NORTH SYDNEY COUNCIL · Speaker/s . North Sydney Independent Planning Panel – 03/06/2015 Page No 2 . 2. IPP01: 99 Walker Street, North Sydney (V) - DA 283/14/2 ... The proposal

NORTH SYDNEY COUNCIL

Council Chambers 28 May 2015

I wish to inform you that a Meeting of the NORTH SYDNEY INDEPENDENT PLANNING PANEL will be held in the Council Chambers, North Sydney at 4.00pm on Wednesday 3 June 2015 when your attendance is requested. Your attention is directed to the accompanying statement of the business proposed to be transacted at such meeting. WARWICK WINN GENERAL MANAGER

BUSINESS 1. Minutes

Confirmation of Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 6 May 2015. (Circulated)

NSIPP COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEATING PLAN

PUBLIC GALLERY

Pane

l Mem

ber Panel M

ember

Panel Member Panel Member

Staf

f

Speaker/s

North Sydney Independent Planning Panel – 03/06/2015 Page No 2

2. IPP01: 99 Walker Street, North Sydney (V) - DA 283/14/2

Applicant: Investa IOF Custodian Pty Ltd Report of Susanna Cheng, Senior Assessment Officer, 25 May 2015 This application under Section 96(1A) seeks approval from NSIPP to modify Development Consent No. 283/14 for alterations and additions to existing retail, food and drink, and commercial premises, and extend podium levels to accommodate a supermarket (to trade 24 hours, 7 days), additional retail including liquor store, reconfigured loading and parking areas, exterior works and associated signage. The proposed modifications seek consent under Section 96(1A) to delete Condition No. C25 (motorcycle parking) and to modify Condition No. I20 (Shopfronts) to allow for modified shopfront treatment to the Walker Street and Mount Street elevations. This application has been referred to the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel for determination as the proposed modification relates to Condition No. I20, being a condition imposed by Panel. The request to delete Condition No. C25 is supported on the basis that the original approval was assessed on the basis of no retail parking allocation or public car parking provision given the original associated use of the basement car park in conjunction with the commercial office premises. Therefore no approval has been granted for any associated retail car parking, and separate development consent would be required for any such commercial car park. It follows that the condition requiring motorcycle parking does not fairly relate to the development for which consent was originally granted and as such should be deleted. The requested modification to Condition No. I20 is not supported in totality, on the basis that the proposed glazing treatment to the Walker Street façade would deny visual permeability to retail premises for streetscape interest and activation and inhibit active and passive surveillance, contrary to clause 6.3(5)(c) of NSLEP 2013 and DCP sections B2.4.10 Streetscape, B2.4.12 Nighttime appearance, B2.4.13 Public spaces, and B2.5.2 Safety & security. The proposed amendments would therefore detract from the streetscape. It is recommended that condition I20(a) be retained with changes to reflect the proposed modified Mount Street facade glazing only. The proposed modifications are generally considered to be of minimal environmental impact and the proposed development as modified is considered to be substantially the same development as, that which was originally approved by the Panel. The proposal has been considered against the relevant provisions of NSLEP 2013, NSDCP 2013 and the provisions of S.96(1A) of the Act, and the proposed modifications considered to be reasonable in the circumstances. The application is recommended for approval subject to amended conditions. Recommending: PURSUANT TO SECTION 80 OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED) THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel, under the delegation of the General Manager as the consent authority, grant consent to Development Application No. DA283/14 dated 8/4/15 in respect to alterations and additions


to existing retail, food and drink, and commercial premises, and extend podium levels to accommodate a supermarket (to trade 24 hours, 7 days), additional retail including liquor store, reconfigured loading and parking areas, exterior works and associated signage, on land at 99 Walker Street, North Sydney under the provisions of section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act only in so far as will provide for the following:- (A)To insert the following new condition: Development in Accordance with Plans (S96 Amendments) A7.The development shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings and documentation contained in condition A1 Development in Accordance with Plans/documentation and endorsed with Council’s approval stamp, except as modified by highlighting on: (a)Drawing numbered DA26 Ground Floor (Revision 1), dated 24/4/15, drawn by Architectus and received by Council on 30/4/15; and (b)Drawing numbered DA27 West & North Elevations (Revision 1), dated 24/4/15, drawn by Architectus and received by Council on 30/4/15. and except as amended by the conditions of this consent. (Reason: To ensure that the form of the development undertaken is in accordance with the determination of Council, Public Information) (B)To modify the following condition so as to read as follows: Shopfronts to be kept clear I20.The following areas of clear unobstructed glazing must be maintained at all times: (a)The Walker Street shopfront of the liquor store to tenancy T3 from 1.5m above finished floor level; and (b)The Walker Street and Mount Street shopfronts of the supermarket for the full height of the glazed shopfront at the north western corner of the building except for the Mount Street frontage 5m from the Walker Street glassline. Any areas of shopfront glazing to the supermarket and liquor store, whether clear or treated with opaque film or tinting, must not be obscured by any of the following: (a)signage, other than approved complying or exempt signs; (b)advertising displays, posters, painted signs, or decals that are fixed internally or externally to the shopfront; (c)video screens or the like (d)shelving, racks, refrigeration units or the like at a height of 1.5m above finished floor level; and (e) blinds, curtains or the like. A separate DA is to be lodged for any such signs or devices except for exempt and complying development. (Reason: To minimise visual clutter and maximise streetscape activation) (C) To delete condition C25 Motorcycle parking.

