RYDE CITY COUNCIL - Homepage - City of Ryde · CITY OF RYDE Development Committee Agenda No. 19/07 Page 1 ITEM 1 CONFIRMATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That the report of

CITY OF RYDE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

AGENDA NO. 19/07 The above Committee will meet on Tuesday, 20 November, 2007 in Committee Room No. 2, Fifth Floor, Civic Centre, Ryde at 4.00pm to discuss the following matters. Any matters not determined at the meeting will be considered by the Council at its meeting to be held on Tuesday 27 November, 2007. CONTENTS Item Property/Subject Page 1 CONFIRMATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT ..................................................... 1 2 1/ 6A ERIC STREET, EASTWOOD. LOT: 1 SP: 78359. Local

Development Application for home occupation (beauty treatment & body massage) in villa 1. LDA 322/2007. Applicant: Bernadette Mostyn “A Secret Garden Beauty Retreat”. Owner: D Galati Pty Ltd. Date lodged: 4 May 2007.

INSPECTION 4.20PM & INTERVIEW 5.00PM .................................................... 2 3 10 & 12 OLIVE STREET, RYDE. LOT: 13 & 14, DP: 26473. Local

Development Application for an urban housing development containing 6 units (2 x 2 storey villa homes at the front; 4 x single storey villa homes at the rear) and strata subdivision. LDA 108/2007. Applicant: The Ryde Property Trust. Owners: L W Wells (No. 10), DH & AC Norrie (No. 12). Date lodged: 26 February 2007 (amended drawings 4 July 2007). INSPECTION 4.40PM & INTERVIEW 5.10PM .......... 22

4 10 FAIRYLAND AVENUE, CHATSWOOD WEST 2067. Non-

compliance with Council’s Order No. 15 Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. INTERVIEW 5.20PM ............................... 91

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM 5 100 LANCASTER AVENUE, MELROSE PARK. Lot 50 DP 15965.

Illegal Land filling. Owner: DP & KL & PA & VD Jepson. ............................. 98

CITY OF RYDE Development Committee Agenda No. 19/07 Page 1

ITEM 1 CONFIRMATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That the report of the meeting of the Development Committee No. 18/07 held on 6 November 2007, be confirmed.


ITEM 2 1/ 6A ERIC STREET, EASTWOOD. LOT: 1 SP: 78359. Local Development Application for home occupation (beauty treatment & body massage) in villa 1. LDA 322/2007. Applicant: Bernadette Mostyn “A Secret Garden Beauty Retreat”. Owner: D Galati Pty Ltd. Date lodged: 4 May 2007. Public Submissions: 8 submissions received. Councillor representations: Councillor Wilde & Councillor Petch.

INSPECTION 4.20PM INTERVIEW 5.00PM

FILE NO. LDA07/322 The Manager Assessment Reports 15 October 2007 The assessment contained in this report is a summary of the matters deemed relevant to this development proposal and matters contained in the Department of Planning's Guide to Section 79C – Potential Matters for Consideration. 1. Report Summary This report considers an application for home occupation involved in beauty treatment and body massage proposed in Villa no. 1. The site contains 10 villa units accessed via a single driveway. Clause 3 of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance defines home occupation as an occupation carried out by the permanent residents of the dwelling. The applicant has not been able to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that she is a permanent resident of 1/6A Eric Street. Further, the applicant was requested to submit professional qualification details relating to the proposed activity on the site in support of her application. No further details were received from the applicant. Eight (8) submissions have been received objecting to the proposed development. The submissions have raised issues in relation to the potential impact on the amenity of the residents living in the villa complex. It is recommended that the application be refused. Reason for Referral to Development Committee: Nature of development, submissions received and called by Councillor Wilde.


ITEM 2 (Continued) Public Submissions: Eight (8) submissions were received objecting to the

development. 2. Site (Refer to attached map.) Address : 1/6A Eric Street, Eastwood Site Area : Area: 3266m2 Frontage 17.147 metres Depth 93 metres Topography and Vegetation : The site is located on the higher side of the street and is

without any significant vegetation. Existing Buildings : The site has 10 villa units with a single driveway from

Eric Street. Planning Controls Zoning : Residential 'A' Other : Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance (RPSO) 3. ANY COUNCILLOR REPRESENTATIONS: Name of Councillor: The Mayor Councillor Petch Nature of the representation: Put forward the applicant's submission that the development was a small proposal with only 3 clients per day and one person operating the use. Date: 28 July 2007 Form of the representation: Note to the Group Manager Environment & Planning. On behalf of the objector or applicant: On behalf of the applicant. Name of Councillor: Councillor Wilde. Nature of the representation: Requested that the application be forwarded to Development Committee.


ITEM 2 (Continued) Date: 9 August 2007 On behalf of the objector or applicant: On behalf of the objector. 4. Proposal Home Occupation - Beauty Salon

• Use 1 room within the existing villa unit for the proposed activity involving waxing, nail & facial treatment and body massage.

• Proposed hours of operation will be Monday to Friday 8am – 6pm & by appointments on Saturday.

• One treatment bed and equipments are proposed in one room. • There will be one practitioner only. NOTE: The applicant has not provided sufficient details to confirm that the proposal complies with the definition of home occupation as contained under the RPSO. Applicant was requested via a letter dated 12 July 2007 to submit the following details but no response was received in relation to this matter.

• Confirmation that the applicant is a permanent resident of villa 1 as the applicant is not the owner of the villa.

• Copy of professional credentials – for example educational qualifications to confirm that the applicant is qualified and will be engaged in the activity proposed.

Under the circumstances it could not be confirmed whether the proposal meets the definition of ‘home occupation’ as contained under Clause 3 of the RPSO.

5. Background

• DA was lodged on 4 May 2007. • The application was reviewed by the Pre-assessment Team and issues were

raised in relation to the use of the villa unit (floor plan indicated that 3 out of 4 rooms were proposed for home occupation).

• On 16 May 2007, Council Officer’s requested site access for an inspection of the proposed site. Access into villa 1 was not available until 6 June 2007. Site access was provided by Mr D Galati. The applicant was not at the site.


ITEM 2 (Continued)

• The site inspection indicated that the rooms were already set up for the proposed massage/ beauty salon which took up significant part of the 2 bedroom villa. It was further noted that the site contains 10 units accessed by a single driveway. Villa 1 has only a single car parking space (garage). The client parking would either be on the driveway or on the street.

• It was further noted that the business name and contact had appeared in the yellow pages and the telephone number provided in the application was being used for the business. It seems that the business has commenced on the site.

• A letter was sent to the applicant on 6 June 2007, raising concern that significant part of the dwelling would be taken up for the proposed use leaving only limited area for normal domestic use. The proposal would be classified as a “commercial premises” and would be prohibited on the site. The applicant was further advised that Council did not encourage such development in an urban housing or villa complex due to its proximity to other residents, its potential impact on amenity, disturbances to the residents and car parking issues on the site. The applicant was advised to withdraw the application or it would proceed to determination.

• The applicant did not wish to withdraw the application and submitted amended details showing only a single room to be used for the beauty salon.

• On 12 July 2007 another letter was sent to the applicant requesting the following:

Confirmation that the applicant/operator is a permanent resident of villa 1 (as required under RPSO) and,

Provide details of qualifications relevant to the proposed activity on the site.

No further details were received from the applicant. • The application was advertised and notified for 14 days from 1/8/07 to 16/8/07. • A total of 9 submissions were received objecting to the proposed development. • On 27 August 2007, copies of submissions were forwarded to the applicant as

requested. • On 12 September 2007, a reminder letter was sent to the applicant to submit a

response/ address concerns within 7 days. • Applicant contacted Council staff requesting for an extension of time. An

extension of time was granted on 25 September 2007 for an additional 2 weeks. The new re-submission deadline granted was 9 October 2007.

• No response was received at the end of extended time period. • On 11 October 2007, Assessment Officer telephoned applicants consultant to

confirm if they wished to make any further submission as no further details were received since 27 August 2007. It was indicated that the applicant/owner was liaising with the objectors so the objections would be withdrawn.


ITEM 2 (Continued)

• One submission was withdrawn on 4 October 2007. • Another submission was modified on 24 October 2007 (included further

complaints regarding activities on the site and advised that the applicant was not a permanent resident of villa 1 as she lived in Villa no. 5).

6. Submissions The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Development Control Plan 2006 - Part 2.1, Notification of Development Applications. The application was advertised on 1 August 2007. Notification of the proposal was from 1/8/07 until 16/08/2007. Initially nine (9) submissions were received. Subsequently one submission was withdrawn on 4 October 2007. The issues raised in the remaining 8 submissions were: a) The proposed development is unsuitable in a villa complex because of its impact

on the multiple residents on the same site who share common facilities.

Assessment Officer’s Comment Given that villa 1 does not have any alternative car parking on the site for the clients; proposed development is likely to impact on the amenity of the rest of the residents on the site. The applicant has not demonstrated that alternate suitable parking is available on the site that would not impact on the residential parking.

b) Since completion of 10 villas directly opposite my property we already have

headlights affecting us at odd hours of the night illuminating our bedrooms. It is legal, but disturbing. Also close neighbours with insufficient on site parking use the on street parking. The proposed business without sufficient on site parking will add to these traffic problems. There is not enough parking for residents living in the complex and visitor parking are normally occupied by residents living at 6A Eric Street. Additional clients will exacerbate the parking problem.

Assessment Officer’s Comment The issue in relation to the insufficient car parking for the proposed development has been noted. The proposal is likely to affect the amenity of other residents in the locality and on the site if the clients’ park on the driveway, in the visitor parking area.


ITEM 2 (Continued) c) Some sort of a use has already commenced on the site (there was a sign on the

window and frequent comings and goings).

Assessment Officer’s Comment A site inspection revealed that massage and treatment equipments were already set up in one of the rooms. The business contact details have already appeared in the Yellow Pages directory. However, it could not be established whether the activity had actually commenced. Any comings and goings were not evident upon inspection. No signage was displayed on the site.

d) The introduction of such commercial activity would completely change the

character of the street which until now has enjoyed a distinctly residential character and has been sought after location. The existing and new comers have paid a high price to own a house in this area.

Assessment Officer’s Comment

The proposed home occupation will not alter the physical environment as alterations or additions are not proposed. The proposed use will be carried out internally.

e) The applicant, Ms Bernadette Mostyn lives in Villa No.5, but not living in Villa no.

