DA - Delegated Report - 10.2014.212.1 - 10a Burns Crescent

Development Assessment APPLICATION NO: 10.2014.212.1

ADDRESS: 10A Burns Crescent CHISWICK NSW 2046

PROPOSAL: Construction of attached two storey dual occupancy

with strata subdivision

SUMMARY

Date Lodged: 6 June 2014

Name of Applicant: Mr Ghazi Sangari

Name of Owner: Ozy Investments Pty Ltd

Cost of Development Stated: $460,000

Cost of Development against Cordell's: Inconsistent

Date Notified: 4 July 2014

Date Additional Information Requested: 2 December 2014

No. of objections submitted: One (1)

Issues, including those matters raised by objectors:

Cost of Works, FSR, Side and rear setbacks, building height, landscape area,

roof form, materials and colours

Recommendation

On considering those matters contained in section 79C of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act relevant to the application it is recommended that

the proposed development be granted subject to condition.

City of Canada Bay Council

Delegated Report Date: 04 March 2015 Page 2

REPORT

1. BACKGROUND

4 June 20143 – Delegated approval was granted to Development No.

111/2013 for the subdivision of 10 Burns Crescent, Chiswick (Lot 12, DP

1175282) into three (3) new residential allotments, with one lot (Lot 1)

having a frontage to Burns Crescent, and the remaining two lots (Lots 2

and 3) setback behind, with vehicular access from Burns Crescent via an

access handle.

28 August 2013 – A related section 96 (1A) amendment application was

lodged with Council and subsequently withdrawn on 30/1/2013.

6 June 2014 – A related Section 96 amendment application was lodged to

Council proposing a boundary shift between Lots 1 and 2. The subject DA

was lodged concurrently with this application however this application has

been subsequently withdrawn. Another Section 96 application has been

recently lodged to facilitate the new driveway layout of the amended

scheme, the subject of this SEE. The Section 96 application proposes

amended Development Consent No. 111/2013 by adding a new ‘right of

carriageway and drainage easement to form an extension to that currently

registered. NB: A subdivision certificate (SC 111/2013) relating to DC No.

111/2013 has been registered at Land and Property Information.

6 June 2014 – The subject DA, Development Application No. 211/2014,

was submitted to Council and subsequently notified to surrounding

properties. It has been subject to various discussions between Council’s

Officers, the applicant and representatives of the applicant. The amended

scheme is a result of these discussions.

6 January 2015 – Further issues raised with regard to traffic and parking

resulted in further amendments which form the current revision of plans

recommended for approval with conditions.

Cots of Works – It is noted that the applicant stated the dual occupancy

will result in a total building cost of $460,000. This is not considered an

accurate estimate for a three storey dual occupancy dwelling development

with approximately 280m2 of primary building plus, below ground parking

level to both dwellings, ground floor rear covered patio areas

approximately 25m2, a front portico areas approximately 2.55m

2 and

associated landscape works.

The following table provides a calculation with a modest square metre

building rate of $1,800.00. The revised cost of works totals $830,877.50

(that is, an additional $370,877.50 over that stated by the applicant in the

DA submission).

Item Cost

Demolition/Ground Works $5,000.00*


Delegated Report Date: 9 June 2015 Page 3

Hydraulic Services $28,000.00*

Mechanical Services $5,000.00*

External

Works/Driveway/Landscape

$75,000.00*

External Services $N/A*

Other Related Work $N/A*

Consultants Fees $15,000.00*

Other Related Development Costs $Nil*

Construction/m2 for primary

building (approximately 280m2)

$504,000.00 ($1800.00/m2)

Garage (2 x single – 36.48m2) $36,480.00 ($1000.00/m

2)

Front portico area (2.55m2) $1,147.50 ($450.00/m

2)

Rear covered patio areas (25m2) $11,250.00 ($450/m

2)

Basement parking level ($1000/m2) $150,000.00 (150m

2)

Total Development Cost

$830,877.50

* These additional individual values associated with the cost of the

development have been included by the applicant in the submitted cost

summary report.

The applicant has been charged an application fee of $1357.40 based on

the stated cost of $460,000.00 plus a Planning Reform Fee of $294.