3. IPP02: 55 Lavender Street, Milsons Point (V) - DA 24/15

Applicant: First Neon (Lavender Street) Pty Ltd Report of Susanna Cheng, Senior Assessment Officer, 20 May 2015


This development application seeks Council’s approval for the removal of two existing illuminated roof building identification signs and installation of two new illuminated building identification signs to display alternating names “SHARP” and “PHILIPS” every 28 days from 6am to 11pm daily. The application is reported to North Sydney Independent Planning Panel for determination as requested by the Mayor and Councillor Veronique Marchandeau. Council’s notification of the proposal has attracted two (2) submissions raising particular concerns about the compatibility of commercial signage on a residential apartment building in Milsons Point. The subject building currently displays two rooftop signs which were approved in 2005 under a 10-year time-limited consent. Approval to extend this to 15 years, being the maximum permitted under SEPP 64, was granted under delegated authority in 2006. The existing signs are due to expire in 2020. The existing signs were approved at a time when the site was immediately adjoined by commercial buildings each displaying roof parapet signage. The signs on both adjoining buildings have since been removed. There are no other similar signs in Milsons Point. The subject proposal is for a substantial intensification of the existing signage, by virtue of the additional messaging, large illuminated background areas (currently non-illuminated), and daytime illumination. The proposed signs are overly large and prominent, and not compatible with the existing building or desired future character of the area. But for the existing signs, Milsons Point is characterised by an absence of rooftop signage on multi-storey residential buildings and those commercial towers currently being converted to residential use. The large illuminated signs on the periphery of Milsons Point Town Centre will dominate, detract from and be incongruous with an emerging high quality residential tower skyline in Milsons Point and erode the overall quality of the skyline vistas particularly as viewed from the foreshores of Lavender Bay from which the sign will appear in isolation. The location of the sign separate and apart from the North Sydney CBD will detract from the skyline of the Commercial Core. Having regard to the above, the site is not considered to be a suitable location for the application of new technology and intensification of roof signage. Approval of the development would perpetuate a form of development that is contrary to and would undermine Council’s policies in relation to signage. The existing signs were approved on the basis of the character of the locality at the time and given a time-limited consent. It is considered appropriate to allow the consent to lapse without renewal, given the existing and future desired built form context of Milsons Point. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal. Recommending: PURSUANT TO SECTION 80 OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED) THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel, under the delegation of the General Manager as the consent authority, resolve to refuse development consent to Development Application No. 24/15 for the proposed removal of two existing illuminated roof signs displaying “SHARP” with two new dynamic illuminated building identification sign panels to display alternating


names “SHARP” and “PHILIPS” every 28 days (4 weeks) from 6am to 11pm, for the following reasons:- 1. Inappropriate development for the building and site The retention and intensification of building identification signage is not compatible with, or suitable communication of, the predominantly residential use of the site and physical character of the apartment building.

(a) The proposal for corporate building identification at rooftop level of a predominantly residential building known as “Altitude” does not constitute effective communication in a suitable location, contrary to the objective in SEPP 64 clause 3(1)(a)(ii).

Particulars:

(b) The intensification of corporate signage in terms of naming and illuminated signage area, does not respect the primary function of the site and building for residential use, with commercial tenancies forming a minor use of the site, contrary to SEPP 64 Schedule 1 (5). (c) The proposed corporate building identification signage is incongruous and not compatible with the predominantly residential nature of the site and building. The proposed signage is not associated with any occupancy of the relatively small scale office premises within the site that can reasonably be considered a “major tenant” with associated building naming rights, contrary to B4 Mixed Use zone objective in the LEP to provide for a mixture of compatible land uses. (d) The variation of the Height of Buildings development standard sought under LEP clause 4.6 is significant and not justifiable or reasonable where the proposed breach will exacerbate an existing incompatibility of development within the site, being the corporate identification of a predominantly residential building, contrary to the Height of Buildings objective in LEP clause 4.3(1) (e) & (f). The applicant’s clause 4.6 request for variation is not considered to be well-founded. (e) The provision of corporate building identification signage at the roof level of a residential tower is anomalous and contrary to B4 Mixed Use zone objective in the LEP which seeks to maintain commercial uses at the lower levels of the building. (f) The proposed signage does not complement the use of the building, contrary to the general objectives for signage under DCP section B9.1.1 O3, and the objectives of the general design controls for signage in DCP section B9.4 O1. (g) The selection of lettering and colours, comprising large expanses of illuminated white or blue background, will render the signs legible as billboard-style signage so as to dominate, detract from and not complement the building, contrary to the general provisions for signage in DCP section B9.4 P4 & P5. (h) The location of building identification signage at rooftop level, and not at the lower levels of a building in proximity to commercial uses within the site, is contrary to DCP section B9.5 P2. The proposed retention and intensification of the signage in the existing identified undesirable location is contrary to the objectives for signage location in DCP section B9.5 O1. (i) The proposed signs, being large scale variable messaging roof signage, is not appropriate signage for the subject building and site, contrary to DCP section 9.6 P2 (f), (h) & (i) in relation to general restrictions on signage.


(j) The proposal for two corporate identities that are not connected to any major tenant(s) of the building contravenes the signage restrictions in DCP section 9.6 P3 and section 9.11 P2, and fails to satisfy the objective in DCP section 9.6 O2 which seeks to ensure that advertisements relate to the use of the land on which they are located. 2. Development is inconsistent with the existing & desired future character of the area The proposed building identification signage is overly large and prominent, and is not compatible with the existing or desired future character of the Milsons Point Town Centre and locality which, but for the signage on the subject building, is characterised by an absence of rooftop signage on existing multi-storey residential buildings and those commercial buildings which are currently being converted to residential use.

(a) The proposal is contrary to SEPP 64 Schedule 1 (1) as it is not compatible with the existing or desired future character of the Milsons Point Town Centre, which is characterised by an absence of rooftop signage, particularly on residential buildings and those commercial buildings being converted to residential use. The Milsons Point area is in transition from a predominantly commercial tower skyline to a mixed use character with residential tower skyline.