1. It is not a home occupation at all.

Assessment Officer’s Comment Other resident has also indicated that the applicant lives in Villa no.5 and not in Villa no.1 where the home occupation is proposed. The applicant was requested to submit details to confirm that the applicant lives in Villa 1 and will be the person running the beauty treatment/ massage business. The applicant has not been able to submit details to confirm that she is a permanent resident of villa 1. Council will consider this when determining the application.

f) Only single brick wall exists between villa 1 and villa 2. Noise of high heel shoes,

talking and laughing loudly late in the night have been disturbing the residents in the recent months.

Assessment Officer’s Comment The objector’s concern is noted. However, the issue does not relate to the proposed activity.


ITEM 2 (Continued) g) Disturbance caused by patrons - Villa 1 is already attracting clients who knock on

others' doors to ask for villa no.5.

Assessment Officer’s Comment Issue is noted but may not relate to the proposed activity.

h) Strangers coming on the villa site will contribute to opportunistic crime. There has

been a recent break in one of the villas recently.


Issue has been noted. i) Cars coming and going at odd hours in front of villa 2 generates noise affecting

the residents. Once Ryde Council approves the business in villa 1, it is believed that the 24 residents living in the site will not be able to have any good sleep at night.

Assessment Officer’s Comment It has been noted that the traffic generated from the site is likely to affect the amenity of the residents. Patrons may park in the visitor spots or the driveway causing inconvenience and safety issues for the residents. However, the home occupation if approved will not be allowed to be carried out at night.

j) The proposal will lead to a disturbances and feeling of insecurity as potential

clients will knock at the door of other villas.

Assessment Officer’s Comment The applicant has not indicated as to how this issue can be addressed.

k) When we purchased our villa we looked for a quiet surrounding residential area,

not in a commercial area. The zoning certificate attached to the property indicates that the property is zoned Residential A and was marked as a residential development. Our clients had no intention of living next to or near a retail development. We do not agree at all for a commercial venue to be established in our villas compound. The property, within which the proposed activity is to be carried out is located on a villa complex, is residential in nature and thus entirely unsuitable for commercial activity of the kind proposed.


ITEM 2 (Continued)

Assessment Officer’s Comment Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance which prescribes the zoning control, permits home occupation in dwellings such as dwelling houses & villa units subject to Council’s consent. Home occupation has been defined later in this report and is not technically a retail outlet. If the proposal is in breach of any of the requirements (under the definition), it is deemed not to be a home occupation. Home occupation should not generate a level of activity beyond what would normally happen in a residential area, must not impact on the amenity of the residents in the area and must be carried out by the permanent resident of the dwelling. In deciding whether to issue development consent, Council has to make an assessment as to whether the proposal is likely to affect the adjoining residents. Views of the residents in the locality are also considered in the assessment process.

l) The density of the residential development is such as to make the movement of

traffic within the complex (to cater for those patronising the proposed beauty salon) intolerable. If the clients park on the driveway they would block the comings and goings of the residents who live in the complex. The driveway could also be a danger to children on the site and will increase the volume of traffic thus inconveniencing the occupiers of the other villas. The villa development was not designed to cater for commercial activity. This particular “home occupation” will involve substantial movement of people in a confined area.

Assessment Officer’s Comment The traffic issue related to the proposed use has been noted. The applicant has not provided any alternative solution other than stating that the clients will park on the road. It is likely that the clients may end up parking on the driveway or other parking space designated for the existing residents and their visitors.

m) A commercial development in this complex would devalue the properties

previously purchased and the homes in the street.

Assessment Officer’s Comment No evidence has been submitted confirming that the proposal would devalue the other properties on the site and the locality.


ITEM 2 (Continued) n) Council’s ideas have changed greatly since May 2001 when we received the Draft

Ryde Heritage Local Environmental Plan No. 105. Should this new proposal be approved it would make a parody of what we thought our Council stood for.

Assessment Officer’s Comment The comment has been noted.

o) Almost half of the street has not been informed by letter about the proposed change of usage.


Council’s policy requires adjoining residents be notified. In this instance all adjoining residents/ occupiers were notified. Additionally the application was publicly advertised in the local newspaper.

p) It is proposed to use the master bedroom and the study as the beauty salon and

the kitchen / meals area as a waiting room. This will take up approximately 75% of the liveable area and leave the occupants with only a single bedroom and a living area which the clients have to walk through. This means that there is no privacy in the unit for the other occupants. We believe for home occupation only small percentage of area should be used.

Assessment Officer’s Comment The applicant has amended the plan which now shows that only a single bedroom would be converted into a massage/ beauty salon.

q) Any sign advertising this home occupation would be completely unacceptable and

would be offensive in the streetscape of Eric Street. We strongly believe the Council should not approve any external signs.

Assessment Officer’s Comment No external signs have been applied for. However, identification signs (size restriction apply) may be erected if home occupation is approved.

r) Mounting anything on the external walls of villas in a multi dwelling building is a matter for the Owners Corporation to approve.


ITEM 2 (Continued)

Assessment Officer’s Comment Owners consent is required before a development application is lodged with Council.

s) Because of the nature of the work, the finishing time could be many hours after

the last consultation starts. We seek to have the “finishing time” specified as no later than say 8pm. Also the Saturday “By Appointment” to be covered with a start and finish time.

Assessment Officer’s Comment Should the application be approved similar conditions would be imposed.

t) Parking spaces for the residents and their guests are already barely sufficient for

reasonable enjoyment of our purchased villa so unless parking was made available without blocking the driveway then clients should park on the street.

Assessment Officer’s Comment Sufficient parking has not been provided on the site.

u) Should the Council give some qualified approval to the proposal, we would

request that it include the requirement for a new application being made by the new owner.

Assessment Officer’s Comment Consent would relate to the site (villa no. 1) and would not extinguish with the change of ownership. The conditions of consent will have to be complied with at all times by any subsequent operator, unless the use is discontinued.

v) The proposal should be rejected because of its impact on the amenity and traffic.

However if Council chooses to grant a development consent then the following conditions should apply: - No signage be permitted or should not be bigger than 50cm X 20cm. - Council’s consent lapses if the owner fails to reside in the villa as her principal

place of residence. - Consent lapses if the owner sells or rents out any part of the villa.


ITEM 2 (Continued) Assessment Officer’s Comment If the application is approved: - Signage will have to comply with Council’s Development Control Plan - Home occupation can only be carried out by the permanent resident of the

dwelling. - Consent cannot lapse if owner sells the property unless approval is granted for

a temporary period. 7. Policy Implications Relevant Provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments etc: (a) Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance

Zoning

The subject site is zoned 2(a) Residential under the provisions of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance. A ‘home occupation’ is permitted subject to Council’s consent.

Mandatory Requirements

The applicant proposes to operate a ‘home occupation’ as defined under the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance. The Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance defines a home occupation as:

“An occupation carried on in a dwelling house or in a dwelling in a residential flat building by the permanent residents of the dwelling house or dwelling which does not involve any of the following:- a) The registration of the building under the Factories, shops and Industries Act,

1962; a1)Prostitution; b) The employment of persons other than those residents; c) Interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of the emission of

noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or otherwise;

d) The display of goods, whether in a window or otherwise or e) The exhibitions of any notice, advertisement or sign (other than a notice or

sign exhibited on that dwelling house or dwelling to indicate the name and occupation of the resident).


ITEM 2 (Continued) The applicant has not provided any details to confirm that the proposed salon will be operated by a permanent resident of villa 1. A letter was sent to the applicant on 12 July 2007 requesting for details to confirm that she was a permanent resident of villa 1. The applicant has not responded to this request. In order to assist in the assessment of this application, the applicant was also requested to provide details of professional qualifications (if applicable) related to the proposed home occupation (beauty treatment & massage). Again no response was received in relation to this request. The development is proposed in a villa unit that shares a single driveway and visitor parking spaces with 9 other units. The proposed unit has a single lock up garage and no alternative parking for the patrons. It is likely that the proposed use will generate additional traffic on the site and cause amenity issues to the other residents. A number of submissions have been received. In light of the above details, it cannot be confirmed that the proposal will comply with the definition of home occupation and therefore is inconsistent with Clause 3 of the RPSO.

(b) Relevant State Environmental Planning Policy

N/A (c) Relevant Regional Environmental Plans

N/A (d) Any draft Local Environmental Plans

N/A (e) Development Control Plan (DCP 2006)

Section 7.2 Waste Management and Minimisation The proposal is unlikely to generate any significant wastes except for the treatment related wastes. These can be stored and disposed in an environmentally friendly manner. The waste management on the site is acceptable to Council’s Environmental Health Officer. Specific conditions have been recommended to address the waste disposal issue, should the Council be mindful to approve this application. Environmental Health Report is on file.


ITEM 2 (Continued) Section 9.2 Access for People with Disabilities The bedroom where the beauty salon/massage is proposed is not accessible by wheelchair. However, this section of DCP 2006 states that for a proposal that involves a change of use or alterations to a class 1a building, the DCP does not apply. Section 9.3 Car Parking Section 9.3 does not specify any parking provision for home occupations. This is because home occupations should not generally generate parking demand in excess of that of a standard residential dwelling. For this reason, home occupations are more suited to stand alone dwelling houses where facilities including car parking are exclusive. However, the subject villa is a 2 bedroom unit with a single car parking space (garage). The remaining area on the site is common property. It seems that in absence of any additional car parking clients are likely to park on the driveway, visitor parking or the public road. The lack of additional parking is likely to impact on the amenity of the other 9 families living on the site. Client parking on the public street will create further issues in the street which is already accommodates additional parking demand created by recent medium density residential development in the area. The application is therefore not considered acceptable with regard to parking. Part 9.1 Advertising Signs Signage is not proposed with the current application.

8. Likely impacts of the Development (a) Built Environment No alteration is proposed to the existing villa. The main bedroom will be converted to accommodate the proposed home occupation. The current proposal includes beauty treatment and massage services. Opening hours are proposed from 8am to 6pm weekdays and by appointment on Saturdays.

As mentioned earlier, Villa 1 has no spare parking capacity and customers are likely to park on the driveway, visitor parking spaces or on the street. This is likely to affect the convenience of the residents living in the other 9 villas. The proposed opening hours are 8am -6pm during weekdays and by appointment on Saturdays.