Given Council’s calculations above resulting in a cost of works for

$830,877.50, additional development application fees will apply by

condition of consent. The revised DA Fee is $1,756.64 and the revised

Planning Reform Fee is $531.00. Therefore, a total difference of $636.24

(including an additional $237.00 Planning Reform Fee) to be paid prior to

the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The site has not previously accommodated any residential dwellings and

therefore is subject to Council’s S94 Development Contributions Plan for

the creation of new residential dwelling development. The site is therefore

subject to a $20,000.00 s94 Levy for each of the new three bedroom

dwellings proposed.

2. THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT The site is legally described as Lot 2 on DP 1187408 and has a site area of

459.90m2. The site has a battle-axe configuration access directly off Burns

Crescent via a shared driveway handle with No. 10 Burns Crescent.

The access handle off Burns Crescent has a frontage of 2.47m. The handle

is approximately 25.5m in length leading to the primary area of the site to

the north of Burns Crescent and behind No. 10B Burns Crescent.

The width of the primary area of the site is 16.47m and the depth 23.925m.



The site has a gentle fall from the rear boundary down to the shared

boundary with No. 10B Burns over approximately 1.42m.

The property adjoining to the south-west of the site is No. 10 Burns, the

recently created battle-axe allotment that was Torrens Title subdivided

under DA111/2013, to form No’s 10, 10A & 10B Burns Crescent. No. 8

Burns Crescent, diagonally to the south, is owned by Sydney Water. The

Sydney Water site has a small brick utility building centred on the site.

Low density residential development is situated to the east and north of the

site with nearby commercial property to the south-west.

The site is currently vacant however aerial surveys show that in 1943 the

site had a number of small buildings/huts along its northern and eastern

boundaries. Subsequent photographic survey conducted in 1973 shows

that the site has since been cleared and has remained so since.

3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN DETAIL The applicant seeks Council’s consent for the following works:

Erection of a three-storey attached dual occupancy with below

ground basement parking level

Associated landscape works

Each dwelling layout will consist of the following:

Basement Level

Stairs and carspaces and turning areas.

Ground floor level

Front entry foyer and staircase access to the upper level

Basement staircase access on the opposite side, and bathroom

behind

Open plan kitchen and dining area at the rear with direct access to a

rear deck and rear soft landscaped surrounds

Laundry and storage areas

First floor level

Master bedroom at front with access to balcony

Bathrooms and staircase behind

Two bedrooms at rear, each with access to balcony

4. PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan,

adjoining and nearby property owners and occupiers were advised of the

proposal and invited to comment. The notification generated one (1)

submission objecting to the proposal.

Submissions Received from Adjoining Property Owners/Occupiers:



Submitter

Objection/Issue

Raised

Comments

Outcome

Deborah O’Mara

14 Burns

Crescent,

Chiswick

Streetscape – roof

line not in

keeping with

current

streetscape

The street is

currently under

transition and

there is no one

dominant

architectural style

of any

significance.

Buildings in the

immediate

surrounds include

low density

residential to the

north/east and

south/east and

commercial/indus

trial buildings to

the south/west up

to three storeys.

No. 10A Burns

Crescent is not

fully visible from

the street and is

setback

approximately

33m from the

street frontage

Contemporary

form with

skillion roof

elements is

supported

subject to

conditions

relating to

materials and

colours

Blue render is not

in keeping with

the streetscape

Applicant has

agreed to replace

with dark face

brick finish

instead of the

blue coloured

render

Condition for

face brick to

replace

proposed blue

render elements

Building height

excessive

Proposed building

height is

compliant

Proposal

supported

Privacy from

front windows

and balcony of

10B and rear

windows and

outdoor area of

10A Burns

The proposal does

not indicate any

significant

privacy impacts

in this regard. The

relationship

between

adjoining rear

Proposal

supported



yards is a typical

suburban

configuration

Side setbacks

along the

north/eastern

boundary is not

indicated on the

plans

The plans clearly

state the side

setback along this

boundary to both

ground floor and

first floor is

1405mm

Proposal

supported with

condition of

consent to

comply with

1500mm side

setback on

upper level

5. ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 79C OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

5.1. Environmental Planning Instruments [Section 79C (1) (a) (i & ii)]

5.1.1. State Environmental Planning Policies

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP No. 55)

Remediation of Land.

According to clause 7 of SEPP No. 55 Council may not consent to the

carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered whether

the land is contaminated, and if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that

the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable after

remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be

carried out.