Particulars:

(b) The proposal is contrary to SEPP 64 Schedule 1 (1) as it provides for large, elevated and highly visible signage which is identified in DCP section B9.2.2(a) to be an undesirable form of signage in Milsons Point Town Centre. (c) The sign on the southern elevation will detract from the visual quality of the Milsons Point skyline within its setting on the foreshores of Lavender Bay, contrary to SEPP 64 Schedule 1 (2). (d) The proposed signage is not compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the Milsons Point Town Centre and surrounding locality, and fails to meet the objective in SEPP 64 clause 3(1)(a)(i). (e) The signage will create detracting and undesirable visual interest that would erode the existing and future desired character of Milsons Point which is characterised by an absence of illuminated rooftop signs, B4 Mixed Use zone objective in the LEP which seeks to create interesting and vibrant mixed use centres with safe, high quality urban environments with residential amenity. (f) The variation of the Height of Buildings development standard sought under LEP clause 4.6 is significant and not justifiable or reasonable where the proposed corporate signage uncharacteristic of Milsons Point Town Centre and surrounding and predominantly developments in the immediately adjoining residential zones, in particular, the lower scale and finer grain residential typology on the northern/upper side of Lavender Street, contrary to the Height of Buildings objective in LEP clause 4.3(1)(e). (g) The variation of the Height of Buildings development standard sought under LEP clause 4.6 is significant and not justifiable or reasonable where the proposed large scale corporate signage affixed at the roof level of a high rise apartment building is highly uncharacteristic of mixed use apartment buildings in Milsons Point which typically do not display corporate rooftop signage, contrary to the Height of Buildings objective in LEP clause 4.3(1)(f).


(h) The signage will detract from rather than add to the character of the streetscape, contrary to the general objectives for signage under DCP section B9.1.1 O3, and the objectives of the general design controls for signage in DCP section B9.4 O1. (i) The intensification of signage, comprising additional corporate identity and substantial increase in area of signage illumination, constitutes a proliferation of signage, contrary to DCP section B9.6 O1 in relation to signage restrictions. (j) The intensification of corporate signage on a residential building in an area that is transitioning towards residential tower typology with an absence of any corporate and/or illuminated signs except for the subject site, is contrary to DCP section B9.6 O3 which seeks to preserve the residential character of the area, streetscapes and vistas. (k) The proposed application of new signage technology has been considered on merit and found to be inappropriate in the circumstances of the case, having regard in particular to the size of the illuminated areas and their prominence, changeability of content, relationship to land use, existing and future desired character, lack of any rooftop signage in Milsons Point Town Centre. On balance, the proposed LED screens are not considered to be appropriate as parapet level building identification signage, pursuant to DCP section 9.16 P2. 3. Adverse impacts on streetscape setting and skyline vistas The scale and form of the proposed signage is inappropriate to the streetscape setting in Milsons Point Town Centre, North Sydney and Lavender Bay. The large and illuminated signs in isolation and on the periphery of Milsons Point, and including large solid areas of illuminated white and blue background colours, will dominate, detract from and be incongruous with an emerging high quality residential tower skyline in Milsons Point. The location of the sign outside of the commercial core will detract from the North Sydney CBD skyline, and erode the overall quality of the skyline vistas particularly as viewed from the foreshores of Lavender Bay. The signage will erode the overall quality of the skyline vistas particularly as viewed from the foreshores of Lavender Bay.

(a) The signs, by virtue of the large areas of opaque illuminated blue/white background colours and an absence of any comparable illuminated rooftop signage in Milsons Point Town Centre, will dominate the skyline, particularly when viewed from Lavender Bay and southbound on the Warringah Expressway, contrary to SEPP 64 Schedule 1 (3).

Particulars:

(b) The proposed signage, incorporating large illuminated coloured background areas, erected on the rooftop of a residential tower, in isolation from any such comparable signage in the Milsons Point Town Centre, physically and visually separate from such signage in North Sydney CBD, immediately adjoined by lower-rise residential development to the north and in the immediate vicinity of apartment towers in Milsons Point devoid of rooftop signage, is inappropriate for the local streetscape, contrary to SEPP 64 Schedule 1 (4). (c) The signage will detract from significant vistas to the Milsons Point and North Sydney CBD skylines as viewed from public streets, reserves and the harbour foreshore, contrary to the general objectives for signage under DCP section B9.1.1 O2.


(d) The signage will degrade the streetscape setting and skyline vistas by proliferation or intensification of signage content and area of illumination, contrary to the general objectives for signage under DCP section B9.1.1 O4, and the objectives of the general design controls for signage in DCP section B9.4 O1. (e) The signage will dominate the Milsons Point skyline, by virtue of the intensification of illumination and absence of any illuminated rooftop signage in Milsons Point Town Centre, contrary to the general provisions for signage in DCP section B9.4 P7. (f) The proposal for large areas of signage background illumination will detract from the vistas to Milsons Point Town Centre and its skyline, contrary to DCP section B9.6 O3 which provides for general signage restrictions. The proposed signage, by virtue of the large illuminated background areas will be uncharacteristic of and not improve the nighttime appearance of the Milsons Point skyline, contrary to DCP section B2.4.12 O1. (g) The proposal fails to satisfy the criteria for roof signage under DCP section B9.11 P1 (a) & (b) in that the proposed intensification of existing signs will further dominate the appearance of the building, and erode the quality of vistas to the Milsons Point skyline, contrary to the objectives for roof signs in DCP section B9.11 O1. 4. Public interest Approval of the development would have detrimental impacts on the built form and undermine planning policies, and would not be in the public interest, as provided for in section 79C(1) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(a) The proposal is unsatisfactory as assessed against relevant provisions, aims and objectives of the applicable environmental planning instruments and policies.