ITEM 2 (Continued) These long opening hours are likely to attract more than 4 – 5 clients per day and is likely to be seen as an intensification of activity in a villa complex where most amenities are common and shared. Since villa 1 has only 1 car parking space (locked garage), customers are likely to park on the driveway and on the public road. The proposal is likely to interfere with the amenity of the other residents. The proposal is also likely to affect the privacy and safety of the residents. A number of submissions have been received objecting to the proposed development on the grounds that it will affect the amenity of the residents within the villa complex by way of parking inconvenience, traffic, noise and disturbances. Applicant has not provided the required details in support of the application. (b) Natural Environment No changes are proposed to the natural environment. 9. Suitability of the site for the development The site is not suitable for the proposed activity as it consists of 10 villa units with shared facilities such as the driveway, common areas and visitor parking. The site does not have spare capacity for additional car parking for the patrons associated with the proposed development. The proposed development is likely to affect the amenity of the other residents living on the site. 10. The Public Interest Based on the potential impact of the proposed development on the residents living within the villa complex, the proposal is considered not to be in the public interest. 11. Management Plan Linkages N/A. 12. Relationship to Key Outcome Areas People The assessment of this development application meets the key outcomes for People (set out on pages 32-33 of the Management Plan 2007-2010):


ITEM 2 (Continued) • A vibrant City that is healthy, physically attractive, economically strong and

engages its community through cultural and social activities. • A City that plans for people by identifying their diverse needs and involving them

in decision making to improve their quality of life. • A harmonious community through a culturally enriched and respectful society. Comment: The application was notified to residents of the City of Ryde in compliance with Part 2.1 of DCP 2006 – Notification of Development Applications. Council’s business paper and decisions are available to the public. Assets The assessment of this development application meets the following key outcomes for Assets (set out on pages 34-35 of the Management Plan 2007-2010): • Well designed streets and paths where motorists, cyclists and pedestrians feel

safe. • Well designed places and spaces that minimise personal harm and where people

interact with each other, so that crime is reduced. • A high standard of visual appearance as there is no litter or graffiti, and we care

for our public infrastructure and public areas. Comment: The proposed development is likely to cause traffic congestion on Eric Street as on site parking is not provided for the proposed activity and Eric Street is a relatively short street with medium density housing fronting on to it. Parking on the driveway will compromise convenience and safety of the residents. Environment The assessment of this development application meets the following key outcomes for Environment (set out on pages 36-38 of the Management Plan 2007-2010): • Attractive streets, public places and buildings through better planning and design

which is responsive to community expectations and our local environment. Comment: The proposed activity if carried out in the villa unit may detract from the residential character of the area and is not in accordance with the community expectations.


ITEM 2 (Continued) • Sustainable practices in buildings, waste management, transport, energy systems

and water use through community commitment. Comment: The proposal only involves a commencement of use and no changes are proposed to the water and energy conservation features such as rain water tank and insulation. Governance The assessment of this development application meets the key outcomes for Governance (set out on pages 39-41 of the Management Plan 2007-2010): • Improved communication with the community and increased awareness and

understanding of Council’s decisions by the community. • Members of the community are engaged through involvement in democratic

decision making and the promotion of active citizenship. • Incorporation of best practice approaches in the delivery of services to the

community. • A safe and harmonious working environment with skilled and motivated staff who

embrace the organisation's vision and values. • Compliance with all legislative requirements and statutory obligations. • An efficient and effective regulatory environment. Comment: The application was notified to adjoining residents in accordance with DCP 2006: Section 2.1 – Notification of Development Applications. Submissions have been considered in the assessment of this application, and Council’s business paper and decisions are available to the public. The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance 1979, relevant State Planning Policies and Legislation, the City of Ryde DCP 2006 and relevant Council policies. 13. Consultation – Internal and External Internal Referrals Building Surveyor, 13 July 2007: Raised no objection from BCA perspective subject to the following condition:


ITEM 2 (Continued)

“A portable fire extinguisher is to be provided to cover Class A fire risks, that is fires involving carbonaceous solids, such as wood, cloth, paper, rubber and plastics”

Note: Should Council be mindful to approve the application, this matter could be addressed by a condition of consent. Environmental Health Officer, 16 July 2007: The proposal involves conversion of a bedroom into a home occupation – beauty salon. The proposal will be satisfactory subject to recommended conditions (full report and recommended conditions are on file). Note: Should Council be mindful to approve the application, this matter could be addressed by a condition of consent. External Referrals None 14. Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. CONCLUSION: A home occupation can only be carried out by permanent resident of the dwelling and must not interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood. The subject site consists of multiple villa units with shared common driveway and visitor parking. The site does not have spare car parking space to enable customer parking associated with the proposed beauty salon. A number of submissions have been received objecting to the proposed development. The development is likely to affect the privacy, safety and convenience of the residents in the locality. The proposal will interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood and would breach the definition of home occupation. The applicant was requested to submit details to confirm that the applicant lives in Villa 1 and will be the person running the beauty treatment/ massage business. The residents’ on the site have suggested that the applicant lives in another villa on the same site. The applicant has not been able to submit details to confirm that she is a permanent resident of villa 1.


ITEM 2 (Continued) If this is the case then the proposal would not comply with the definition of home occupation and if approved would be in breach of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance. Without verification of the applicant’s residency within Villa 1, it is not possible to determine whether the proposal satisfies the definition of a home occupation. It is recommended that the application be refused. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Local Development Application No. 322/2007 at 1/6A Eric Street, Eastwood,

being LOT: 1 SP: 78359 be refused for the following reasons: 1. Insufficient information has been provided to Council to enable full and

proper assessment of the proposal against Clause 3 of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance.

2. The proposal will be located within a villa homes complex consisting of 10

dwellings with shared facilities and the proposed development is likely to cause unacceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.

3. Villa no. 1 does not have sufficient car parking space on the site to

accommodate car parking needs of the customers. 4. The proposal is not in the public interest.

(b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of Council's decision. Liz Coad Sanju Reddy Manager Assessment Senior Town Planner Environment & Planning Environment & Planning


ITEM 2 (Continued) Indicates submissions received

COPYRIGHT

© 2007 City of Ryde.© 2007 Land and Property Information NSW.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

No part of this map may be reproduced without written permission.

City of Ryde

322/2007Development Application

Civic Centre, 1 Devlin StreetRYDE NSW 2112

Locked Bag 2069NORTH RYDE NSW 1670

Tel: 9952 8222 Fax: 9952 8070

E-mail: [email protected]: www.ryde.nsw.gov.au

Scale: 1:1800 approx.

Date: 13/11/2007

18A

18

16

1713579

1113

17A

19

57

55

53

51

4938

40

42

13A

1517 20

22

24

26

24

6 23

21

25

2716

810

14

19

45A

30

1210

86A

14

1715

1311

9

7

53

36

42

39

41

41A

43

45

47

333

331 3

8A

26

18

24

24

22

20

37

35

33

31

29

27A

12 2A28

332

42A

44 67A

65A

40A

11A

BRU

SH R

BRU

SH R

D

SYBIL ST

USH

RD

DAR

VALL RD

ERIC ST

DAR

DP 215947

DP 324409

DP 6909

DP 861316

DP 17940

DP 324409

DP 510850

DP 358841

DP 543560

A

1

B

3

2

3

11

5

11

D

1

2

A

2

7

6

4

B

1

A

2

2

54

21

3

SP 38106

SP 51548

SP 42414

SP 4043SP 78359

DP

DP 747810

DP 234294

DP 690

DP 201682

DP 511632

DP 565949

DP 560362

DP 398

DP 841475

DP 381697

DP 322302DP 222545

DP 180887

DP 306445

DP 340110

DP 333425

DP 11035

090

DP 11090

DP 11090

DP 850764

DP 600646

DP 578986

DP 556475

75

DP 505905

DP 386909

DP 324774

DP 543885

DP 337032DP 300833

DP 509693

2

6

3

31

B

24

1

10

9A

2

26

3

1

3

1

1

C

8A

12

A

4

1

131

3

B

1

1

2

5

314

2829

2

3233

4

2

11

2

32

2

1

11

1

22

32

22

12

C

X

Site


ITEM 2 (Continued)


ITEM 3 10 & 12 OLIVE STREET, RYDE. LOT: 13 & 14, DP: 26473. Local Development Application for an urban housing development containing 6 units (2 x 2 storey villa homes at the front; 4 x single storey villa homes at the rear) and strata subdivision. LDA 108/2007. Applicant: The Ryde Property Trust. Owners: L W Wells (No. 10), DH & AC Norrie (No. 12). Date lodged: 26 February 2007 (amended drawings 4 July 2007). Public Submissions: 4 submissions objecting to the initial proposal and 2 submissions objecting to amended plans.

INSPECTION 4.40PM INTERVIEW 5.10PM

FILE NO. LDA07/108 The Manager Assessment Reports 14 November 2007 The assessment contained in this report is a summary of the matters deemed relevant to this development proposal and matters contained in the Department of Planning's Guide to Section 79C – Potential Matters for Consideration. Report Summary This development application seeks consent for the construction of an urban housing development comprising 6 dwellings (2 x 4 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom), and strata-title subdivision into 6 lots. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance and DCP 2006. There are a number of variations to the DCP provisions including solar access to the private open space area of Dwelling 5 setback distance and urban design qualities of the front two dwellings. There are stormwater disposal requirements that have yet to be finalised. These requirements can be addressed via conditions of consent. Notice of the proposed development was given to adjoining residents and property owners as required by Council’s DCP 2006, Part 2.1 - Notification of Development Applications.