The subject land has been vacant for a significant period of time and there

are no signs of contamination as indicated in the submitted Contamination

Report (GTE-355). Council may be satisfied that the land is not likely to

be contaminated and is suitable for continued residential use.

State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index

(2004)

To encourage sustainable residential development, all new dwellings must

comply with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy –

Building Sustainability Index (BASIX).

The proposed development has achieved full compliance with the BASIX

commitments as they have reached targets of 51 for water and 44 for

energy. The schedule of BASIX Commitments is specified within the

BASIX Certificate No. 545645M_04 and is included in the recommended

conditions of consent.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005



The site falls within the map area shown edged heavy black and hence is

affected by SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.

Clause 20(a) states that consent authorities must take into consideration

the matters in Division 2 prior to the granting of consent.

The site is sufficiently separated from the waterway and is not likely to

pose any threat to the quality or amenity of the waterway as a result of the

development proposal.

5.1.2. Local Environmental Planning Instruments

The proposed development, defined as attached dual occupancy is

permissible with the consent of Council, within a R2 Low Density

Residential zone under Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013.

Following is a summary table indicating the performance of the proposal

against relevant statutory standards.

Statutory Standards (LEPs, PSO, IDOs)

Control Standard Proposed Compliance

Zoning

Clause

2.1

Zone R2

Low Density

Residential

Dual occupancy

(attached)

Yes

Floor

Space

Ratio

(FSR)

Clause

4.4

Site area

> 450m2

FSR

0.5:1

Existing battle-axe

allotment approved

under DA111/2013

(459.9m2 including

access handle)

0.559:1

No

(Clause 4.6

Variation

sought – see

below)

Building

Height

Clause

4.3

8.5m 7.6m Yes

As indicated in the compliance table, the proposed development does not

comply with the floor space ratio standard of the Environmental Planning

Instrument. In this regard the applicant has lodged a written request to

vary the standard under the provisions of clause 4.6 – Exemptions to

development standards in the LEP.

Clause 4.6 - Exemptions to development standards (CBLEP 2013)

1) The objectives of this clause are:

a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain

development standards to particular development, and

b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing

flexibility in particular circumstances.

2) Consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even

though the development would contravene a development standard



imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument.

However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is

expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

3) Consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a

development standard unless the consent authority has considered a

written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the

contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or

unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify

contravening the development standard.

4) Consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a

development standard unless:

(a) (a the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the

matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because

it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard

and the objectives for development within the zone in which the

development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must

consider:

a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any

matter of significance for State or regional environmental

planning, and

b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the

Director-General before granting concurrence.

6) Consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of

land in Zone RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4, RU6, R5, E2, E3 or E4 if:

a) the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the

minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard,

or

b) the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90%

of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development

standard.

7) After determining a development application made pursuant to this

clause, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of

the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request

referred to in subclause (3).

8) This clause does not allow consent to be granted for development that

would contravene any of the following:

a) a development standard for complying development,



b) a development standard that arises, under the regulations under

the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX

certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning

Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for

the land on which such a building is situated,

c) clause 5.4.

Clause 4.6 allows Council to vary a control where a written request is

made by an applicant demonstrating that two criteria are met. The criteria

to be satisfied are that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or

unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient

environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard.

The objectives of the provision would also need to be satisfied and are:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain


(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing


As such, Council should only exercise this power when it will result in a

better outcome for the development if the standard is breached. Council

cannot permit the breach of the standard unless it is satisfied that the

written request by the applicant adequately addresses the two criteria, the

development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the

objectives of the particular standard and those for the zone and the

concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained. It is noted that

Council has been advised by the Department of Planning that it can

assume the concurrence of the Director-General when making a

determination of the application.

The applicant seeks exemption from the floor space ratio standard as

prescribed in the CBLEP under clause 4.4 Floor space ratio.

Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio

The objectives of clause 4.4(1) of the provision that need to be satisfied

are:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain


(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing


The applicant’s written request for exemption from the floor space ratio

standard is summarized as follows.

The variation is appropriate in this case given the following:

The variance is minimal.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Depi%20AND%20Year%3D2004%20AND%20No%3D396&nohits=y

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Depi%20AND%20Year%3D2004%20AND%20No%3D396&nohits=y



Response: The actual variation sought is 27.56m2 (13.78m

2/dwelling).