Particulars:

(b) The maintenance of pre-existing height breaches of the building and signage is not considered adequately compelling to justify continued breach of the Height of Building development standard in the circumstances of the case. (c) It would not be in the public interest for Council to consent to an application which would rejuvenate an existing time-limited consent that would perpetuate advertising rights in a mixed use area where such consent does not conform to the existing or desired future character of the area. (d) The resulting proposal would not achieve the aims of the Act and provide for the orderly development of land in circumstances where the locality is in transition to a residential tower character.

4. IPP03: 1 John Street, McMahons Point (V) - DA454/14

Applicant: Katherine Davies Report of Jonathan Archibald, Assessment Officer, 9 February 2015 This development application seeks Council’s approval for Alterations and Additions to the Existing Dwelling at 1 John Street, McMahons Point. The application is reported to NSIPP as the proposal has attracted a number of submissions during the public advertising period, and is referred to the Panel for Determination.


The application was required to be notified during the period 16 January 2015 to 30 January 2015 pursuant to Part A Section 4 of the North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013. During this period one (1) submission was received, with concerns relating to bulk, scale and privacy matters In response to these concerns, revised plans were submitted 31 March 2015, providing for a reduction in scale and provision of fixed louvers to the rear gable component, and were renotified to the submitter during the period 24 April 2015 to 8 May 2015. During this period a further one (1) submission was received, with ongoing concerns relating to visual bulk and overlooking matters. The site is identified as a neutral item located within the Union, Bank, Thomas Street Conservation Area (CA15). The proposal has been referred to Council’s Heritage Officer, who responded in support of the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions. During assessment of the application concern has been raised regarding visual privacy impacts, being overlooking and increase in visual bulk, from the first floor gable addition to the dwelling immediately to the rear of the site. Further to revised plans submitted to Council 31 March 2015, the applicant has reduced the scale of the rear gable window component, as well as provided fixed timber louvers to mitigate overlooking issues, and the proposal would not result in any unreasonable overlooking impacts between properties. With regard to concerns of visual bulk from the first floor gable addition, it is considered that any increase in building bulk resulting from this component is somewhat unavoidable within the medium density and established nature of the locality, as well as open plan nature, topography and general orientation of the adjoining dwelling to the rear directly towards, and over, the development site. Impacts relating to overlooking or bulk can not be wholly attributed to the design of the proposal, but rather an unfortunate consequence of historical development patterns, resultant medium density living and development within R3 Zone and topography at the site. Having regard to the matters discussed within this report, it is considered that proposed works, including first floor gable addition to the rear of the dwelling would not unreasonable visual privacy impacts (building bulk or overlooking) under the circumstances. Having regard to the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the application is considered to be reasonable in the site circumstances and recommended for approval subject to standard and site specific conditions. Recommending: PURSUANT TO SECTION 80 OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED) THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel, under the delegation of the General Manager as the consent authority, grant consent, to Development Application No. 454/14 for the Alterations and Additions to the Existing Dwelling at 1 John Street, McMahons Point, subject to the attached standard conditions:


5. IPP04: 50 Bank Street, North Sydney (W) - DA 49/15

Applicant: Haviland Architects Report of Jason Lambropoulos, Assessment Officer, 22 May 2015 This development application seeks NSIPP approval for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a first floor addition on land at No. 50 Bank Street, North Sydney. The application is reported to NSIPP for determination because the proposed works are above the permissible height limit of 5.5m pursuant to Clause 4.3 (2B) in NSLEP 2013. The non-compliance with the permitted height limit is greater than 10% requiring determination by NSIPP as directed by the Department of Planning and Environment. The applicant is seeking a variation to the permissible height limit in NSLEP 2013 having submitted a Clause 4.6 statement that is considered to be well founded in the site context because the proposal would not cause any impacts for adjoining properties and/or the streetscape. Consequently, compliance with the development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the site circumstances. The development would not alter the front facade of the dwelling with the proposed dormers located on the rear roof plane that would not be visible from the street. The proposed alterations and additions would have minimal impact upon the heritage significance of the dwelling having regard to the comments provided by Council’s Conservation Officer. No submissions were received during the notification period. Following this assessment the development application is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances and is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Recommending: PURSUANT TO SECTION 80 OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED) THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel, under the delegation of the General Manager as the consent authority, assume the concurrence of the Director General of the Department of Planning and Environment and invoke the provisions of Clause 4.6 with regard to the exception to the development standard for building height, and grant consent to Development Application No. 49/15 for alterations and additions to the existing building including an attic addition, on land at No. 50 Bank Street, North Sydney subject to the attached standard and the following site specific conditions:- Heritage Modifications C1. The following must be applied to the development: i. New windows and external glazed doors – All new windows and external glazed doors must be timber framed with a paint finish to ensure traditional materials characteristic to the Conservation Area are utilised. ii. Opening to dining room wall – Where the existing wall between the dining and living room is to be opened, minimum 350mm nibs are to be retained at either end of the wall and a bulkhead is to be retained and installed as the threshold for the new opening to allow for the interpretation of the original wall and room layout of the heritage item. iii. Window to dining room – Where the existing dining room window is to be removed to form a doorway, the width of the existing window opening is to


be retained. No approval is given for the widening of the opening. The stonework that forms the current window sill is to be retained and reused as the threshold for the new doorway opening to ensure the retention of original fabric. iv.Weatherboard cladding – The external cladding of the proposed dormer, including the gable ends of the dormers, is to be natural timber weatherboard with paint finish. No approval is given for fibre cement or artificial weatherboard. This is to ensure the use of materials characteristic to the heritage item. The Certifying Authority must ensure that the building plans and specifications submitted fully satisfy the requirements of this condition prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. (Reason:To ensure the significance of the Heritage item and the Conservation Area)

