does have privacy screens on either side but with its close proximity to the side boundary it increases the visual bulk of the development, especially when viewed from the ground level of eastern adjoining property. Issue: The side fence shall be replaced with green colour bond at developer’s expense along with necessary retaining walls. Comment – The proposed new fencing along the western boundary is to be reinstated with the same tone colour bond fencing at the raised side walkway. Should the application be approved a condition is recommended to be imposed in this regard. Issue: Common areas are insufficient. Comment – No common open space is proposed. Issue: The courtyard on the western entrance to lot 2 is right next to windows at 107 Francis St and will have significant impacts on noise and privacy. Comment – The courtyard will result in significant noise impacts on the adjoining property when used. This is not an appropriate solution to the provision of open space and is considered unsatisfactory. Issue: The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. Comment – The proposal is considered to be an over development of the site as a dual occupancy. The proposal is non compliant with building height, front and rear building alignment, minimum allotment size and FSR controls.

18

Issue: The proposal is too high and has excessive bulk. Comment – The proposal is non compliant with height controls towards the rear of the property and does result in an increase in bulk, particularly for the portion that extends beyond the rear building lines of the adjoining properties. The rear setback should be consistent with the adjoining properties to reduce visual bulk related impact on adjoining properties. Issue: The trees in the rear yard are not high enough to act as privacy screens. Comment – The plans state that the trees are to be retained. The Tree Preservation Officer however has approved the removal of all trees on site. It is acknowledged that there are significant privacy concerns as discussed above. Issue: The street tree on Francis Street is in a conservation area and should be retained. Comment – The road extension is not supported, which will allow the tree to be retained. Issue: Proposed works to occur on land uncoloured on the zoning map Comment – This has been discussed in the report above. Issue: Non compliance with front building line. Comment – This has been discussed in the report above. Issue: Flat roof non compatible with the locality. Comment – All of the dwellings within the wider vicinity display pitch roof designs. Flat roofs are a common modern building element and no objection is raised in this regard. Issue: Excess overshadowing at the rear. Comment – The non compliance with height and setback at the rear will have unnecessary impact on overshadowing particularly to the property to the east. The non compliances are not supported. Issue: View corridors at the rear are affected. Comment – The non compliances in height and rear setback have been discussed above. Issue: Not consistent with the surrounding architecture. Comment – This proposal is of a modern design. Whilst the existing character of the area is dominated by pitch roofs, flat roofs are a common modern building element and the application does not warrant refusal on these grounds. Issue: Considerable glazing along the eastern wall will transmit noise greater than through a constructed wall. Comment – The proposed glazing along the eastern façade is considered to be excessive and could potentially result in greater noise penetration to the adjoining property. Issue: Non compliance with open space provisions Comment – See above assessment.

19

Section 79C(1)(e) - The public interest. Having regard to the above analysis the proposed dual occupancy development at 105 Francis Street is not considered to be in the public interest.

5. DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING UNIT REVIEW The DBU gave consideration to the proposal having regard to the relevant matters under Section 79C of the Act. This included the issues raised in submissions to the application and the provisions of Council’s Development Control Plan.

The DBU reviewed the proposal and formed the view that the proposed development is not supportable given that there are a number of non compliances with regards to the prescriptive requirements given under Waverley DCP 2006. In this regard it was noted that one of the core controls for dual occupancy, which relates to minimum site area of 450sqm is being breached. The total area of the subject site is 370sqm which is well below the minimum standard of 450sqm. Whilst a small departure in this respect may be viewed as acceptable a shortfall of 80sqm is considered to be excessive and a variation in this regard cannot be supported. The DBU also noted that the maximum floor space ratio for a dual occupancy having a minimum site area of 450sqm is 0.5:1. Given that the site area is already short by 80sqm, the proposed FSR of 0.66:1 is considered to be unsatisfactory for a dual occupancy development. The DBU also formed the view that the setting and location of the development is unsatisfactory having regard to the predominant front and rear building line of the existing dwellings in the street. The proposal is for a new development and it is considered that the front and rear building line should closely reflect the adjoining dwellings. Furthermore the building should incorporate more stepping to allow the building to conform with maximum height controls for the zoning. The extension in the road way is considered to be unreasonable given that mature street tree will be impacted and stormwater infiltration area will be removed. Having regard to the above it is considered that the application be refused as per the reasons given in the report.

6. RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 226/2010 at 105 Francis St, Bondi Beach, NSW 2026 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new dual occupancy development including strata subdivision into two lots be refused by Council, for the following reasons: REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1. The proposal is not consistent with Clause 3(7) (d) and (f) of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996, as the proposal is not compatible with surrounding development and does not improve the amenity of the residential area.

2. The proposal does not comply with objective (b) of the Residential 2(a) zone as it

fails to maintain the amenity of the locality, contrary to Clause 10 of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996.

20

3. The proposal fails to comply with the following provisions of the Waverley Development Control Plan:

a. The minimum allotment size under Clause 5.2.1 is 450sqm for a dual

occupancy development, whereas the existing allotment size is 370sqm, which is well short of the minimum requirement.

b. Height set out in Clause 5.1 of Part D1 and would result in a building of

unacceptable size and bulk that would adversely impact upon the adjoining properties.

c. Floor Space Ratio Control set out in Clause 5.2 of Part D1 and would result

in a building of unacceptable size and bulk in relation to the allotment representing an overdevelopment of the site with negative impacts on adjoining residential properties and detracting from the character of the area.

d. Predominant front and rear setback set out in Clause 5.3 of Part D1 and

would result in unacceptable height bulk, and scale which would over dominate the site, adversely affecting the surrounding residential amenity.

e. Privacy and noise controls set out in Clause 5.6 of Part D1 are contravened

due to the size of balconies and significant sized doors and windows along the side elevations that would overlook and adversely impact on adjoining properties privacy.

f. Vehicular access and parking set out in Clause 5.7, in that the proposed

double hard stand area within the front setback will detract from the front elevation of the dwelling and will dominate the front façade of the dwelling.

g. Landscaped open space set out in Clause 5.8 in that the proposal fails to

provide sufficient soft landscaping within the front setback of the site.

h. Part G4, Clause 1.2 requires on-site stormwater detention, where none has been provided.

4. The proposal does not provide sufficient details with regard to Non-compliances

with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia including but not limited to;

• Clause C3.2 – Protection of openings in external walls and • Clause C2.6 – Vertical separation of openings (if Type A Construction).

In addition the building may be required to be constructed in accordance with Type A Fire Resisting Construction requirements of the BCA should it have a rise in storeys of 3 as determined under Part C1 of the BCA.

5. The extended roadway as indicated on the plans will have a negative impact on a

mature street tree (i.e. Casuarina glauca, 20 metres in height and in good condition) which may need to be removed.

6. No application has been made under the Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 for

the extension of the road and no appropriate details of road construction and financing has been provided.

7. The proposal would be contrary to the public interest given the impact on the

adjoining properties and issue raised in the submissions.

21

A. APPROVED DEVELOPMENT

1. APPROVED DEVELOPMENT The development must be in accordance with: (a) Architectural Plan Nos DA01A to DA14A, tables and documentation prepared by Dunn

Architects, dated 14 April 2010, and received by Council on date 19 May 2010, (b) BASIX Certificate; (c) The Site Waste and Recycling Management Plan (SWRMP) and Checklist, in accordance

with the SWRMP Checklist of Part G1, Waverley DCP 2006. Except where amended by the following conditions of consent.

2. GENERAL MODIFICATIONS The proposal shall be amended as follows: (a) New fencing along the western boundary is to be reinstated with the same colour

colourbond fencing at the raised side walkway. (b) Window labelled W22 shall be fixed opaque glass. The amendments shall be submitted for the approval of Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3. EXTENSION OF ROADWAY Council considers it is not necessary to extend the roadway to the extent as shown on the submitted plans. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant is to submit amended plans of turning path of a B85 vehicle using Auto Track or similar software in accordance with Australian Standard (AS/NZS 2890.1). Council is of the opinion that the roadway could be extended only up to the proposed extent of driveway wing and still provide satisfactory swept path for the proposed on-site car spaces.