A reduction in floor space would not result in any noticeable benefit

with regard to bulk and scale, view loss, overshadowing or privacy.

More value in this regard would be achieved by lowering the overall

building height which in this case there is scope to do so and still have

more than minimum BCA floor to ceiling heights.

Strict compliance can be achieved without any substantial change

to the proposed bulk and scale of the built form.

Response: As discussed above.

The proposed built form will not present an overbearing visual

impact to the streetscape. It will be setback from the street and

screened by the anticipated development of Lot 1. Nevertheless it

will reflect the emerging contemporary character of the streetscape

and upgrade the site.

Response: The dwellings are setback a minimum of approximately

32m from the street alignment and largely concealed from street view

by the proposed dual occupancy development at No 10B Burns

Crescent (approved under DA211/2014).

The excess gross floor area will not result in any undue impacts on

adjoining properties particularly with respect to overshadowing,

loss of privacy and loss of views.


Strict compliance can be achieved without increasing the resultant

landscaped area, via the reduction of the gross floor area at the

upper level. As such there would be no change or benefit to the

balance of built and natural forms presented to the streetscape.


The proposed landscape area will be capable of providing

opportunities for deep soil planting that would contribute to the

backdrop and skyline of the built form. In particular, the western

side boundary setback will be ample and enable feature trees to be

established (as proposed) that will form the end part of a vista

visible from Burns Crescent, i.e. located behind the proposed

access handle.

Response: Strict compliance would not result in any additional deep

soil area given the basement level floor proposed. The development

does include a sufficient deep soil zone to provide for canopy trees at

the rear of the site.

Comment: With regard to reinforcing the argument for departure from the

floor space ratio standard, the applicant also refers to clause 4.1A –

Minimum lot sizes in which there is a minimum requirement of 450sqm

for the subject lot. The applicant points out that the CBLEP 2013 does not



include access handles for the purpose of calculating the area of lots

however when the original allotment was created under development

consent DA No 111/2013, exclusion of the handle from the site area

calculation did not apply and that accordingly the approved lot size was

deemed to be suitable for a dual occupancy development.

In other words, approval was granted for an allotment with an actual

buildable area of 396.63sqm, excluding the access handle, as opposed to

the overall site area of 459.9sqm approved, inclusive of the access handle.

The applicant states that at the time of the assessment of the DA for the

creation of the new allotment (now known as 10A Burns Crescent), the

provisions of CBLEP 2008 were applicable, which included access handle

area in site area calculations.

With regard to the applicant's written request to vary the floor space ratio

standard, it is considered that the written request is well founded and

satisfactorily addresses the two criteria, namely in that the applicant has

proposed complying with the development standard in this instance is

unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as the objectives of the LEP

and DCP are satisfied by the proposal, and that there are sufficient

environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard. The

variation from the standard is therefore supported.

Notwithstanding the above discussion, it is however considered reasonable

that imposing a condition of consent to reduce the overall building height

is considered a reasonable trade-off for the floor space ratio non-

compliance. A reduction of 600mm is achievable without significant

compromise to the amenity of future occupants. It is noted the imposition

of this condition, along with a recommended condition of consent to

ensure the minimum required rear setback, will result in a reduced visual

impact from the perspective of residential property surrounding the subject

battle-axe allotment.

5.2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments [Section 79C (1) (a) (i & ii)]

There are no relevant Draft Environmental Planning Instruments applicable

to the site.

5.3. Development Control Plans, Council Policies or Codes [Section

79C(1)(a)(iii)]

The proposed development is affected by the provisions of the City of

Canada Bay Development Control Plan 2013. Following is a summary

table indicating the performance of the proposal against relevant statutory

standards.

Non Statutory Standards (DCP, Codes, Policies)

Control Standard Proposed Compliance

Minimum

allotment

size

450 metres 459.9m2

(existing)

Yes



Streetscape

appearance

for attached

dual

occupancy

To appear as a

single residence

Not apparent from

the street

N/A

Attached

dual

occupancy

To be side by side Side by side Yes

Attached

dual

occupancy

Should not extend

further than 5m

than the other in

the rear yard

Equal Yes

Driveways

for attached

dual

occupancy

No more than one

third

< one third ( battle-

axe)

Yes

Garage

entries to

attached

dual

occupancy

Single car width

only

Garages concealed in

below ground parking

level

N/A

Min.

front

setbacks

> of 4.5m or

match street (avg.