6. IPP05: 1-7 Rangers Road (50 Yeo Street), Neutral Bay (C) - DA 90/15

Applicant: BlackWall Property Funds Report of Jason Lambropoulos, Assessment Officer, 22 May 2015 This development application seeks NSIPP approval for the erection of a new business identification sign on the exterior of an existing commercial building on land at No. 50 Yeo Street, Neutral Bay. There is an unauthorised sign currently erected on the site that is the subject of a compliance investigation. The application is reported to North Sydney Independent Planning Panel for determination because the proposed works are above the permissible height limit of 12m pursuant to Clause 4.3 (2) in NSLEP 2013. The non-compliance with the permitted height limit is greater than 10% requiring determination by North Sydney Independent Planning Panel as directed by the Department of Planning and Environment. Council’s notification of the proposal resulted in no submissions. A Clause 4.6 submission seeking a variation to the building height control in Clause 4.3 of NSLEP 2013 was provided by the applicant. The submission is considered to be well founded, and compliance with the standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the site circumstances as the proposed signage would not cause any material amenity impacts upon adjoining properties and the public domain subject to the imposition of conditions. The scale and nature of the proposed business identification signage is in keeping with the desired future character of the locality and the existing building. A condition has been recommended prohibiting illumination of the sign to maintain residential amenity following complaints from neighbouring properties about the unauthorised sign. Following this assessment the development application is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances and is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Recommending: PURSUANT TO SECTION 80 OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED) THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel, under the delegation of the General Manager as the consent authority, assume the concurrence of the


Director General of the Department of Planning and invoke the provisions of Clause 4.6 with regard to the exception to the development standard for building height, and grant consent to Development Application No. 90/15 for the erection of a building identification sign on land at No. 1-7 Rangers Road (also known as 50 Yeo Street), subject to the attached standard and the following site specific conditions:- No Illumination I1. No consent is given or implied for any form of illumination to the proposed building identification signage. (Reason: To ensure appropriate forms of signage that are consistent with Council’s controls and those that are desired for the locality, and do not interfere with the amenity of nearby properties.)

7. IPP06: 17 McDougall Street, Kirribilli (V) - DA73/15

Applicant: Eudaemonic Life P/L Report of Luke Donovan, Senior Assessment Officer, 25 May 2015 This development application seeks consent from NSIPP for alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including a new rear dormer on land at No.17 McDougall Street, Kirribilli. This property is identified as a Contributory Item within the Careening Cove Conservation Area. The application is reported to NSIPP because the proposed works are above the permissible height limit of 5.5m pursuant to clause 4.3(2B) in NSLEP 2013. The noncompliance with the permitted height limit is greater than 10% requiring determination by NSIPP as directed by the Department of Planning and Environment. Council’s notification of the proposal attracted one (1) submission raising concerns regarding the loss of visual privacy and solar access. This submission was later retracted. The written justification submitted by the applicant in support of the variation to the building height control is considered to be justified in the circumstances because there would be no material impacts for adjoining properties. The size of the rear dormer is non compliant with the dormer control in NSDCP 2013. Notwithstanding, Council’s Conservation Planner considers the size of the rear dormer to be acceptable as it is located below the existing ridge line of the roof and would not be visible from the public domain. The proposal is therefore likely to maintain the heritage significance of the Careening Cove Conservation Area. The proposal seeks to provide improved soft landscaping in the rear yard of the site to maintain the landscape character of the locality. The proposal has been assessed having regard to Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) and found to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to appropriate standard conditions of consent. Recommending: PURSUANT TO SECTION 80 OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED) THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel, under the delegation of the General Manager as the consent authority, assume the concurrence of the


Director General of the Department of Planning and Environment and invoke the provisions of Clause 4.6 with regard to the exception to the development standard for building height, and grant consent to Development Application No. 73/15 for alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including a new rear dormer on land at No.17 McDougall Street, Kirribilli, subject to the attached standard conditions:-

8. IPP07: 33 McDougall Street, Kirribilli (V) - DA 11/15

Applicant: Janette Margaret Howlett Report of Luke Donovan, Senior Assessment Officer, 22 May 2015 This development application seeks consent from NSIPP for alterations and additions to an existing semi detached dwelling on land at No.33 McDougall Street, Kirribilli. This property is identified as a Contributory item within the Careening Cove Conservation Area. This development application is referred to the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel for determination at the request of Councillors Baker and Reymond. Council’s notification of the original proposal attracted one (1) submission raising concerns regarding architectural detailing and adverse heritage impacts. The amended proposal did not attract any submissions. The written justification submitted by the applicant in support of the variation to the building height control is considered to be justified in the circumstances because there would be no material impacts for adjoining properties. The amended proposal is considered to improve the internal amenity for the occupants of the dwelling while providing for greater useable private open space at the rear of the site. Council’s Conservation Planner supports the removal of the front and rear dormers under the amended proposal, however does not support the changes to the front window and the extension to the front balcony as these changes are not considered contributory works and would likely detract from the heritage significance of the dwelling. The proposal has been assessed having regard to Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) and found to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to appropriate standard and site specific conditions. Recommending: PURSUANT TO SECTION 80OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED) THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel, under the delegation of the General Manager as the consent authority, assume the concurrence of the Director General of the Department of Planning and Environment and invoke the provisions of Clause 4.6 with regard to the exception to the development standard for building height, and grant consent to Development Application No. 11/15 for alterations and additions to an existing semi detached dwelling on land at 33 McDougall Street, Kirribilli, subject to the following site specific conditions and the attached standard conditions:- Heritage requirements