ITEM 3 (Continued) Four (4) submissions were received. The submissions objected to the proposal on numerous grounds including being out of character with the locality’s streetscape, adverse impact upon adjoining dwellings and non-compliance with aspects of DCP 2006. These issues were discussed with the project architect and amended drawings have been submitted. The amended drawings were also notified and a further two (2) submissions were received that mostly replicated the previously raised issues. Assessment of the application against the provisions of DCP 2006 has revealed particular concerns regarding the design of the roof. It is considered that the front units would be essentially 2 storeys in height, whereas the DCP states that any 2nd storey shall be wholly contained within the roof space (as the dwellings either side are single storey). It is recommended that this issue be rectified by the issuing of a deferred-commencement consent, requiring modification of the design of the front villa units so that the second storey is wholly contained within the roofspace of each unit. It is recommended that a deferred commencement consent be granted, subject to appropriate conditions. Reason for Referral to Development Committee: Nature of development, submissions received and requested by Councillor Tagg. Site (Refer to attached map.) Address : 10-12 Olive Street, Ryde Site Area : 2,049m² Frontage 46.51 metres Depth 71.78 metres (northern boundary) 54.94 metres (southern boundary) Topography and Vegetation : Crossfall from west (Olive Street frontage) to east. No

significant vegetation. Existing Buildings : Currently two single storey free-standing dwelling-

houses. Planning Controls Zoning : 2 (a) Residential Other : Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance SEPP (Building Sustainability Index; BASIX) 2004


ITEM 3 (Continued) SREP (Sydney Harbour) 2005 City of Ryde DCP 2006 Section 94 Contributions Plan No. 1 (2003 Amendment) ANY COUNCILLOR REPRESENTATIONS: Name of Councillor: Councillor Tagg Nature of the representation: Requested the application be considered by the Development Committee. Date: 31 May 2007 Form of the representation (e.g. via email, meeting, phone call): E-mail On behalf of applicant or objectors?: Not known. Any other persons (e.g. consultants) involved in or part of the representation: Nil BACKGROUND: The DA was lodged on 26 February 2007, and shortly after it underwent a preliminary assessment (1 March 2007) and was advertised/notified to adjoining owners and referred to various departments of Council. As a result of the advertisement procedures, 4 submissions were received from adjoining/nearby property owners. On 29 May 2007, following a more detailed assessment against the provisions of DCP 2006, a letter was sent by Council’s Consultant Assessment Officer to the applicant to request his attention to the following issues of concern:

(a) The proposal fails to comply with the Objectives as contained in Clause 1.3 in that the proposed urban housing is considered to not complement the existing streetscape of the locality, and does not comply with the character of the area.

(b) The proposal appears to fail to comply with the provisions of Clause 2.4 in that there is insufficient separation between the subject site and the approved duplex building located at No. 16 Olive Street, Ryde. It was later concluded that the linear separation provisions of the DCP do apply to this application. (As the building at 16 Olive was an approved dual occupancy).


ITEM 3 (Continued)

(c) The proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 3.3.1 in that Dwellings 1 and 6 are of two-storey construction and further, the second floor of Dwelling 6 is likely to adversely impact upon the privacy of the dwelling-house at No. 14 Olive Street.

(d) The proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 3.3.2 in that Dwellings 1 and 6 exceed the maximum height of 6.5 metres.

(e) The proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 3.5.4 in that the first floor of Dwelling 6 is not set back the required 4.5m from the side boundary.

(f) The proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 3.6 in that the private courtyards associated with Dwellings 2 and 5 are less than the required 35 square metres.

(g) The proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 3.10 in that the family Room in Dwelling 6 has direct viewing into the dwelling-house located at No. 14 Olive Street.

(h) The proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 3.10 in that Bedroom 1 in Dwelling 5 is located adjacent to the main entry to Dwelling 4.

(i) The proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 3.7(b) in that the proposed front fence is not visually open.

On 4 July 2007, advice was received from the applicant in response to Council’s letter above, which mostly advised that they felt that the proposal complies with Council’s controls for urban housing. At this time Council also received amended drawings which included a redesign of the roof structure of the two dwellings fronting Olive Street and an alteration of the windows on the southern elevation to high level windows. On 31 July 2007, amended stormwater and landscaping drawings were submitted, in response to verbal requests from Council’s consultant assessing officer. The amended plans were advertised and re-notified to adjoining owners between 2 and 23 October 2007. PROPOSAL: The proposal consists of consolidation of Nos. 10 & 12 Olive Street, construction of urban housing development (2 x 4 bedroom single storey and “attic” villa homes at the front; 4 x 3 bedroom single storey villa homes at the rear) and strata subdivision. REPORT: Submissions The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s DCP 2006: Part 2.1- Notification of Development Applications for a 14 day period ending on 19 April 2007.


ITEM 3 (Continued) During this period four (4) submissions were received objecting to the development. The submissions generally raised the following issues: 1. Concern is raised that the two storey dwellings will adversely impact upon the

amenity of adjoining dwellings.

Comment: The submission was based upon the original drawings that contained two storey dwellings fronting Olive Street. Subsequent discussion with the project architect resulted in an amended design being submitted. The amended design provides for the two dwellings fronting Olive Street being of single storey construction, but containing, in the opinion of the project architect substantial “attic” area.

Clause 3.3.2 of the Urban Housing component of the DCP permits two storey dwellings at the front of the site only when the adjoining dwellings, on at least one side of the site, are of two storey construction. Where adjoining dwellings are single storey in height, development of a site must only contain single level dwellings, except in the case of the dwellings fronting the street, which can contain “attic” type accommodation in the roof space. The adjoining dwellings at Nos 8 and 14 Olive Street are of single storey construction. The “attic” area in each of the two dwellings fronting Olive Street contains three bedrooms and two bathrooms. This substantial floor area is supported by external vertical walls. This design is not considered to be acceptable in terms of DCP 2006. Where the dwellings adjoining a proposed villa site are single storey, any second storey must be contained wholly within the roof space. This is not considered to be the case with this development, which has as its “attic” space a distinct upward projection above the ground floor level of the rest of the unit. This is particularly evident in perusing the elevational drawings – in particular the side elevations. These are attached to this report. It is recommended that this issue be rectified by the issuing of a deferred commencement consent, requiring modification of the design of the front villa units so that the second storey is wholly contained within the roofspace of each unit – with no upward projection of the “attic” level above the ground floor level of the rest of the unit.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

2. Concern is raised about the lack of detail in the elevation drawings. Comment: Whilst the submitted drawings are relatively basic, they do contain necessary information including levels and are drawn to scale. Assessment of the application has been made protracted by the minimal level of information contained in the drawings. It is acknowledged that review of the drawings by the general public would have been even more difficult and this most likely is the basis of this concern. Nevertheless, it is considered that the drawings do contain sufficient detail to permit particularly the adjoining residents to formulate a reasonable understanding of the likely impacts on their dwellings.

3. Concern is raised with respect to inadequate visitor parking facilities in the proposal. Comment: Under DCP 2006, 2 visitor spaces are required for a 6 unit development, and 2 have been provided (between units 2 and 3).

4. Concern is raised with respect to the lack of a communal recreational area.

Comment: DCP 2006 does not require this type of development to provide a communal recreational area.

5. Concern is raised that the two-storey dwellings that front Olive Street are out of character with existing streetscape.

Comment: Refer to previous comments made in respect of item 1.

6. Concern is raised that all dwellings should be single level.

Comment: Whilst the DCP does require all urban housing developments to be of single storey in height, there is the ability to provide second storey accommodation in respect of dwellings that front the street. As previously detailed, where the dwellings adjoining a proposed villa site are single storey, any second storey must be contained wholly within the roof space. Floorspace within a dwelling contained wholly within the roof pitch is commonly considered to be an “attic” space. This is not considered to be the case with this development, which has as its “attic” space a distinct upward projection above the ground floor level of the rest of the unit. This is not considered to be acceptable in terms of the DCP 2006 and approval in it’s current form would require a variation to policy by Council if this is considered by Councillors to be an acceptable urban design outcome.


ITEM 3 (Continued) It is recommended that this issue be resolved by the granting of a deferred commencement consent, requiring modification of the design of the front villa units so that the second storey is wholly contained within the roofspace of each unit – with no upward projection of the “attic” level above the ground floor level of the rest of the unit.

7. Concern is raised that there is a non-compliance with linear separation controls

in DCP 2006. Comment: There is an approved “attached dual occupancy” development at No. 16 Olive Street. Although this has been constructed as a duplex-style (in its built form and external appearance), this was approved as an attached dual occupancy development under previous legislation. Accordingly, the proposal does comply with the linear separation controls contained in the DCP. Please refer to Note 2 in the DCP 2006 assessment later in this report.

8. Concern is raised that dwellings 5 and 6 have adverse visual and acoustic impacts upon other dwellings.

Comment: Dwelling 5 is a single level structure and is separated from the adjoining dwelling by a 1.8m high fence. It is considered unlikely that there will be visual impacts on the adjoining dwelling originating from Dwelling 5. Acoustic impacts may be increased from the existing single dwelling situation. This is a result of urban housing being proposed for the subject site. Nevertheless, the increased level of acoustic impacts is unlikely to be excessive. The design of Dwelling 6 has been modified since this submission was received. The amended design of Dwelling 6 does not have any windows or openings that are likely to adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining dwelling.

9. Concern is raised that there will be adverse shadow impact upon 14 Olive

Street.

Comment: It is agreed that there will be significant mid-winter shadow impact upon No. 14 Olive Street particularly during the morning period. During the afternoon the shadow impact moves onto the subject site and this permits No. 14 Olive Street to achieve the minimum standard of 2 hours of solar access between 9.00am and 3.00pm.

10. Concern is raised that there will be adverse impact on traffic movement in Olive

Street particularly near the ‘dog leg’ bend.

Comment: As can be seen from the location map attached to the end of this report, there is a “dog leg” in the layout of Olive Street in front of the subject site.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

Whilst it is agreed that the geometry of Olive Street in vicinity of the subject site is such that drivers of motor vehicles need to be alert to the local conditions, there are however no special road markings that signify a dangerous road. Although the proposed development will generate additional traffic movement (compared to single dwellings), it is nevertheless considered to be within the capacity of Olive Street to accommodate the likely increased car movements. In order to address this issue raised by the adjoining owners, the following comments have been provided by Council’s Traffic Engineer: This type of sight visibility problem is a common occurrence throughout Sydney and may be reduced by providing the following: • Provide 2m wide driveway splays which transition from the Property Line to

the kerb line on both sides of the driveway. • No Stopping restrictions for a minimum length of 6m along the northern side

and 10 metres along the southern side from the edge of the driveway splay (the limit of the No Stopping restriction along the southern side would be the boundary line with the adjacent property).

(See conditions 91-92).

11. Concern is raised that the proposed development has no architectural merit or

style.

Comment: This comment was based upon the original design and the concerns were considered to be valid. Subsequent discussion with the project architect has produced a design that is less intrusive into the Olive Street streetscape but is still not considered to have floorspace contained wholly within the roof space.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

Above is an extract from the amended drawings, and in particular the portions that identify the Olive Street façade of proposed dwellings 1 and 6. The objectives of Part 3.6 (Urban Housing) of DCP 2006 include: “Urban Housing developments are designed to the highest possible aesthetic standard”. Compliance with this objective may in certain circumstances lead to contemporary designs. This is not necessarily undesirable as building designs need to reflect modernity in architectural practices and permit residents to utilise a range of modern external finishes. As discussed previously, the development is only considered acceptable in terms of DCP 2006 with further amendments requiring the “attic” to be wholly within the roofspace with no upward projection above the roof of the ground floor. This is to be rectified via the issuing of a “deferred commencement” consent.