5.2m)

Battle-axe allotment N/A

Develop.

within front

setback

No entry porches,

balconies &

verandahs

Battle-axe allotment N/A

Min.

side

setbacks

Ground - 900mm

First - 1500mm

1405mm (north-east)

3276mm (south-west)

1406mm (north-east)

3204mm (south-west)

Yes

Yes

No

(conditioned

with

minimum

1500mm

setback)

Yes

Any wall

facing

boundary

setback

If contains

window 900mm

setback

N/A N/A

Min.

rear

setbacks

6m 5.09m to vertical

dividing wall

structures, 6.8m to

rear ground level wall

and 6m to upper

balconies

No

(condition

with

minimum

6m rear

setback to

any building



structure

above

ground floor

level

including

any

associated

roof

structure)

Max. no. of

storeys

2 storeys 3 storeys No

Building

height plane

Up 5m at

boundary then 45

degrees

Development within

building height plane

Yes

Roof Form 25 - 35 degrees

min.

Part flat/ Part Pitched

– 15o

No

Max. ceiling

height

7.2m 6.2m Yes

Max.

storeys for

garage/out-

building

1 storey No out buildings N/A

Rooftops of

dwellings/ga

rages

No trafficable

outdoor roof

spaces

No trafficable

outdoor roof spaces

N/A

Minimum

Private

Open Space

40m2

5m dim.

>40m2 Yes

Maximum

depth of

upper floor

balconies

1.8 metres Approx. 500mm to

front balconies and

600mm to rear

Yes

Min. no. of

trees

2 trees 2 trees Yes

Min.

landscape

area

37% 31.5% (as

conditioned with

front path to be

permeable material)

No

Garage

provision

Rear of site or

behind street

elevation

Below ground level Yes

Min.

garage dim.

5.5m x 3m 5.5m x 4.3m Yes

Car parking Min. 1 space per

dwelling

One per dwelling Yes

Vehicle

crossings

1 per dwelling 1 Yes



As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development

fails to achieve compliance with the side and rear setbacks, rise in storeys,

roof pitch, and minimum landscape provisions of City of Canada Bay

Development Control Plan.

Side and rear setbacks

The proposal has side setback non-compliance along the north-east

boundary at the first floor level. The proposed side setback here is

1406mm which is 94mm short of the 1500mm required under the DCP. It

is noted that there is inconsistency with this side setback dimension

between floor levels with figures including 1405mm (at the ground floor

level), 1406mm (at the basement level and first floor level) and 1500mm

(at the roof level).

It is therefore recommended for consistency and compliance to include a

condition of consent requiring north-east side setbacks to be 1500mm.

There is also rear setback non-compliance where significant structural

elements of the proposed dual occupancy project beyond the minimum 6m

rear setback required under the DCP. The non-compliant elements include

the dividing wall element and the end wall elements of the dwellings that

project 910mm beyond the upper floor rear balcony edge which is setback

from the rear boundary the minimum allowable 6m. The result of this non-

compliance is additional and unnecessary solid building bulk and also

includes associated roof structure.

It is therefore recommended that a condition of consent be imposed

requiring a minimum 6m rear setback to any building structure above

ground level including any associated roof structure.

Roof pitch

The DCP requires development to achieve a roof pitch of between 25o and

35o. The proposal has a mix of flat roof and skillion roof elements. There

are no issues raised with regard to the contemporary roof form proposed. It

is noted that the adjoining neighbour has raised issue with this as

discussed in section 4 above.

Burns Crescent is currently in transition with regard to new development

emerging and the site is located on the fringe between predominantly

single dwelling development dominated by pitched roof forms (to the

north-east) and commercial/industrial building forms and medium rise

residential flat building development (to the south-west).

The proposed roof forms reference both flat roof and pitched roof forms

evident in development that surrounds the site. Further, the proposed dual

occupancy is setback from the street approximately 32m and is largely

screened by the approved two storey dual occupancy development at No.

10B Burns Crescent (DA211/2014).

Landscaping



The minimum required landscape area falls short of the 37% required.