C1. To maintain the heritage significance of the dwelling and to ensure only contributory works are undertaken to the dwelling, the following limitations are placed on this consent: 1. No consent is granted and/or implied for any extension to the existing front balcony and/or front window on Level 1 of the dwelling. 2. The front boundary fence must be constructed of either steel palisade or wrought iron. No consent is given and/or implied for tubular sections of fence. 3. The stained glass window within the existing living room on Level 1 must be salvaged for resale or reuse. 4. The proposed roofing material over the rear of the dwelling must be one of the following: a. Wide pan (minimum 425 mm), b. Standing/rolled seam; or c. Corrugated roof sheeting. The Certifying Authority must ensure that the building plans and specifications submitted, referenced on and accompanying the issued Construction Certificate, fully satisfy the requirements of this condition. (Reason: The proposed works are not considered contributory and are contrary to Council’s Heritage Controls) Non trafficable roof I1 With the exception of the Juliette balcony at the rear of Level 2, the roof area must remain non trafficable with only maintenance work permitted. (Reason: To maintain residential amenity with surrounding properties

9. IPP08: Shop 1, 1-3 Broughton Street, Kirribilli (V) - DA378/13/2

Applicant: Christopher Lane Report of Luke Donovan, Senior Assessment Officer, 22 May 2015 This Section 96(2) application seeks approval from NSIPP to modify DA378/13 to extend the hours of operation for the existing licensed restaurant from 7am to 11pm (Monday to Saturday), 7am to 10pm (Sunday), the outdoor dining from 7am to 10pm (7 days a week) with the bi-fold closed by 8pm (7 days a week) at Shop 1, 1-3 Broughton Street, Kirribilli. Development consent to DA378/13 was granted under delegated authority, for the fit-out and use of the premises as a licensed restaurant with hours of operation from 7am to 10pm (7 days a week). Specific conditions of consent were included restricting the outdoor hours of operation till 8pm (7 days a week) with a 12month trial period till 10pm (7 days a week) and requiring the bi-fold doors at the front of the restaurant to be permanently closed. This Section 96 application is referred to the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel for determination at the request of Councillors Baker and Reymond. Council’s notification of the proposal has attracted one (1) submission concerned about the extended hours of operation and its use as a restaurant. A petition containing a hundred and seventy two (172) signatures in support of the extended trading hours was submitted with the Section 96 application. The proposed indoor hours of operation till 11pm (Monday to Saturday) is contrary to Council’s recently adopted maximum late night trading hours which is to 10pm (7 days a week) and inconsistent with the current trading


hours for surrounding restaurants and cafes along Fitzroy Street. Furthermore, there may be acoustic impacts for nearby residential properties with patrons leaving the restaurant after 11pm. It is therefore recommended that no consent is given under this application to an increase in the indoor hours of operation beyond 10pm (7 days a week). The proposed outdoor dining till 10pm with bi-fold doors closed at 8pm is also contrary to the maximum late night trading hours which is to 8pm (7 days a week). Notwithstanding, the proposed outdoor hours of operation are considered acceptable as there were no complaints received during the 12 month trial period till 10pm (7 days a week) and the proposed outdoor hours of operation are generally consistent with surrounding restaurants and cafes along Fitzroy Street. Council’s Team Leader (Environmental Health) has recommended an additional condition of consent requiring a validation noise assessment to be carried out within 60 days from the date of the modified consent to ensure the actual noise levels are in accordance with the noise criteria specified in the NSDCP 2013. A revised plan of management was submitted and considered to be satisfactory addressing the security measures and the responsibilities of staff to minimise adverse impacts on the locality. Following this assessment the Section 96 application is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances and is recommended for approval subject to modified and additional conditions of consent. Recommending: THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel, under the delegation of the General Manager as the consent authority, grant consent to DA378/13/2 to extend the hours of operation for a licensed restaurant at Shop 1, 1-3 Broughton Street, Kirribilli subject to the modification of Conditions C6, I1, I3 and I4 and the addition of Conditions C9, C10 and I21 as detailed below: Modified conditions Compliance with Acoustic Report C6. The recommendations contained in the acoustic report prepared by West and Associates Pty Ltd dated 30 March 2015 (Issue A), must be implemented during on going use of the restaurant. (Reason:To maintain an appropriate level of amenity for adjoining land uses) Plan of Management I1. The restaurant shall operate in accordance with the terms of the Plan of Management, Security Management Plan and Responsible Service of Alcohol House Policy for Small Bar and Kitchen (revised edition) prepared by Small Bar and Kitchen, submitted to Council on 9 March 2015 except where amended by the following conditions. Note: A copy of this document is to be retained by Council. (Reason: To ensure that the form of the development undertaken is in accordance with the determination of Council, Public Information) Hours of operation outdoor seating I3. The outdoor seating shall operate between the following hours: 7am – 10pm (7 days a week) (Reason: Information to ensure that amenity of the surrounding locality is maintained and hours of operation are consistent with those in the surrounding locality)


Bi-fold doors I4. The bi-fold doors at the front of the restaurant must by closed by 8pm every day of the week. (Reason: To ensure that the amenity of the surrounding locality is maintained) Additional Conditions Noise from Plant and Equipment C9 The use of all plant and equipment installed on the premises must not: (a) Contribute an LAeq(15min) which will cause the total LAeq(15min) from all plant and equipment operating contemporaneously on the site or in the strata scheme or in the mixed strata schemes to exceed the RBL by more than 5dB when measured at the boundary of any affected receiver . The modifying factor adjustments in Section 4 of the EPA Industrial Noise Policy shall be applied. (b) Cause “offensive noise” as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. “affected receiver” includes residential premises (including any lot in the strata scheme or another strata scheme), premises for short-term accommodation, schools, hospitals, places of worship, commercial premises and parks and such other affected receiver as may be notified by the Council in writing. “boundary” includes any window or elevated window of an affected receiver. Terms in this condition have the same meaning as in the Noise Guide for Local Government and the Industrial Noise Policy published by the NSW Environment Protection Authority. (Reason: To maintain an appropriate level of amenity for adjoining land uses) Noise Control (Licensed Premises) C10 The use of the premises must comply with the following: (a) The LA10 noise level emitted from the use of the premises must not exceed the background noise level (LA90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5 Hz to 8 kHz inclusive) by more than 5dB between the hours of 7.00am and 12.00 midnight when assessed at the boundary of any affected residence. (b) The LA10 noise level emitted from the use must not exceed the background noise level (LA90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5 Hz to 8 kHz inclusive) between the hours of 12.00 midnight and 7.00am when assessed at the boundary of any affected residence. (c) Notwithstanding compliance with (a) and (b) above, the noise from the use must not be audible within any habitable room or sleeping area in any affected residence between the hours of 12.00 midnight and 7.00am. (d) The LA10 noise level emitted from the use must not exceed the background noise level (LA90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5 Hz to 8 kHz inclusive) by more than 3dB when assessed indoors at any affected commercial premises with windows closed. (e) The use of the premises must be controlled so that any emitted noise is at a level so as not to create an “offensive noise” as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. “affected residence” includes residential premises (including any lot in the strata scheme or any other strata scheme), premises for short-term accommodation and hospitals. “boundary” includes any window or elevated window of an affected residence. LA10 is the average maximum A-weighted Fast Response sound level emitted from the premises.