12. Concern has been raised over asbestos in the existing dwellings.

Comment: This matter is best addressed as part of consideration of a future application for demolition of the existing dwellings.

13. Concern has been raised with respect to poor accessibility for persons with a

disability.

Comment: This matter has been discussed with the project architect and the amended drawings now clearly identify Dwellings 1, 4 and 5 as adaptable units.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

14. Concern has been raised with respect to the inter-allotment drainage problems continuing. Comment: The matter of drainage of the subject site and possible impact upon adjoining properties can be addressed in conditions of consent.

15. Request for a Dilapidation Report in respect of the adjoining dwelling-houses. Comment: This is a reasonable request and in the event consent is granted, the preparation of a Dilapidation Report in respect of adjoining dwellings will be a condition of consent. (see Condition 38)

16. Request for condition protecting side boundary fencing. Comment: It is considered that the existing lapped and capped timber side boundary fences are in good condition and no reasonable reason exists for their replacement. The submitted Landscape Plan identifies 1.8m high Colorbond side and rear boundary fencing. It is agreed that the existing side boundary fencing is in good condition and if the development is to proceed a condition of consent will be imposed requiring the developer to be fully responsible for the cost of the new fencing. (Condition 39 relates)

17. Request for the proposed retaining walls to be located wholly within the subject site. Comment: The Landscape Plan identifies that the proposed 1.8m high Colorbond side boundary fences along the southern and eastern boundaries will constructed on top of proposed retaining walls. The level of detail contained in the architectural drawings is insufficient to identify the exact height of the retaining walls. Nevertheless, interpolation of the contour levels and associated information has drawn the conclusion that the retaining walls will be less than 1.0m high. This potentially has the end result of a side boundary fence and wall of up to 2.8m in height. The environmental and visual impact of this arrangement on the adjoining dwellings, particularly No. 14 Olive Street, is significant and unacceptable. In the event of consent being issued a condition will be imposed requiring the retaining walls to be located wholly within the site and away from side boundary fencing. (Condition No. 37 relates)


ITEM 3 (Continued)

18. Concern that the site may become partially developed for many years as has happened at No. 16 Olive Street.

Comment: There is some doubt as to the intention of this concern. If the concern relates to the potential for a development to start and then fail to be completed, then Council’s powers are somewhat limited. Whilst there are examples of developments ceasing the construction process before completion of the project, it is relatively unusual and is not something over which Council has ready control.

19. Request that waste bins be relocated away from side boundary fencing so as to prevent adverse smells impacting upon adjoining residents. Comment: Individual waste bins will be located within the respective courtyard of each dwelling. It is not practical to condition where, in their private courtyards, individual residents will locate their waste bins.

20. Too dense development. Comment: This is mostly an objection against the statutory zoning of the site that permits urban housing. As there are no other examples of urban housing in the immediate locality of the subject site, it is acknowledged that the proposed introduction of six dwellings into an area that currently has two dwellings could well raise concerns as to overdevelopment of the site. Nevertheless, the density of the proposal does comply with the relevant controls in the DCP and this submission cannot be supported.

21. The first floor of Dwelling 6 is not set back the required 4.5 metres from the side boundary. Comment: The amended drawings provide for a setback of Dwelling 6 from the side boundary of 5.5 metres. This now complies with the provisions of DCP 2006.

Following receipt of these submissions, the matters therein raised were discussed with the applicant and amended drawings, particularly in respect of the two dwellings fronting Olive Street, were submitted by the project architect. The local community were notified of the amended drawings and they were placed upon exhibition during the period 2 to 23 October 2007. During this period 2 submissions were received. The submissions identified 17 issues, most of which were included in the original submissions and accordingly addressed above. The further issues are discussed as follows:


ITEM 3 (Continued) 22. Non-compliance with linear separation requirements.

Comment: Refer to comment in respect of Issue No. 7. 23. Visual and Acoustic privacy in respect of Villas 4, 5 and 6.

Comment: Refer to comment in respect of Issue No. 8. This issue was in respect of Villas 5 and 6. The issues previously identified were in respect of Villas 5 and 6 and the issues remain unaltered in the new submission. Accordingly the previous comments are relevant. The new submission also included comment relevant to Villa 4. The new comments mostly relate to potential crossviewing from the ground level Bedroom 2 in Villa 4 to the adjoining private open space area. The submitted Landscape Plan identifies a number of Doryanthes excelsa to be planted between Bedroom 2 and the boundary fence. This planting has a mature height of 1.5m and is expected to provide the sought privacy. It is also noted that there will be a 1.8m high side boundary fence, which alone will preclude crossviewing.

24. Possible inaccuracy of shadow drawings.

Comment: The submitted Shadow Drawings have been reviewed and the concern as to inaccuracy cannot be substantiated. The objector cites little difference from the original drawings. This is correct as the overall height of the front dwellings has not substantially changed. There has however been some change in the design of the roof structure.

Further, the objector has requested additional shadows diagrams at every hour between 9.00am and 3.00pm. This request is outside of the requirements of DCP 2006 and in the absence of any unusual site constraints, cannot be justified.

25. Overshadowing, including accuracy of shadow drawings.

Comment: The objector raises the omission on the shadow drawings of ridge levels relevant to the adjoining dwellings as well as location of windows. Whilst this is correct, it is possible to assess the potential impact on the dwelling at No. 14 by reviewing of the submitted drawing and a site inspection. It is also relevant to note that the shadow drawing indicate that the required amount of mid-winter solar access to No. 14 Olive Street will be achieved.


ITEM 3 (Continued) 26. Height of proposed development relevant to adjoining dwellings.

Comment: Again the objector raises the degree of information provided in respect of adjoining dwellings. The submission requests Council to erect a series of height poles relevant to the proposed development. This is considered an unreasonable request as it is not a requirement of DCP 2006. It is noted that the overall height of the two dwellings fronting Olive Street has been slightly reduced under the amended drawings.

27. Potential impact on eucalyptus tree.

Comment: The tree is located approximately 8 metres from the rear of the dwelling house at No. 14 Olive Street and between 1.5 and 2.0m from the side boundary. Council’s Landscape Architect has inspected the site and adjoining dwelling sites. No specific concern has been raised in respect of the eucalyptus tree growing in No. 14. The walls of proposed Villas 4 and 5 will be approximately 5.5m to 6.0m away from the identified tree. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the required Dilapidation Report (see Condition 38) be expanded to include adjoining trees.

28. Traffic and Parking congestion. 29. Architectural character. 30. Asbestos contained within existing dwellings.

Comment: Refer to comments in respect of Issues 10, 11 & 12. 31. Disability access.

Comment: An Access Report has been provided which details that villas 1,4 and 5 are capable of adaptation for occupation by a wheelchair bound person. This complies with the provisions of DCP 2006.

32. Stormwater. 33. Dilapidation report. 34. Boundary fences. 35. Retaining walls.

Comment: Refer to comments provided in respect of Issues 14, 15, 16, 17.


ITEM 3 (Continued) 36. Disruption of services.

Comment: The submission seeks compensation if the proposed development causes a disruption of services to their dwelling. This is a matter for resolution by affected parties. Council has no role in this matter.

37. Construction period.

Comment: Refer to comment provided in respect of Issue 18. 38. Rubbish and soil removal.

Comment: The submission seeks that rubbish from the building site be removed promptly. Condition No. 15 relates to the submitted Waste Management Plan which includes the procedures for removal of rubbish from the site.

39. Garbage facilities.

Comment: Refer to comment provided in respect of Issue 19. 40. Concerns relevant to the ability for traffic to safely negotiate the bend in Olive

Street.

Comment: Refer to comment provided in respect of Issue 10. Policy Implications Section 79C(1)(a) Relevant Provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments. Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance 1979 Zoning The subject site is zoned Residential 2(a) under the provisions of the RPSO. The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council provided the site complies with the linear separation requirements. Mandatory Requirements Clause 56A specifies that an urban housing development shall not be erected on an allotment that is not hatchet-shaped, unless it has a site area of not less than 300 square metres for each 1, 2, and 3 bedroom dwelling.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

The subject site has an area of 2,049.0m2 and proposes 4 x 3 bedroom and 2 x 4 bedroom units, and as such will require 1,800m2 of site area. The proposal fully complies with Council’s minimum site requirements.

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

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) applies to the proposed development. A BASIX Certificate (No. 122966M, dated 21 February 2007) has been submitted for the three dwellings. Details of the BASIX commitments are included in the BASIX Certificate accompanying the application. The minimum requirements for water and energy saving targets have been met.

The following table outlines the BASIX commitments applying to the proposed development:

BASIX Proposed Compliance

Landscaping Indigenous/low flow plantings Unit 1= 10m² Unit 2= 10m² Unit 3= 20m² Unit 4= 12m² Unit 5= 9m² Unit 6= 9m²

Indigenous/low flow plantings Unit 1= 10m² Unit 2= 10m² Unit 3= 20m² Unit 4= 12m² Unit 5= 9m² Unit 6= 9m²

Yes

Rainwater Tank Installation of rainwater tank Unit 1 = 2000L Unit 2 = 2000L Unit 3 = 2000L Unit 4 = 2000L Unit 5 = 2000L Unit 6 = 2000L

Unit 1 = 2000L Unit 2 = 2000L Unit 3 = 2000L Unit 4 = 2000L Unit 5 = 2000L Unit 6 = 2000L

Yes

Hot Water Gas Instantaneous 3 star or higher for all Units

Not indicated on drawings, but can be a condition of consent.

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)

BASIX Proposed Compliance Natural Lighting Install window/ skylight in the kitchen of each unit

All kitchens will contain an external window

Yes

Install window/ skylight in bathrooms for all units

All bathrooms will contain an external window.

Yes

Thermal Comfort Restriction on window sizes based on orientation

Window sizes comply as required for both units.

Yes

Thermal Score PASS PASS Yes Energy Score Combined for all units 40

Combined for all units 48

Yes

Water Score Combined for all units 40

Combined for all units 42

Yes

In the event that development consent is granted, further details for the 3A rated fixtures and insulation requirements would be submitted with the Construction Certificate plans and specifications in accordance with BASIX commitments (see condition 33). Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 applies to the subject site and has been considered in this assessment. The site is located within the designated hydrological catchment of Sydney Harbour and therefore is subject to the provisions of the above SREP. However, the site is not located on the foreshore or adjacent to the waterway and therefore, with the exception of the objective of improved water quality, the objectives of the SREP are not applicable to the proposed development. The objective of improved water quality is satisfied through compliance with the provisions of Part 8.2 of DCP 2006. The proposed development raises no other issues and otherwise satisfies the aims and objectives of the SREP.