4. INSTALLATION OF AIR CONDITIONING

Air conditioning unit(s) installed within the building shall: (a) Be located a minimum of 1.5 metres from a boundary. (b) Be located behind the front building line and if visible suitable screened and located in an

appropriate location. (c) Not be adjacent to neighbouring bedroom windows. (d) Not reduce the structural integrity of the building. (e) Not emit noise that is audible within a habitable room in any other residential property

(regardless of whether any door or window to that room is open):

(i) before 8.00am and after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or (ii) before 7.00am and after 10.00pm on any other day.

22

(f) Not provide noise emissions that exceed 5dBA above the ambient background noise

level measured at the property boundary at any other time outside of (e).

5. EXCAVATION TO BE LIMITED Excavation shall be limited to that shown in the approved plans. Excavation, proposed or undertaken in the certification or construction of the development, that results in additional habitable or non-habitable floor space (including storage) shall require the submission of a new development application or Section 96 application to modify the approved development. During consideration of this application construction work on site shall cease without prior agreement of Council. Failure to comply with this condition may lead to Council prosecuting or taking a compliance action against the development for breach of its consent.

B. COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIF ICATE

6. SECTION 94A CONTRIBUTION

A cash contribution is payable to Waverley Council pursuant to section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Waverley Council Development Contributions Plan 2006 in accordance with the following: (a) A cost report indicating the itemised cost of the development shall be completed and submitted to council:

(1) Where the total development cost is less than $500,000: "Waverley Council Cost Summary Report"; or, (2) Where the total development cost is $500,000 or more: "Waverley Council Registered Quantity Surveyor's D etailed Cost Report". A copy of the required format for the cost reports may be obtained from Waverley Council Customer Service Centre or downloaded from: www.waverley.nsw.gov.au/publications/

(b) Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, evidence must be provided that the levy

has been paid to Council in accordance with this condition or that the cost of works is less than $100,000.

(c) Should a section 96 modification result in any change to the total cost of the work, the

Section 94A contribution is to be revised and amended. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, evidence must be provided that the revised levy has been paid to Council in accordance with this condition.

Waverley Council Development Contributions Plans 2006 may be inspected at Waverley Council Customer Service Centre. Advisory Note - A development valued at $100,000 or less will be exempt from the levy. - A development valued at $100,001 - $200,000 will attract a levy of 0.5%. - A development valued at $200,001 or more will attract a levy of 1% based on the full cost

of the development.

23

7. SECURITY DEPOSIT

A deposit or guarantee satisfactory to Council for the amount of $15,000 must be provided as security for the payment of the cost of making good any damage that may be caused to any Council property as a consequence of this building work. This deposit or guarantee must be established prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The full amount of the difference after recovery of Council's cost for any repair of damage to Council property will be refunded after satisfactory completion of the building work to the person who paid the deposit.

8. LONG SERVICE LEVY A long service levy, as required under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act, 1986, is to be paid in respect to this building work. In this regard, proof that the levy has been paid is to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. Note: Council acts as an agent for the Long Service Payment Corporation and the levy may be paid at Council's office. The levy rate is 0.35% of building work costing $25,000 or more.

9. NO BUILDING WORKS PRIOR TO RELEASE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE The building work, including demolition, must not be commenced until:

a. a Construction Certificate has been obtained from Council or an Accredited Certifier in accordance with Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979; and

b. a Principal Certifying Authority has been appointed and Council has been notified of

appointment in accordance with Section 81(A)(2)(b) of the Environmental Planning & th Assessment Act, 1979 and Form 7 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations; and

c. Council is given at least two days Notice in writing of the intention to commence the

building works. The owner/applicant may make application to Council or an Accredited Certifier for the issue

of a Construction Certificate and to be the Principle Certifying Authority. 10. ESSENTIAL SERVICES - NEW BUILDING

Details of the proposed essential fire safety measures/services shall be submitted to Council with the application for a Construction Certificate or be attached to the Construction Certificate, including a certificate, prepared by a person competent to do so, setting out the: (a) basis of design; (b) standard to which the system is to be installed; and (c) all relevant documentation, including all drawings such as wiring diagrams, duct layouts,

hydraulic schematics etc and calculations shall be submitted for Council's records. At the completion of the installation, certification containing the following information shall be attached to the application for an Occupation Certificate or to the Occupation Certificate: (a) inspection, testing and commissioning details;

24

(b) date of inspection, testing and commissioning; (c) the name and address of the individual who carried out the test; and (d) a statement that the service has been designed, installed and is capable of operating to

the above standard.