LA90 shall be measured in the absence of all noise from the premises (including mechanical plant noise). Terms in this condition have the same meaning as in the Noise Guide for Local Government and the Industrial Noise Policy published by the NSW Environment Protection Authority. (Reason: To ensure the amenity of surrounding land uses) Noise and Vibration Impact (Compliance) I21 Within 60 days of commencement of operation of the premises further acoustic testing must be undertaken and a report from an appropriately qualified acoustical consultant eligible for membership of the Association of Australian Acoustic Consultants, prepared to demonstrate that the use of the premises complies with the conditions of this consent. The testing must be carried out when the premises is operating at full capacity. A copy of the report must be submitted to Council within 14 days of its completion. If the use is found not to comply with the noise conditions, the use must cease immediately until appropriate measures to remedy the breach are implemented to the satisfaction of Council. (Reason: To ensure compliance with acceptable noise levels to maintain the amenity of adjoining land uses)

N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L

This is Page No 1 of the Minutes of the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel Meeting held on 6 May 2015.

NORTH SYDNEY INDEPENDENT PLANNING PANEL

DETERMINATIONS OF THE NORTH SYDNEY INDEPENDENT PLANNING PANEL MEETING HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, NORTH SYDNEY, ON WEDNESDAY

6 MAY 2015, AT 4.00PM.

PRESENT Chair: Jan Murrell in the Chair. Panel Members: Francesca O’Brien, Member Michael Harrison, Member Ian Pickles, Member Staff: Stephen Beattie - Manager Development Services Robyn Pearson - Team Leader Assessments Geoff Mossemenear - Executive Assessment Planner David Hoy - Team Leader Assessments Peita Rose - Corporate Administration Support Officer (Minutes) Apologies: Nil. 1. Minutes of Previous Meeting The Minutes of the NSIPP Meeting of 1 April 2015 were confirmed following that meeting. 2. Declarations of Interest: Nil

NORTH SYDNEY INDEPENDENT PLANNING PANEL - 06/05/15 Page No 2


3. Business Items

ITEM 1

DA No: 84/15

ADDRESS: 29 Waruda Street, Kirribilli

PROPOSAL: Installation of two air-conditioning units

REPORT BY NAME: Robyn Pearson, Team Leader (Assessments)

REASON FOR NSIPP REFERRAL:

The application involves building works above the permissible height limit (12m) requiring determination by NSIPP in accordance with the directive from the Director General of the Department of Planning & Infrastructure.

APPLICANT: J A Hope-Allan – Public submissions No persons registered to speak at the meeting. Business Item Recommendations The Council Officer’s Recommendation is endorsed by the Panel. Voting was as follows: Unanimous

Panel Member Yes No Panel Member Yes No Jan Murrell X Michael Harrison X Francesca O’Brien X Ian Pickles X

ITEM 2

DA No: 266/14

ADDRESS: 14 Eaton Street, Neutral Bay

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a part 2 and part 3 storey multi dwelling housing development comprising 5 dwellings and basement parking for 9 cars

REPORT BY NAME: George Youhanna, Executive Assessment Officer


Public Interest (Submissions)

APPLICANT: James Michael Elliott Public submissions Michael Salvatico - Submitter Biagio Testa - Submitter Andrew Faber - Submitter Anthony Solomon - Architect



Business Item Recommendations The Council Officer’s Recommendation is endorsed by the Panel. (Panel Reason: The Panel notes the proposal is compliant and does not have unreasonable impacts

given the zoning of the subject site and the other relevant controls. Furthermore, it is noted that the view of the harbour bridge will be partially maintained from the upper level of 1 Lower Bent Street)

Voting was as follows: Unanimous


ITEM 3

DA No: 384/14

ADDRESS: 41 Ben Boyd Road, Neutral Bay

PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling

REPORT BY NAME: Luke Donovan, Senior Assessment Officer


Greater than 10% non compliance with the permissible building height

APPLICANT: Simon Rosewell Pty Ltd Public submissions Laurent Horrut - Submitter Simon Rosewell - Architect Annelize Kaalsen - Planner John Oultram - Heritage Consultant Business Item Recommendations The Panel resolved to defer the item to its next available meeting to enable the applicant to amend the plans to provide for:

a) Improved solar access to No. 39 Ben Boyd Road in respect of windows W8, W9 and W10 at the winter solstice to the extent that there is no further additional overshadowing than that provided by the fence at 11am and for windows W8 and W9 at midday;

b) The awning to the ground level is to be amended to satisfy a) above; c) The balcony off the first level bedroom is to be amended to a Juliette style balcony to improve

privacy and any overshadowing must also satisfy a) above; d) The dormer window to the street is to be deleted.

(Panel Reason: To allow development of the dwelling without unreasonable impacts to the adjoining

properties, and to maintain the streetscape significance of the heritage items. The Panel considers the removal of the staircase will not adversely affect the heritage significance of the item. The amended plans if required need to be renotified under the provisions of the North Sydney DCP.)