ITEM 3 (Continued) City of Ryde Development Control Plan 2006: The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant requirements contained in DCP 2006. The following table provides a summary of the extent of compliance with the relevant sections of DCP 2006;- Part 3.6 – Urban Housing

Part 3.6 URBAN HOUSING

PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

Introduction To provide housing choice & to preserve & enhance existing residential amenity

4 x 3 bedroom and 2 x 4 bedroom urban housing units with minimal impact on amenity

Yes

2.1 Site analysis plan Site Features Designed around

site features

Min area: 1800m2 2049m2 Yes Min Frontage: 20m 38.7m Yes

2.2

Hatchet lot: unsuitable N/A N/A 2.3 Non-preferred Location

Check Maps Site is not identified as unsuitable location

Yes

2.4 Linear Separation No duplex or urban housing to be within 2 times its frontage on adjoining sides

There is a current development consent for a dual occupancy development at No. 16 Olive Street. (Consent No. 419/92 relates)

Yes (Please see Note 2)

2.5 Retention of Existing House If Heritage significant

The existing dwelling-house is to be demolished. It is not listed as a heritage item.

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

1X2 or 3 bed = 300m2 1X4 bedroom= 365m2 Total site= 2049m² Yes

2.6

Required site= 1930m2 2.7 Number of dwelling < 12 2.8 Dwelling Mix

If number dwellings > 4, then < 75% can have same number of bedrooms

Proposal consists of: 4 x 3 bed unit 2 x 4 bed unit

Yes

3 Site Planning Provide site analysis plan

A diagrammatic site analysis has been submitted.

Yes

Slope Slope > 1:6 (16%) not acceptable

Slope = 11.62% to 12.43%. Slope from front to rear

Yes

Cross fall >1:14 (7%) not acceptable

Cross fall = 1.47% at eastern boundary and 2.61% at western boundary

Yes

Dwelling to address Street (door)

Villa 1 and 6 have appropriate presentation to the street, including a well defined front door and front path.

Yes

3.1

FGL to be similar to adjoining site

Similar to adjacent ground

Yes

Altering Levels No fill to be brought on site In the event of

consent being granted a relevant condition of consent would be included.

Yes

Levels altered < 300mm Eg. Courtyard

Limited cut and fill is proposed.

Yes

3.2

Basement Garage not permitted

No basement garage

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

Minimise retaining walls & steps

Minimal retaining walls are located in private courtyards.

Yes

Private open space to be at natural ground level

Generally at natural ground level

Yes

3.3 Storey & Height 3.3.1 Storey

Must be single storey but only front unit can be 2 storey if it is not attached to other 2 storey & is suitable in terms of streetscape.

Units 1 and 6 address Olive Street. As adjoining dwellings are single-storey construction, these units are limited to single storey construction. Units 1 & 6 are described by the applicant as being of single storey with “attic” accommodation.

See Note 1

Corner Lot: • 2 storey unit to face

shortest street frontage

• 2 storey to be sensitive to topography, location, ht. & size.

N/A N/A

3.3.2 Height Controls Height of single storey part

< 3.7m Dwelling 5 has a height of 3.9m. All other single level dwellings are 3.7m or less.

No (See Note 5)

Floor to ceiling height > 2.7m

2.7m Yes

If adjoining 2 storey, then front unit can have 2 storey with 7m height & 9m overall height.

Adjoining dwellings are both of single-storey construction.

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

If adjoining dwelling 1 storey, then front unit can have another storey in roof space with 6.5m height & 8m overall height.

Application includes an “attic” level in Dwellings 1 and 6. These dwelling both have a ceiling height of 5.7m and an overall height of 7.1m.

Yes

3.4 Site Coverage (excl. access handle etc)

Site Coverage to be less than 40%

Site coverage of the proposal has been calculated at 40.4% of the site. Given that there could have been shrinkage of the plans during the printing process, the 0.4% variation is considered acceptable.

Yes

Pervious area to be greater than 35%

(737.2m2) 36% Yes

3.5 Setbacks Front setback – Regular Lot • Average of adjoining if

difference > 2m The front setback for both Dwellings 1 and 6 is 8.8m Adjoining dwelling at No. 8 is set back 12.2m from Olive Street and No. 14 is setback 8.8m from Olive Street.

No (See Note 3)

• Same as adjoining if difference < 2m

(See above note) N/A


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

• Allow variation of 1m less than above for 50% elevation for irregular elevation, if it doesn’t affect adjoining property.

N/A N/A

• If streetscape is to change then 7.5m for 50% elevation and 6.5m for 50%

N/A N/A

Front setback–Hatchet Shaped Lot

• Provide vehicle turning area

N/A N/A

Front Setback – Secondary Street

• Walls of buildings to be set back 4.5m

N/A N/A

Side and Rear Setback • 4.5m required (possible

variation to 3.0m) Side & rear boundary setback distances are:- North: Between 3.0m & 6.7m. South: Between 3.0m & 6.0m. Rear: Between 3.0m & 4.5m.

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

• If side driveway then 6.0m required

N/A N/A

• Existing trees not be located in courtyard

A number of small or juvenile trees presently growing along the side and rear boundaries will be retained. These trees are not likely to adversely affect the function of the courtyards.

Yes

Internal Setbacks • Windows of habitable

rooms of one dwelling not to overlook of another

Windows that face other habitable room windows are highlight windows and accordingly overlooking is not possible.

Yes

• Min 9m separation between habitable room windows

There is a separation of 9.0m between Dwellings 2 and 5.

Yes

3.6 Private Courtyards 30m2 for 2 bedroom

dwelling N/A N/A

35m2 for 3 or more bedroom dwelling

Unit 1 = 53.0m2

Unit 2 = 37.0m2

Unit 3 = 70.6m2

Unit 4 = 64.0m2

Unit 5 = 38.2m2

Unit 6 = 38.6m2

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Must have min dimension of 4.0m

Each courtyard has a minimum dimension of 4.0m.

Yes

Must be at natural ground level

Generally at natural ground level

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

No existing substantial trees in Court Yard

A number of small or juvenile trees presently growing along the side and rear boundaries will be retained. These trees are not likely to adversely affect the function of the courtyards.

Yes

Alternate 1m wide access to the courtyard be provided (through garage)

Provided Yes

Courtyard must be visible from living area & be fenced (for child surveillance)

Visible & fenced Yes

Must be consolidated space in single location

Single space

Yes

Can be partially paved Courtyard associated with Dwelling 6 has partial paving. All other courtyards are not paved.

Yes

Must not be roofed Not roofed Yes 3.7 Landscaping Submit plan at DA & CC

stage showing existing and proposed

Plan submitted and is considered satisfactory

Yes

Tree removal will require Arborist report

Only one substantial tree (Cypress) is proposed to be removed. Council’s Landscape Architect raises no objection to the removal of this tree.

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

Planting Strip 1.2m wide along driveway and side boundary (2 – 2.5m high trees at maturity)

The planting strip along the driveway varies between Nil and 3.0m. Given that the driveway curves so as to overcome the impact of a “gun barrel driveway” the varying depths of landscaping are considered reasonable in the circumstances of the proposed design.

Yes

1.0m wide planting strip b/w driveway & unit

See above comments as driveway is central to the site.

Yes

Driveway, garden lawn etc must be rolled edged with concrete or brick - no timber

Details not shown, in the event of consent being granted, a condition will be imposed

Yes

Nature Strip – trees protected & provide footpath, see if landscaping required

No existing footpath trees.

Yes

OSD tank to be under driveway or at rear If in front, then 300mm below surface soil If above ground basin, then < 300mm depth

Proposed under the driveway

Yes

3.8 Car Parking, Manoeuvrability, Crossing (numbers to be rounded up)

3.8.1 1 space per 1-2 bedroom units

N/A N/A


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

2 space for each 3 or more bedroom units

Unit 1 = 2 spaces Unit 2 = 2 spaces Unit 3 = 2 spaces Unit 4 = 2 spaces Unit 5 = 2 spaces Unit 6 = 2 spaces

Yes

1 Visitor parking per every 4 dwellings 2 visitor spaces required.

2 visitor spaces proposed Yes

At least 1 space for each unit to be LUG

1 garage each unit Yes

Hatchet shaped lot – 1 additional space for every 4 units

N/A N/A

Location – behind building line

All are located behind building line.

Yes

Detail to reduce visual dominance

Not dominating Yes

No tandem parking in front of garage

Tandem car parking arrangements are proposed behind the garage associated with each dwelling.

Yes

Parking located so its convenient to use

The parking layout is generally workable. However, the event a visitor enters the site and finds the two visitor spaces are occupied, it will take a number of three-point turns to be able to exit the site. Nevertheless, such a situation is considered to be unusual and no specific conditions are recommended.

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

Garage located so it separates dwellings

Garage separates the dwellings

Yes

3.8.2 Turning area to be provided on site so Vehicles must enter/ leave in 3 point turn

Notwithstanding previous comment about extra visitors entering the site, adequate turning areas.

Yes

Tandem space not to block turning area

No tandem spaces are proposed in front of garages.

Yes

Corner lots: • May reverse if < 3 units

& <= 2 crossovers & if safe.

• Driveway to be located > 6m from the intersection

N/A N/A

Garage offset opening requirements All must comply with AS 2890.1

Straight approach with minimum 2.6m wide opening

Yes

Driveways • hard paving to be

minimised • width 4m (up to 10 car

space) • width 6m (more than 10

car space)

The development contains 14 car spaces and therefore the minimum width of the driveway is 6 metres. The proposed driveway crossing and driveway is 5.0m wide and the internal driveway has a width between 3.0m and 5.0m.

No (See Note 4)


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

3.9 Overshadowing, Access to Sun

Habitable room windows should face courtyard or outdoor space open to sky

Living room and kitchen faces court yard

Yes

Sunlight to at least 50% of courtyard to be greater than 2 hrs b/w 9am-3pm

The courtyard associated with Dwelling 6 will only receive solar access late in the mid-winter afternoon. It will not receive the required 2 hours to 50% of the courtyard. Dwelling 5, will not receive the required mid-winter solar access to its courtyard.