11. HOARDING REQUIRED A standard A-Class hoarding designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Work Cover Authority being erected on the street alignments of the property, prior to the commencement of building operations, and such hoardings to be maintained during the course of building operations. Details of the hoarding are to be provided to Council prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. Where the hoarding is to be erected over the footpath or any public place, the approval of Council must be obtained prior to the erection of the hoarding.

12. SITE WASTE AND RECYCLING MANAGEMENT PLAN

A Site Waste and Recycling Management Plan (SWRMP) Checklist 2 shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval in accordance with Part G1, Waverley DCP 2006 prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. In this regard, Council expects demolition and excavated material to be reused and/or recycled wherever possible. The builder and all subcontractors shall comply with the approved SWRMP Part 1 and 2 at all times during construction. At least one copy of the SWRMP is to be available on site at all times during construction. Copies of demolition and construction waste dockets that verify the facility that received the material for recycling or disposal and the quantity of waste received, must be retained on site at all times during construction.

13. EROSION, SEDIMENT AND POLLUTION CONTROL Erosion, sediment and pollution control measures are to be implemented on this site. These measures are to be in accordance with Council's Stormwater Policy and are to be implemented prior to commencement of any work or activities on or around the site. Details of these measures are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

14. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Certification is to be provided from a suitably qualified professional, that the stormwater system has been designed in accordance with the Water Management Technical Guidelines. Stormwater system details are to be submitted in accordance with the Waverley Development Control Plan 2006 (Amendment No. 4) - Part G4 prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

15. ENGINEERING DETAILS Structural details prepared and certified by a practicing Structural Engineer being furnished to Council or Accredited Certifier in connection with all structural components prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

25

16. BASIX

The undertakings provided in the BASIX Certificate shall be provided for in the Construction Certificate plans and documentation prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. If required, a modified BASIX Certificate shall be provided that reflects the development as approved (eg addressing any modification required via conditions of consent). Any significant works (ie any works not able to be considered as Exempt and Complying Development) that result from changes to the BASIX Certificate or conflict with conditions of consent require Council's consent. The Principal Certifying Authority shall be responsible for ensuring that all the undertakings are satisfied prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The above condition is a prescribed condition under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulations clause 97A and the above BASIX commitments are mandatory and can not be modified under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

17. USE OF RENEWABLE TIMBERS Council requires, wherever possible, the use of renewable timbers and/or plantation timbers such as Radiata Pine or Oregon as an alternative to the use of non-renewable rainforest timber products in buildings so as to help protect the existing areas of rainforest. In this regard, a schedule of proposed timber products to be used in the building is to be submitted for approval by the Principle Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Where the applicant is to use timbers not recommended in Council's Policy, reasons are to be given why the alternative timbers recommended cannot be used.

C. COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION

18. PRIOR TO SITE WORKS The Principal Certifying Authority must be informed in writing before any site works, building or demolition commences of: (a) the name and contractor licence number of the licensee who has contracted to do, or

intends to do, work ; or (b) the name and permit number of the owner/builder who intends to do the work; and (c) any change to these arrangements for doing of the work.

19. HOME BUILDING ACT The builder or person who does the residential building work shall comply with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home and Building Act, 1989. In this regard a person must not contract to do any residential building work unless a contract of insurance that complies with this Act is in force in relation to the proposed work. It is the responsibility of the builder or person who is to do the work to satisfy the Principal Certifying Authority that they have complied with the applicant requirements of Part 6, before any work commences.

20. CONSTRUCTION SIGNS Prior to commencement of any works on the site and during construction a sign shall be erected on the main frontage of the site detailing the name, address and contact details (including a telephone number) of the Principal Certifying Authority and principal contractor

26

(the coordinator of the building works). The sign shall be clearly legible from the adjoining street/public areas and maintained throughout the building works.