There is scope however to increase this area utilising a permeable material

for the front path area to each dwelling. This along with the reduction of

the rear patio areas back to the extent of the basement level below would

result in a total of 31.5% of landscaped area being 5.5% short of the total

required. This is considered acceptable given minor extent of the non-

compliance and the area of land taken up by the driveway handle. A

condition of consent is recommended to ensure soft landscape area is

maximised.

Rise in storeys

The additional floor level is for the purposes of car parking and stair

access and is below natural ground level. The additional floor does not

contribute to bulk and scale and does not attract additional floor space for

the purposes of calculating floor space ratio.

Garbage bin holding area

The location of the garbage bins in the enclosure is not acceptable.

Further, it consolidates waste bins from both Units 3 and 4 into a common

area and in the middle of primary landscape area near the front entries to

the dwellings.

It is therefore recommended that a condition of consent be included so that

the waste bin enclosure is required to be deleted and that each dwelling

includes its own suitable waste bin location on its own strata allotment.

5.4. Likely Impacts of the Development [Section 79C (b)]

Overshadowing and Solar Access

Council’s Development Control Plan states the following controls in

relation to overshadowing and solar access. The objectives of these

controls is to maximise solar access to living areas and private open space

in order to improve residential amenity and to minimise the amount of

overshadowing of neighbouring developments and outdoor spaces to

maintain their amenity. The proposed development has been assessed

against these controls as follows:

1) New buildings and additions are sited and designed to maximise direct

sunlight to north-facing living areas and all private open space areas.

Comment: The site is orientated along the north-west/south-east axis with

the rear yards facing north-west.

The proposed dual occupancy is fully compliant with building height, and

front, rear and side setbacks as conditioned (refer to recommended

conditions relating to side and rear setback as discussed in section 5.3

above). Non-compliance with floor space ratio has been justified by the

applicant in the submitted written application to vary the standard and the

overall bulk and scale will be further reduced as a result of conditions of

consent to reduce the overall building height by 600mm and to achieve full



compliance with rear setback which will result in approximately 970mm

reduction in the length of the building.

The applicant’s submitted shadow diagrams indicate that:

The 9am 21st June winter solstice shadow will be cast

predominantly over the north-eastern side wall and front yard areas

of the adjoining proposed dual occupancy dwellings at No. 10

Burns Crescent (currently being assessed under DA213/2014.

By 12 noon the 9am shadow will disappear from the adjoining rear

yard area of the No. 10B dwellings and be limited to approximately

70% of the front yard areas of the subject site.

The 3pm shadow will be cast over the front yard areas of the

subject dual occupancies and the rear yards of the approved dual

occupancies at No.10B Burns Crescent (DA211/2014).

The orientation of the site ensures that adequate solar access will be

maintained for surrounding residential properties. Primary outdoor living

areas will have minimal impact and will maintain the minimum required

3hrs of direct solar access throughout the day. Overshadowing will be

further reduced as a result of the conditions of consent discussed above.

Privacy

Council’s Development Control Plan contains the following controls in

relation to visual and acoustic privacy. The objectives of these controls is

to ensure that the siting and design of a building provides a high level of

visual and acoustic privacy for residents and neighbours in dwellings and

private open space and to provide personal and property security for

residents and visitors. The proposed development has been assessed

against these controls as follows:

1) Openable first floor windows and doors as well as balconies

should be located so as to face the front or rear of the building.

Where it is impracticable to locate windows other than facing an

adjoining building, the windows should be off-set to avoid a direct

view of windows in adjacent buildings.

Comment: There are no first floor side elevation windows or usable first

floor balconies to either of the units that raise any significant privacy

concerns. The only side windows are those that service the stair areas and

these have 1.5m high sill levels.

2) Provide a minimum sill height of 1.5 metres from finished floor

level to windows on a side elevation which serve living areas and

have a direct outlook to windows or principal private open space

(not being front yard) of adjacent dwellings or alternatively use

fixed obscure glass.

Comment: All side windows at the first floor level have 1.5m high sill

levels as discussed above.



3) Rear upper level balconies should have a side boundary setback of

2.0 metres and have a maximum depth of 1.8 metre. Such

balconies are not permitted where the rear boundary setback is

less than 6.0 metres.

Comment: The proposal fully complies in this regard.

4) Ground floor decks, terraces or patios should not be greater than

500mm above natural ground level.

Comment: All ground floor patio areas are at-grade.

5) Where visual privacy of adjacent properties is likely to be

significantly affected by a proposal, measures such as fixed

screens, translucent glazing or fixed windows, off-set windows or

other alternative design solutions should be incorporated.