No (See Note 6)

Sunlight to principal area of ground level private open space of adjoining properties not to be reduced to less than 2 hrs b/w 9am -3pm

The only adjoining dwelling is to the south. The submitted shadow drawings identify that the mid-winter shadow impact upon this dwelling will be mostly in the morning. The afternoon solar access will be at least the required 2 hours.

Yes

Where existing shadowing > above, sunlight not to be further reduced by more than 20%.

N/A N/A

Shadow diagrams to be submitted including impact of fence & existing vegetation.

Submitted shadow diagrams do not indicate the impact of existing fencing.

No


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

3.10 Visual and Acoustic privacy

9m separation b/w windows of habitable rooms within Urban Housing Development

The separation between the living area in Dwelling 5 and Bedroom 1 in Dwelling 2 is 9.0 metres.

Yes

Direct views b/w living room windows (9m radius) & into the courtyards (12m radius) to be screened (see diagrams in DCP)

The Family Room in Dwelling 6 has limited opportunity for viewing of windows in No. 14 Olive Street. The proposed 2m wide landscaping strip should, in other than the short term future, overcome the matter of cross viewing.

No However the design is acceptable.

Balconies prohibited No balconies are proposed

Yes

Landings to be less than 1m high

Patio on Dwelling 4 is 900mm high.

Yes

Design should address external noise source Check AC Unit, pool pump etc.

No issues identified in respect of external noise sources.

Yes

3.11 Accessibility Separate footpath (where

possible) must be provided Provided Yes

Development should be safe & generally accessible for children and older people

Each unit has separate pedestrian and vehicular access. Safe access can be achieved.

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

If 6 or more dwellings proposed then at least 35% of units to be accessible (all indoor & outdoor area designed as per AS 4299.

Proposal identifies Dwellings 1, 4 and 5 as adaptable units.

Yes

The adaptable unit must be able to access street, car parking, common areas using continuous path.

Design is acceptable.

Yes

If 6 or more dwellings then ACCESS AUDIT is required

An Access Audit has been provided, and although minimal, is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances of the application.

Yes

4. Building Form 4.1 Appearance

• Must complement streetscape

• Include elements – pitch roof, eaves, vertical windows, verandahs, face brick or rendered.

Dwellings 1 and 6 face Olive Street. Proposed impact upon the Olive Street streetscape is considered not to be totally within both the existing urban design theme of the street and the desired future character for the locality.

No (See Note 1)

4.2 Ceiling Height = no less than 2.7m

2.7m Yes

4.3 Roof Design & Materials Pitch roof with tiles & a front gable

Yes

Should be generally pitched (22-30 degrees)

25.0 degrees for single storey dwellings and 35 degrees for two storey dwellings.

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

If 2nd storey in roof then 35% degree allowed

The two-storey dwellings have roof pitch of 35.0 degrees.

Yes

Overhang eaves of at least 300mm

Provided Yes

Use gable to the front, hip generally not encouraged

The roof form proposed for the two dwellings fronting Olive Street is unusual and is considered not to add interest to the streetscape. However, the design is within the constraints of the DCP controls.

No (See Note 1)

Should have variation in the roof line so roof is not continuous

Varied roof form Yes

Roof material should be consistent with traditional materials of the street

Consistent – roof tiles Yes

4.4 Building Materials for Walls

Wall articulated & consistent material as adj.

Face brick Yes

Colour similar to buildings in the street

Other than identifying the use of rendered brickwork and roof tiles, no further details in respect of external finishes have been provided. The matter of samples of external finishes can be addressed as conditions of development consent.

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

Windows to have vertical proportion of between 2:1 or 3:1

Generally around 2:1 and consistent with character of locality.

Yes

4.5 Fences 4.5.1 Front Fence Up to 1.0m high & at least

70% visually open 600mm high masonry wall proposed along Olive Street frontage.

Yes

Materials to complement the UHD

N/A N/A

Material Types: • Wooden pickets • Masonry, brick, sand

stone, infill metal • Wrought iron etc

The proposed fence will be 600mm high, and contain 300mm of masonry.

Yes However, in the event of consent being granted, relevant conditions of consent can be imposed relating to the design of the front fence.

Fence on Secondary Frontage (incl. Lanes) • Materials similar to front

fence • Lapped & Capped

timber NOT permitted • “Colourbond” fence not

permitted • If fence is solid

construction, then indents of 300mm X 600mm be provided & landscaped. Check soil depth for planting

Not proposed N/A

Other Boundary Fence • Minimum height of 1.8m • Side, return & rear to

timber lapped capped

1.8m high courtyard fence & existing boundary fence

Yes


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

4.6 Clothes line & Drying Area

Each dwelling with an external clothesline

Provided Yes

Each dwelling to have own laundry

Provided Yes

4.7 Lighting Provide lighting to the front

of dwelling Can use sensor lights but NOT spot lights

Can be achieved by way of conditions of consent.

Yes

4.8 Garbage Bin Enclosure Flat Site:

• Each dwelling to have storage area

• Located behind the BL not visible fm St.

Not indicated on the plans, however, there will be adequate area in the courtyards to accommodate the required waste bins.

Yes

Steep Sloping Site: • A central garbage bin

enclosure needed • Located behind BL &

screened • Submit details with DA

(see requirements)

The subject site is not considered to be steep sloping.

N/A

5 Engineering Runoff (refer to Part 8.3 of

DCP 2006) Need an OSD tank, gravity flow connection If slopes to rear, may need easement through rear property Refer to Development Engineer

Property Drainage not to impact adj. property


ITEM 3 (Continued)


PROPOSAL

COMPLIANCE

Minimise flow rates: • Pervious area > 35% of

site Use of porous pavers for patios, paths etc BUT not for driveway

Pervious area greater than 35%

Yes

Is the site affected by Overland flowpath?

Site is not affected by overland flow path

N/A

6 Public Facilities 6.1 Open Space: Cash

Contribution required In the event of consent being granted a condition requiring a contribution will be imposed.

Yes

6.2 Local roads: kerb & gutter, paved road shoulder, foot paving & footpath would be required.

If consent granted a condition is recommended

Yes

Non Compliances: 1 – Building Form (Appearance): Clauses 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the Urban Housing component of the DCP permit two-storey dwellings at the front of the site only when the adjoining dwellings, on at least one side of the site, are of two-storey construction. Where adjoining dwellings are single storey in height, development of a site must only contain single level dwellings, except in the case of the dwellings fronting the street, which can contain “attic” type accommodation in the roof space. The following photographs identify the adjoining dwellings:


ITEM 3 (Continued)

No. 8 Olive Street No. 14 Olive Street The adjoining dwellings at Nos 8 and 14 Olive Street are of single storey construction. The roof structure of both Dwellings 1 and 6 is substantial and due to the site falling away from Olive Street the roof structures become more apparent than if the reverse topographical situation existed. It is a distinct upward projection above the rest of the front units – which are otherwise single storey. The design’s attempt for Dwellings 1 and 6 to remain as single level dwellings with second storey floorspace only within the roofspace is seriously questioned when the bulk and scale of the extensive roof structures are considered, particularly in relation to the overall dimensions of both dwellings. The high level window inserts that attempt to break up the starkness of the roof structures do little to soften the visual impact of the roof component of these dwellings. In conclusion Clause 4.1 of DCP 2006 relates to the appearance of buildings. This component of the DCP contains the following objective: Urban Housing developments should be designed and constructed so that they complement and enhance the existing streetscape of the locality. Flowing from the previous discussion is has become apparent that the proposed Dwellings 1 and 6 are of a design that is out of character with the existing streetscape as well as the desired future character of the locality.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

Dwelling 1 – south elevation

Dwelling 1 – north elevation


ITEM 3 (Continued)

Dwelling 6 – south elevation

Dwelling 6 – north elevation


ITEM 3 (Continued) The proposed dwellings 1 and 6 have the visual impact, and particularly roof impact similar to that of dwellings conceived post World War II. The only real difference is that the proposal has utilised the maximum roof pitch to facilitate the inclusion of bedrooms and bathrooms. This arrangement produces a bulky roof structure and an overemphasis of the visual impact of the roof areas. The proposed development is considered not likely to complement and enhance the existing streetscape and as such fails to comply with the objectives of Clause 4.1. It is considered that the design of the front 2 units of the development is unacceptable in terms of DCP 2006, and as such it is recommended that this be rectified via the issuing of a deferred commencement consent requiring modification of the design of the front villa units so that the second storey is wholly contained within the roofspace of each unit – with no upward projection of the “attic” level above the ground floor level of the rest of the unit. 2 – Linear Separation: No. 16 Olive Street has a current development consent for a Dual Occupancy development. This consent was granted on 8 February 1993 and Building Application 1263/93 was approved on 26 November 1997. This development has commenced and there have been a number of inspections of footings and the like. In more recent times there has been no building activity. By letter dated 28 May 2006 in response to an enquiry, Council advised that the development consent was still current. As the subject site is separated from No. 16 Olive Street by only one allotment, the proposed development of Nos 10 and 12 Olive Street appears to breach the linear separation provisions of the DCP. This matter was also raised by the community in commenting upon the proposal. The linear separation provisions of the DCP refer to “villa, duplex or urban housing developments” as being the trigger for application of this provision of the DCP. The development under construction at No. 16 Olive Street was approved as a “dual occupancy” in that the proposal includes the subdivision of the two dwellings. Whilst the definition of “Duplex building” in the DCP appears to capture the approved development at No. 16, it is the subdivision component that causes this development to be defined as “dual occupancy” and not “duplex building”. This has been the practice consistently applied by Council since 1995. Accordingly, the linear separation provisions of the DCP should not capture the dual occupancy under construction. As such, the proposal complies with the linear separation requirements of the DCP.