21. EXCAVATION AND BACKFILLING All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with the appropriate professional standards and must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

22. EXCAVATION BELOW FOOTINGS If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made, at their own expense, must: (a) preserve and protect the building from damage; and (b) if necessary, must underpin and support the building in an approved manner; and (c) must, at least seven days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of

a building on an adjoining allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining allotment of land and furnish particulars of the excavation to the owner of the building being erected or demolished.

23. OBSTRUCTION TO PUBLIC AREAS

If a public place or pedestrian vehicular traffic may be obstructed because of the carrying out of work involved in the erection or demolition of a building; or a public place is required to be enclosed in connection with the erection or demolition of a building; then:

(a) a hoarding fence must be erected between the building site and the public place of the proposed building and the public place. If necessary, an awning sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place, is also to be erected;

(b) the work is to be kept lit during the time between sunset and sunrise if the work may

be of a sort of danger to persons using the public place; and

(c) a hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when it is no longer required for the purpose it was provided.

24. TOILET FACILITIES

Toilet facilities being provided on the work site in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water.

25. DEMOLITION OR ALTERATION OF PRE 1987 BUILDINGS At least five (5) days prior to the demolition, renovation work or alterations and additions to any building constructed before 1987, the person acting on the consent shall submit a Work Plan prepared in accordance with Australian Standard AS260-2001, Demolition of Structure and a Hazardous Materials Assessment by a person with suitable expertise and experience. The Work Plan and Hazardous Materials Assessment shall: (a) outline the identification of any hazardous materials, including surfaces coated with lead paint;

27

(b) confirm that no asbestos products are present on the subject land; or (c) particularise a method of safely disposing of the asbestos in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos NOHSC 2002 (1998); (d) describe the method of demolition; (e) describe the precautions to be employed to minimise any dust nuisance; and (f) describe the disposal methods for hazardous materials.

26. COMPLIANCE WITH WORKCOVER NSW REQUIREMENTS All site works complying with the occupational health and safety requirements of WorkCover NSW.

27. SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN A Soil and Water Management Plan (also known as an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan) shall be prepared according to SSROC's Soil and Water Management Brochure and the DECC's Managing Urban Stormwater: Construction Activities. This Plan shall be implemented prior to commencement of any works or activities. All controls in the Plan shall be maintained at all time. A copy of the Soil and Water Management Plan must be kept on site at all times and made available to Council officers on request.

28. SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT SIGN Throughout the construction/remediation/demolition period, Council's warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed on the most prominent point of the building site, visible to both the street and site works. A copy of the sign is available from Council.

29. STOCKPILES Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, soil or other material shall not be located on any drainage line or easement, natural watercourse, footpath or roadway and shall be protected with adequate sediment controls.

30. LOCATION OF BUILDING OPERATIONS Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or brushes and mixing mortar are not permitted on public roadways or footpaths or in any locations which could lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

31. ALL BUILDING MATERIALS STORED ON SITE All building materials and any other items associated with the development are to be stored within the confines of the property. No materials are to be stored on Council's footpath, nature strip, or road reserve without prior Council approval.

32. CONSTRUCTION HOURS Demolition and building work must only be undertaken between the hours of 7am and 5pm on

Mondays to Fridays and 8am to 3pm on Saturdays with no work to be carried out on: (a) The Saturday (except minor renovation or refurbishment to a single dwelling

construction) and Sunday which form part of public holiday weekends;

28

(b) Sundays and public holidays; and (c) On the Saturday (except minor renovation or refurbishment to a single dwelling

construction) and Sunday which immediately precede or follow industry Rostered Days Off, as agreed by the CFMEU and the Master Builders Association of NSW.

Noise from construction activities shall comply with the Protection of the Environmental

Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000. 33. CONSTRUCTION NOISE - PERIODS GREATER THAN 4 WEEKS

The LA10 level measured over a period of not less than 15 minutes when the construction site is in operation must not exceed the background (LA90) noise level by more than 10dB(A) when assessed at any sensitive noise receiver.

34. BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

35. QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION ACT - INSPECTIONS (RESI DENTIAL FLAT DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL CLASS 2, 3 AND 4) The building works are to be inspected during construction by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and in accordance with the Building Legislation (Quality of Construction) Act 2002 and the Environmental Planing and Assessment Regulations. Also, documentary evidence of compliance with the relevant terms of conditions of development consent and standards of construction detailed in the Building Code of Australia is to be obtained prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction and/or issue of an Occupation Certification. MANDATORY Critical Stage Inspections MUST be carried out by the PCA for work undertaken during specified stages of construction and prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate. The specified MANDATORY inspections are: In the case of a Class 2, 3 and 4 building: (a) at the commencement of the building work; (b) prior to covering of waterproofing in any wet area for a minimum of 10% of rooms with wet

area within a building; (c) prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections; and (d) after the building work has been completed and prior to any Occupation Certificate being

issued in relation to the building. The following additional inspections are required to be undertaken by the PCA: (a) sediment control measures prior to the commencement of building work; (b) foundation material prior to undertaking building work; (c) shoring of excavation works, retaining walls, piers, piling or underpinning works; (d) steel reinforcement, prior to pouring concrete; (e) prior to covering timber or steel framework for floors, walls and roofing, including beams

and columns; (f) prior to installation of fire resisting construction systems (ie fire rated ceilings and walls);

and

29

Note: Certification may be required from a suitably qualified person, in relation to specialist matters, verifying that particular works satisfy the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and standards of construction.

36. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY - LEVELS All construction works shall be strictly in accordance with the Reduced Levels (RLs) as shown on the approved plans. Certification from a Registered Surveyor certifying ground, upper floor/s and finished ridge levels is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority during construction and prior to continuing to a higher level of the building.

37. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY - BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION OF BUILDING A Certificate of Survey prepared by a Registered Surveyor setting out the boundaries of the site and the actual situation of the building on the site is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority to certify the building is located in accordance with the development consent plans. The Certificate is to be submitted prior to the construction of the external walls above the ground floor level of the building.

38. WATER PROOFING The floor and wall surfaces of the proposed wet areas being protected against water in accordance with the Building Code of Australia. The wet areas are to be examined and certified by an Accredited Certifier. Note: Water proofing is to be in accordance with AS 3740 - Water Proofing of Wet Areas within residential buildings.

39. HOT TAP WATER SCALDING To reduce the incidence of hot tap water scalding and, for the purpose of energy efficiency, all new or replacement hot water systems shall deliver hot water to a maximum 50 degrees Celsius at the outlet of all sanitary fixtures used for personal hygiene.

40. NEW VEHICLE CROSSING A new vehicle crossing is to be provided to access the proposed hardstand. A separate application is required for the modified vehicle crossing, with all work to be carried out with the approval of and in accordance with the requirements of Council. All new vehicle crossings to be Wheel Strips instead of full width concrete driveway wherever feasible.

41. VEHICULAR ACCESS - FINISHED LEVEL The finished level at the property boundary on both sides of the vehicle crossing is to be 50mm above the existing concrete footpath.

42. WORK OUTSIDE PROPERTY BOUNDARY All work outside the property boundary is to be carried out with the approval of, and in accordance with, the requirements of Council at the applicant's expense.

43. SERVICE AUTHORITIES The applicant is to seek approval from Telstra, Sydney Water, AGL and Energy Australia regarding any possible modification to the service authority’s infrastructure prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

30

D. COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO OCCUPATION OR DURING OCCUPAT ION

44. FINAL OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE The Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation or use of the development must issue a final Occupation Certificate. In issuing an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that the requirements of Section 109H of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 have been satisfied.

45. STREET NUMBER/S The street number for the property shall be a minimum of 75mm high and shall be positioned 600mm-1500mm above ground level on the site boundary that fronts the street. Should the number be fixed to an awning then it shall be a minimum 150mm high.