However, such measures should not detract from the streetscape

value of individual buildings.

Comment: There are no significant privacy impacts identified from either

the sides or the rear. Rear setbacks to the upper floor balconies are

compliant at the minimum required 6m.

View Corridors/View Sharing

There are no apparent view corridors or view sharing that will be impacted

on as a result of the proposal.

Traffic Generation, Parking and Loading

According to Roads and Traffic Authority’s Guide to Traffic Generating

Developments, a single dwelling generates nine (9) daily vehicle trips.

Given the proposal introduces an additional dwelling the number of

vehicle trips generated would be expected to have some increase.

However, the development is not beyond the capacity of the site.

Two (2) off-street parking spaces are provided on the site for each dual-

occupancy being one space in addition to the minimum Council's

requirement. Furthermore, off-street parking provisions are to be

accommodated below ground and not visible from the street.

In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would have

minimal impact on local traffic and parking conditions.

Noise Impact

The proposed development will not result in any adverse noise impacts on

surrounding properties. To minimise noise impact during demolition and

construction, two standard conditions are to be imposed that restrict the

demolition and construction hours from 7.00 am to 5.00 pm. Mondays to

Saturdays. Works are not permitted on Sundays and public holidays.



Furthermore, the applicant is required to comply with relevant sections of

the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations;

the NSW Environment Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy

(2000) and the NSW Environment Protection Authority Environmental

Noise Control Manual (1994).

Bulk and Scale

It is considered that the proposed dual occupancy development will retain

reasonable bulk and scale against surrounding development however there

is scope for reducing the overall building bulk given the generous floor to

ceiling heights proposed. Imposing a condition of consent to reduce the

overall building height by 600mm is considered a reasonable trade-off for

the floor space ratio non-compliance and will result in a reduced bulk

appearance from the perspective of rear yards of surrounding residential

properties.

The proposal does however make some attempt to minimise the

appearance of bulk and scale by integrating pitched roof elements and

recessed balconies and setting back the upper floor facades with balconies.

Naturally toned colours and materials as conditioned will also assist in

reducing the visual impact of the development.

Streetscape and Urban Character

The existing streetscape comprises a variety of detached single dwellings

from one to two storeys in height with no significant architectural value,

various non-descript industrial/warehouse style developments up to 3

storeys and multi-storey residential units at the end of Burns Crescent and

adjacent Campbell Park.

The presentation of the new dual occupancy seeks to combine several

architectural elements to complement its surrounds. It is noted that the

subject site is a battle-axe configuration and setback from the street

approximately 32m and largely screened by the approved dual occupancy

development at 10B Burns Crescent (DA211/2014). Therefore, there is

minimal impact form a streetscape perspective.

The garage provisions are located below ground and out of site from a

streetscape perspective.

Floor to ceiling heights have not been kept to a minimum and have scope

to be reduced as discussed above under Bulk and Scale in order to reduce

visual impact from the perspective of surrounding residential properties.

Colours and materials proposed are generally considered acceptable in the

context of the site's surrounds except for the blue colour which is not

considered consistent with the urban character of the area. In this regard, it

is recommended that a condition of consent be included to replace all blue

render, indicated as ‘B’ on the approved Material Schedule, with ‘Bowral

Blue’ face brick or the like.



The proposal as conditioned is considered acceptable with regard to

streetscape impact and urban character.

Floor Space Ratio

The Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 prescribes a maximum

floor space ratio of 0.5:1 for sites over 450m2. The site has a total area of

459.9m2. The proposal achieves 0.559:1 total floor space ratio and

therefore does not comply with Council's FSR control. The variation is a

total of 27.56m2 (13.78m

2/dwelling).

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the standard under

the provisions of clause 4.6 in the LEP which has been supported as

discussed in section 5.1.2 above. It is also noted that the overall bulk of the

proposal can be reduced further by lowering the overall building height

given the excessive floor to ceiling heights proposed and requiring full

compliance with the rear setback. Relevant conditions of consent have

been applied as discussed.

Side Setbacks

The City of Canada Bay Development Control Plan requires a 1.5m side

setback to two-storey portions of a building and 900mm for single storey

elements.