Voting was as follows: Unanimous


ITEM 4

DA No: 260/13/2

ADDRESS: 20 Wonga Road, Cremorne

PROPOSAL: Modification of consent for demolition, subdivision into two lots and construction of two dwellings



Clause 4.6 variation to height limit (greater than 10% variation)

APPLICANT: Wyndel Property Group Public submissions No persons registered to speak at the meeting. Business Item Recommendations The Council Officer’s Recommendation is endorsed by the Panel. Voting was as follows: Unanimous


ITEM 5

DA No: 200/14

ADDRESS: 5 - 7 Carter Street Cammeray

PROPOSAL: Alterations and addition to an existing heritage listed church including a two storey addition to provide five function rooms, a new church entrance, church offices and new retaining structures at the rear of the property.

REPORT BY NAME: Robin Tse, Senior Assessment Officer


To seek approval from the Panel with regards to the applicant’s request for an extension of the time for the submission of the required information to satisfy the deferred commencement conditions.

APPLICANT: Malone Campbell Allen Architects P/L



Public submissions Brian Holt - Project Manager Business Item Recommendations The Council Officer’s Recommendation is endorsed by the Panel subject to the extension of time for satisfaction of the deferred commencement conditions being a further 12 months to 3 June 2016. (Panel Reason: To allow the necessary negotiations to take place with adjoining owners regarding

stormwater) Voting was as follows: Unanimous Panel Member Yes No Panel Member Yes No Jan Murrell X Michael Harrison X Francesca O’Brien X Ian Pickles X

ITEM 6

DA No: 9/15

ADDRESS: 91 Bellevue Street, Cammeray

PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing single storey detached dwelling including a two storey rear addition, a double garage to Bellevue Street and a swimming pool at the rear of the property.

REPORT BY NAME: Robin Tse, Senior Assessment Officer


The applicant is referred to NSIPP for determination following the request from Councillors.

APPLICANT: BJP Architects Public submissions Simon Meehan - Owner Colin Brady - Heritage Architect Bruce James - Architect Business Item Recommendations The Panel resolved to defer the item to its next available meeting to enable the applicant to amend the plans to provide for:

a) A single garage within the existing envelope of the dwelling and retaining the existing roof and gabled form proportions and traditional materials. Amended plans are required for the consequential changes to the internal layout of the dwelling and details of materials and finishes for the garage door appropriate to the conservation area.

b) The swimming pool and surrounds are to be designed so that the finished levels are at natural ground level at the south-eastern corner boundaries. The fill along the northern boundary is acceptable as proposed;



c) The front fence to Bellevue Street is to be an open picket style fence and no higher than 800mm. The side fence up to the entry on Lumsden Street is to be an open picket fence no greater than 1200mm from the footpath. To the east of the entry along Lumsden Street the fence may be a maximum height of 1.8m and be of materials consistent with the conservation area in accordance with the DCP character statement;

d) Details of the materials and finishes of the rear pavillion are to be provided with the amended plans; and

e) Any inconsistencies in the drawings and documentation are to be corrected and submitted with the amended plans.

(Panel Reason: The Panel considers that the amendments required above will allow the retention of

the existing dwelling whilst allowing for appropriate additions in the context of the conservation area. The amended plans if required need to be renotified under the provisions of the North Sydney DCP.)

Voting was as follows: Unanimous Panel Member Yes No Panel Member Yes No Jan Murrell X Michael Harrison X Francesca O’Brien X Ian Pickles X

ITEM 7

DA No: 174/14

ADDRESS: 9 Brook St, Crows Nest

PROPOSAL: First Floor Addition

REPORT BY NAME: Jonathan Archibald


Height Variation

APPLICANT: Jimmy Wang Public submissions No persons registered to speak at the meeting Business Item Recommendations The Council Officer’s Recommendation is endorsed by the Panel. Voting was as follows: Unanimous Panel Member Yes No Panel Member Yes No Jan Murrell X Michael Harrison X Francesca O’Brien X Ian Pickles X



ITEM 8

DA No: 06/15

ADDRESS: 301 Miller Street, Cammeray (T)

PROPOSAL: Demolish existing building and construct three storey apartment building with basement parking comprising five apartments.

REPORT BY NAME: Kim Rothe, Senior Assessment Officer


Number of submissions received (5), Constrained Site

APPLICANT: MCHP Architects Pty Ltd Public submissions David Cahill - Architect Ben Tayler - Owner Business Item Recommendations The Council Officer’s Recommendation is endorsed by the Panel. Voting was as follows: Unanimous Panel Member Yes No Panel Member Yes No Jan Murrell X Michael Harrison X Francesca O’Brien X Ian Pickles X

ITEM 9

DA No: 279/14

ADDRESS: 222 Pacific Highway, Crows Nest

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and erection of a mixed use development



Clause 4.6 variation to height limit (greater than 10% variation)

APPLICANT: MoMo Property Group Pty Ltd Public submissions Martijn Brouwer - Submitter Larissa Brennan - Planner for the applicant Business Item Recommendations The Council Officer’s Recommendation is endorsed by the Panel.



Voting was as follows: Unanimous Panel Member Yes No Panel Member Yes No Jan Murrell X Michael Harrison X Francesca O’Brien X Ian Pickles X

The public meeting concluded at 6.00pm. The Panel Determination session commenced at 6.05pm. The Panel Determination session concluded at 7.30pm. Endorsed by Jan Murrell North Sydney Independent Planning Panel 7 May 2015

Documents

NORTH SYDNEY COUNCIL · Speaker/s . North Sydney Independent Planning Panel – 03/06/2015 Page No 2 . 2. IPP01: 99 Walker Street, North Sydney (V) - DA 283/14/2 ... The proposal