31

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING AND ASSESSMENT PANEL OF WAVERLEY COUNCIL

Location: Council Chambers, Corner of Paul Street and Bondi Road Date: 11 August 2010 Time commenced: Inspections – 3.30 pm Public Hearing – 6.00 pm Time concluded: IHAP Meeting – 8.30 pm Panel Members: Dr Peter R Jensen – Chairperson (Architect / Planner/)

Stuart McDonald (Town Planner) Stacey Brodbeck (Landscape Architect/ Planner) Paula Masselos (Community Representative)

Staff in attendance: Arif Faruqi - Area Manager Development Assessment Team

(North) Disclosures: There were no conflicts of interest declared

Demolition of the existing dwelling on the site and replacement with a new dual occupancy residential building including stratification into two separate titles. Address: 105 Francis Street, Bondi Beach Council reference: DA 226/2010 PANEL COMMENTARY: As observed at the site inspection, taken before the commencement of the public meeting, the subject site is located adjoining a short section of Francis Street which forms a cul-de-sac at a level below the main part of the road. However, at present, directly in front of the site proposed for redevelopment, the road is not formed and this constitutes part of the development application: Extension of the roadway to beyond the alignment of the existing residence proposed for demolition. Evidently this proposal requires the consent of the relevant authority which the IHAP understands is Waverley Council. In dealing with the application, it is apparent that the Council will be obliged to consider the public interest in coming to a decision and ultimately providing the applicant with “owner’s consent” for the work required to extend the road. The land in the vicinity of the subject site and this part of Francis Road is relatively steep and there is a substantial cross fall from the upper section of the road down to the subject site across the cul-de-sac. The site in turn, falls along its long axis towards the north. To the west of the proposed development is a relatively new dwelling with garaging directly fronting the roadway on the western side of the site. . As compared with residences further to the west along Francis Street, the main frontage of this building is set back somewhat.

32

To the east of the subject development, a pair of Victorian era terrace houses are located and are setback from the road frontage to an extent comparable with the buildings to the western end of the lower section of Francis Street. As compared with the adjoining buildings, the proposed development is set back to a significantly greater extent and as explained by the architect during the course of the meeting, this derives from the footprint of the existing residence proposed for demolition. In this context, the architect claimed that the existing perimeter foundation walls are to be retained and this appears to be confirmed by notation on the development application drawings. This design decision has the result that the rear, northern façade of the proposed dual occupancy, would be located significantly closer to the northern boundary than dwellings that flank the proposal to east and west. Moreover, the configuration of stepped terraces at the rear of the proposed dual occupancy places them in relatively close proximity to the northern boundary. This would be likely to exacerbate the extent of overlooking and privacy intrusion as compared with that produced by neighbouring development. In this context, the IHAP noted the extent of complaints relating to privacy loss deriving from residents of Rickard Avenue to the north. In this regard, the IHAP heard from Mr R Regan and Mr A Miranda, residents of Numbers 19 and 17 Rickard Avenue respectively. In addition to these two residents, the IHAP also heard from Mr T Wheeler speaking on behalf of the owner of Number 103 Francis Street, Mr P Ross from Number 101, Francis Street and Mr J Lunt from Number 107, Francis Street. The main thrust of their complaints went to the scale of the proposed development, having regard to a development control relating to site size for dual occupancy, and the impact of the development on vehicular movement in Francis Street and car parking. In response to these various concerns, the architect for the project, Mr R Dunn, expressed disappointment at the Officers’ recommendation for refusal and also complained at the lack of useful feedback as part of the development application process. As noted above, the architect also referred to the footprint of the existing house as the determinant of the location of the new dual occupancy dwelling on the site. Further he noted that the Council’s own development control plan (DCP) permitted a floor space ration of 0.6 to 1 on a site of 450 m2 which is the basis for dual occupancy development in the DCP. The IHAP was able to confirm that this is the standard contained in the DCP and further that for conventional dwellings, a greater FSR than 0.6 to 1 would apply to the subject site which is 369 m2 in area. In relation to the question of overlooking to the north, Mr Dunn referred to existing trees which provide screening and said that the intention was to preserve this visual separation. In addition, he suggested that the rear yards of Rickard Avenue are already overlooked by properties in Francis Street and therefore the affectation complained of is at an acceptable level. In addition to Mr Dunn, the owner of the subject residence, Ms Y Goode who lives in the ACT, explained the basis upon which the house had been vacant for some twenty years. The house had belonged to her mother during that time and prior to her. Ms Goode said that she had grown up in Number 105 Francis Street and the problems associated with parking and vehicular movement had been endemic during that time. Moreover, as compared with the current voluntary parking arrangements applied by the current owners, in the past, parking on the footpath had been a conventional solution to lack of road parking space. In her opinion, extension of Francis Street would be beneficial in general and was something to be supported.