The proposal has non-compliance with Council's minimum side setback

controls as indicated in the compliance table above and the submitted

plans indicate inconsistency with this dimension between floor levels. A

condition of consent has been recommended to ensure compliance and

consistency.

Intensity of Use

The intensity of use of the site as a result of the proposal is not considered

to be significant and will not result in any unreasonable impact to the

amenity of adjoining neighbours.

Social/Economic

The proposal would have minimal social and economic implications.

Landscaping

The development application includes a landscape plan that indicates

adequate landscape provisions and complies with the minimum required

number of canopy trees. The plan also indicates that soft landscape

provisions fall short of the minimum required as indicated in the

compliance table above.

The proposal has limited opportunity to provide soft/deep soil landscaping

due to the basement parking level however there is scope for

improvement. In this regard, it is recommended that conditions of consent

be imposed to increase the area of soft landscaping as much as possible.

This can be achieved as follows:



Reduce the extent of each dwelling’s rear patio area to no further

than the basement level structure below and replace with extended

turf area

The front pathway areas indicated on the approved plan as cross

hatched shall be finished with a pervious material.

5.5. Suitability of the Site for the Development Proposed [Section 79(c)]

The proposed development has been assessed in relation to its

environmental consequences, and in terms of State Environmental

Planning Policy No. 55. Having regard to this assessment it is considered

that the land is suitable for the intended development.

5.6. The Public Interest [Section 79C (e)]

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in so far as it promotes the

co-ordinated and orderly, and economic use and development of the land.

As a result Council may be satisfied that the development subject to

conditions is consistent with the public interest.

6. INTERNAL REFERRALS

6.1. Environmental

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental officer for

review of possible contamination. The officer’s review of the submitted

Contamination Report (GTE-355) revealed that there are no signs of

contamination. The officer recommended no conditions of consent with

regard to land contamination.

6.2. Stormwater Drainage

The application was referred to Council’s Engineer for review of proposed

stormwater management concept. The original stormwater proposal was

not supported and the applicant was requested to revise the concept plan.

The revised stormwater concept plan has been accepted subject to

conditions of consent.

6.3. Traffic Engineering/Local Traffic Committee (where not SEPP 11)

The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer. No issues were

raised against approval of the revised design subject to conditions of

consent.

7. CONCLUSION

The proposed development is appropriately located within a R2 Low

Density Residential zone under the provisions of Canada Bay Local

Environmental Plan 2013 however significant variations are sought from

Council’s normal controls as discussed in the report above.

Having regard to the merit assessment of the proposal, Council may be

satisfied that, despite the departures to the controls, the development is

designed in an acceptable manner, which responds to the constraints



presented by the site. Particularly adverse impacts to the amenity of

neighbouring properties have been minimised whilst the amenity needs of

future residents have been supported.

For these reasons it is considered that the proposal in balance is

satisfactory from an environmental planning perspective and is thus

favourably recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

(as amended)

A. THAT Council, assume the concurrence of the Director General of the

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and invoke the provisions of

clause 4.6 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 and resolve

that in the circumstance of the case a strict application of the statutory

standard contained in clause 4.4 Floor space ratio in Canada Bay Local

Environmental Plan 2013 is unnecessary and unreasonable.

B. THAT Council, as the determining authority, grant consent to

Development Application No. 10.2014.212.1 to Construction of attached

two storey dual occupancy with strata subdivision on land at 10A Burns

Crescent CHISWICK NSW 2046 subject to the following site specific

conditions. In granting consent Council has regard to the merit

considerations carried out in the assessment report and pursuant to s.79C

of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. On consideration of

the merits of the case Council acknowledges the areas of non-compliance

arising from the application but notes that it supports the application based

on the particular circumstances of the case and does not consider that the

consent gives rise to a precedent.

Peter Giaprakas

Senior Statutory Town Planner

Date:

Shannon Anderson

Coordinator Statutory Planning

Services

Date:

RESOLUTION

The Manager Statutory Planning acting under authority delegated pursuant to S378

of the Local Government Act, 1993 having considered the report dated 9 June 2015

in respect of DA No. 10.2014.212.1 in accordance with the relevant provisions of

the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, specifically S.79C and

applicable environmental planning instruments hereby resolved that the report be

adopted and implemented as recommended.



Narelle Butler

Manager Statutory Planning

Date:

Documents

DA - Delegated Report - 10.2014.212.1 - 10a Burns Crescent