33

CONCLUSIONS: In relation to the configuration of the Francis Street extension proposed, the IHAP has concluded that in general terms this could be seen as beneficial to the public, quite apart from allowing road access to the subject development. However, it was of the opinion that the driveway arrangements require significant modification and relocation so as to minimise the extent of road frontage alienated by the proposal. In addition, there appeared to be no clear proposal for the financial responsibility for carrying out the works, assuming that ultimately the Council would be prepared to provide “owner’s consent”. This concern leads directly to the next matter, relating to front and rear setbacks of the proposed development and its relation to the street. As observed in the Council Officer’s report, the existing house and its proposed replacement are set back from the street a considerably greater distance than flanking development to east and west. The reason for this is the retention of existing perimeter walls of the residence as explained by the architect. While it may be generally conventional to allow rebuilding of existing houses on the same footprint where damaged due to fire or other causes, this is not at all the case in this application. To all intents and purposes, the redevelopment involves a complete demolition of the existing building structure and what remains is not seen by the IHAP as a reasonable basis for retaining the original footprint. Given this, as contended by the Officers of the Council, maintaining the existing siting in the new development does not seem to be valid. Moreover, if contemporary setback requirements in the DCP were to apply, clearly the privacy affectation to be anticipated to the north could be significantly ameliorated. Beyond this, the IHAP believes that there is significant scope for improving the relationship of the car parking spaces to the road frontage and the access and footpath crossing to be reduced so as to maximise the extent of car parking space in Francis Street. Any re-design of this frontage should also consider the potential to include one or more trees and additional planting area as well as relocation of the bin storage areas to a site less visible from the street. With regard to the concern expressed relating to the scale of the development, the IHAP found the issue of density per se to be hard to reconcile with the floor space ratio controls contained in the Council’s DCP. Evidently the FSR control would allow a single house of comparable scale to the dual occupancy proposed and depending on the size of family accommodated, could generate the same or larger demand for car parking spaces. What may be relevant in this context is the intended control of minimum site size for dual occupancy at 450 m2 which this proposal transgresses. However, this does not appear to lead to an unacceptable residential density and equally it would certainly allow a single house of directly comparable scale to the proposed development to be erected on the site. With regard to the concern about the height of the development, the IHAP notes that it is at the northern end of the building that the exceedence would occur and as the architect noted, the DCP concedes that minor transgressions are permissible. While it is considered that the exceedence is more than minor it would appear that it could be reduced by setting back the development to the south, closer to the road and a minor extent of excavation in this location as well. The general conclusion of the IHAP is that the proposed development involves a number of fundamental problems that require revision before the application could be considered to be acceptable. In particular, relocation of the proposed building on the site would solve three problems that were the subject of complaint. The first of these relates to the proximity of balconies to the northern boundary and overlooking. The second relates to the proposed method of access to the Francis Street cul-de-sac and the extent of road based car parking that would be alienated by the proposal. The third problem, although this is seen as of lesser moment, is the height of the roof at the northern end of the building.

34

Attending to these issues would not appear to the IHAP to involve any great design difficulty as no internal planning changes would seem to be involved. For all the reasons given above, it appears to the IHAP that refusal of the application is appropriate as amendments intended to respond to the issues exposed would lead to a building and siting which is significantly different to the application before the IHAP for consideration. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL: The recommendations contained in the Officers’ report are supported and the Council is advised that the development application is not acceptable and should be refused. Having regard to the means by which an acceptable development could be achieved, it is suggested that the applicant should be invited to submit a revised application that has regard to the commentary and conclusions of the IHAP as set out above. VOTING FOR THE RECOMMENDATION: Four to Nil - Unanimous

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43