ITEM 3 (Continued) 3 – Front Setbacks: As identified the front boundary setback of No. 8 Olive Street is 12.2m. The reason behind this unusually large setback are not readily apparent, however the general setback distance in the locality is in the order of 8.0m. The irregular shaped configuration of allotment containing No. 8 Olive Street probably has caused the existing dwelling to be so located. Forcing the proposed development to achieve a front setback similar to that of No. 8 would not achieve any visual benefit to the streetscape. 4 – Driveway: The development contains 14 car spaces and therefore the minimum width of the driveway is 6 metres. The proposed driveway crossing and driveway is 5.0m wide and the internal driveway has a width between 3.0m and 5.0m. The project architect has attempted to overcome the “gun barrel driveway” effect by minimising the width of the driveway and introducing landscaping at various locations that should not adversely impact upon the safe passage of vehicles. Given that vehicles using the driveway will be travelling at very low speed and the provided landscaping adjacent to the driveway will improve the residential amenity enjoyed by residents, the proposed driveway configuration is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances of the design. 5 – Height of Dwelling 5: Dwelling 5 has a height of 3.9m. All other single level dwellings are 3.7m or less. The portion of Dwelling 5 that exceeds the 3.7m maximum is a relatively small section in proximity with the abutting of Dwelling 4. The site topography in the area of Dwelling 5 is at its steepest, and the relatively minor departure from the 3.7m height limit is considered reasonable in the circumstances, and not likely to adversely impact upon the amenity of adjoining residents. This variation is minor and considered not to be sufficient reason to refuse the application or warrant further modifications. 6 – Solar Access to Dwellings 5 & 6: Shadow Diagrams relate only to the two-storey dwellings (Nos 1 and 6). The courtyard associated with Dwelling 6 will only receive solar access late in the mid-winter afternoon. It will not receive the required 2 hours to 50% of the courtyard. The courtyard will receive varying degrees of solar access from mid-winter 12 noon.


ITEM 3 (Continued) Whilst the amount of solar access will not meet the identified minimum, there will be increasing levels of solar access as the afternoon progresses. Provided residents are prepared to move within their courtyard they will have the opportunity to enjoy mid-winter sunlight from 12.00noon. As the site is orientated east-west there is an inherent problem with any design where courtyards are located adjacent to the southern boundary. Dwelling 5, although being of single storey construction, is constrained by the impact of Dwellings 4 and 6. Interpolation of the submitted shadow drawing and consideration of the location of Dwelling 5 has concluded that its private open space will not receive the required mid-winter solar access. As previously detailed, the east-west orientation of the subject site limits the ability for Dwelling 5 to achieve the necessary amount of mid-winter sunlight. Dwelling 5 has the ability to gain unlimited solar access into its living areas through north facing windows. Whilst this is a poor substation for courtyard solar access, it is a realistic alternative. However, during mid-summer the courtyard associated with Dwelling 5 will provide a pleasing escape from hot summer afternoon sunlight and this will reduce the need to utilise non-renewable energy using air-conditioning units. In view of the circumstances of the site, the proposed design is not considered to be optimal, but is reasonable and should provide appropriate levels of residential amenity. This would not be sufficient reason to refuse the application and is a matter for consideration in purchasing such a villa with this orientation. Part 7.1 – Energy Smart/Water Wise The provisions of Part 7.1 of DCP 2006 have no effect in relation to the proposed development due to the operation of Clause 8 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. Part 7.2 – Waste Minimisation & Management The waste storage requirements applying to urban housing developments are contained within Part 3.6 of DCP 2006. A Waste Management Plan was submitted with the development application, addressing demolition, construction and occupation phases of the development. Although the plans have not indicated the provision of a dedicated garbage enclosure, there will be sufficient space within each of the dwellings for storage of garbage and recycling bins.


ITEM 3 (Continued) Part 8.1 – Construction Activities The provisions of Part 8.1 apply to the proposed development and provide regulatory controls over construction related activities including sediment control, construction noise, and works within a public roadway. These matters are addressed by way of standard conditions of consent. Part 8.2 – Stormwater Management Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed development in terms of compliance with the requirements of Part 8.2 of DCP 2006. The report from Council’s Engineer has advised that the proposal complies with the DCP requirements by collecting roof and surface runoff into an OSD tank and conveyance into the Council piped drainage system within the public walkway along the northern site boundary. Section 94 Control Plan No. 1 (2003 Amendment) The provisions of Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan apply to the proposed development. Should Council be mindful to approve the development application, the following contributions would be levied by way of a condition of consent;

Proposal Credit for Existing Dwellings

Total Payable

Public Space $51,258 $23,398 $27,860 Stormwater Drainage

$10,224 $4,648 $5,576

Administration $540 $244 $296 Total $62,022 $28,290 $33,732

A condition of consent requiring the payment of $33,732 has been included within the recommendation (see condition 53)


ITEM 3 (Continued) Section 79C(1)(b) Likely impacts of the Development Built Environment The proposed development involves the erection of 6 villa homes comprising 2 x 4 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom dwellings, associated off-street carparking, landscaping and strata-title subdivision into 6 lots. As previously identified, notwithstanding general compliance with the numerical standards contained in DCP 2006, the design of the development, and in particular the two villa units fronting Olive Street, is considered not to display good urban design qualities as they present a streetscape impact that does not align with either the existing character or desired future character of the locality. It is recommended that this issue be rectified via a deferred commencement consent, requiring the modification of the design of the front villa units so that the second storey is wholly contained within the roof space of each unit with no upward projection of the “attic” level above the ground floor level of the rest of the unit. Natural Environment The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant trees, and other issues relating to sediment control and the like can be addressed by way of standard conditions of consent. It has been concluded that the proposed development will have no identifiable adverse impacts on the local natural environment. Section 79C(1)(c) Suitability of the site for the development The site is not classified as a heritage item or subject to any natural constraints such as flooding or subsidence. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be suitable for the site in terms of the impact on both the existing natural and built environments, subject to previously identified comments. A review of the information contained in Council’s on-line mapping system has not identified any constraint not discussed elsewhere in this assessment report. Section 79C(1)(d) Public Submissions Four public submissions were received in relation to the initial plans and a further two submissions received in relation to amended plans. The contents of the submissions are considered elsewhere in the report.


ITEM 3 (Continued) Section 79C(1)(e) The Public Interest The proposed development is not considered to adversely impact upon interests of the public. The development will increase the range of housing options in the locality which will benefit the local community. Management Plan Linkages N/A. Relationship to Key Outcome Areas Assets The assessment of this development application meets the following key outcomes for Assets (set out on pages 34-35 of the Management Plan 2007-2010): Comment: The grassed footpath area will be replaced with a concrete footpath. The design of the development permits casual surveillance of the surrounding area whilst still providing for private recreation areas. Environment The assessment of this development application meets the following key outcomes for Environment (set out on pages 36-38 of the Management Plan 2007-2010): • Attractive streets, public places and buildings through better planning and design

which is responsive to community expectations and our local environment. Comment: The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of DCP 2006. Whilst it has been identified that the proposal complies with the minimum requirements of the DCP with minor variations which would not warrant refusal, the design of the second storey of Villa one and Villa six is raised as an issue requiring modification. • Sustainable practices in buildings, waste management, transport, energy systems

and water use through community commitment. Comment: The proposed development incorporates water and energy conservation features such as rain water tanks, natural ventilation and solar access, energy efficient hot water system and insulation.


ITEM 3 (Continued) Governance The assessment of this development application meets the key outcomes for Governance (set out on pages 39-41 of the Management Plan 2007-2010): • Improved communication with the community and increased awareness and

understanding of Council’s decisions by the community. • Members of the community are engaged through involvement in democratic

decision making and promotion of active citizenship. • Incorporation of best practice approaches in the delivery of services to the

community. • Compliance with all legislative requirements and statutory obligations. • An efficient and effective regulatory environment. The application has been assessed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance 1979, relevant State Planning Policies and relevant Council Development Control Plans and policies. Consultation – Internal and External Internal Referrals Development Engineer, 14 August 2007: Council’s Development Engineer has provided the following report; “The topography of the site is such that it has a natural fall to the rear boundary and the applicant has designed the drainage system such that the roof areas of each villa drains separately to 2000 litre rainwater tanks with the overflow and the runoff of the new driveway draining via pits and grated drains to an onsite stormwater detention tank located beneath the new visitor spaces on the eastern side between Villa 2 & Villa 3. Surface pits have been designed in the open areas at the front yard and in each courtyard of the villas and bypass the onsite stormwater detention tank. The reduced and invert levels of these surface pits have been checked and drain adequately.


ITEM 3 (Continued) The whole site drains into a proposed piped network that runs through the public pathway out onto Dorothy Street. The design of this piped system will be determined before the issue of the Construction Certificate by the use of DRAINS. This has been shown on the Drainage Plans Drawing No.2 prepared by StormCivil Engineering Solutions The existing vehicle crossings are to be removed and a new 5m wide crossing is proposed at the centre of the site. The driveway entry and width are satisfactory and the proposed driveway grades have been checked and generally comply with AS2890.1:2004. The garage door openings and internal dimensions also are satisfactory and comply. The car manoeuvrability for vehicles exiting or entering the garages has been checked using the relevant templates from AS 2890.1:2004 and are also satisfactory and comply. There is no existing footpath along the property frontages and a condition of consent will be placed to construct the footpath in accordance with Council’s requirements”. From an engineering perspective, there are no objections to the approval of this development, subject to 26 conditions of consent (see conditions 61-90). Landscape Architect, 28 March 2007: The following comments were provided by Council’s Landscape Architect: “Only trees to be removed include 1 Cypress, 1 Privet, 1 pittosporum. No objections, the submitted landscape plan is satisfactory”. External Referrals Nil Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. CONCLUSION: The proposed development involves the erection of urban housing development, comprising 2 x 4-bedroom two-storey dwellings at the Olive Street frontage and 4 x 3-bedroom dwellings) in the rear section of the site. The proposal also involves strata subdivision of the development into 6 lots.


ITEM 3 (Continued) Consideration of the proposed development against the provisions of DCP 2006 has previously been undertaken and this identified a number of issues, the most significant being the streetscape impact of the proposal other issues are considered minor and do not warrant refusal or further modifications. Due to the adjoining dwellings being only single storey construction, the erection of two-storey dwellings in the front section of the site is not permitted by the DCP. The DCP does however permit the inclusion of a second storey within the roof space (commonly considered as attic space). The topography of the site is that the land falls away from the street and this exposes the roof structure to be the dominant portion of the dwelling when viewed from Olive Street. If the proposed design was to reduce the visual impact of the roof structure it would most likely significantly reduce the extent of the “attic” which currently contains 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. Accordingly it is recommended that a deferred commencement consent be issued, requiring modification of the design of the front villa units so that the second storey is wholly contained within the roof space of each unit – with no upward projection of the “attic” level above the ground floor level of the rest of the unit. ATTACHED for the information of Councillors is a submission from the project architect whose opinion is that this design meets the intent of Council’s DCP. If the Council was mindful to approve the application accepting that the design is a good outcome and does represent the desired requirements for only a second storey to be only contained within the roof space then the deferred commencement condition should be deleted from the recommendation.


ITEM 3 (Continued)


ITEM 3 (Continued)


ITEM 3 (Continued)

RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Local Development Application No.108/2007 to construct six (6) villa units at

10 & 12 Olive Street, Ryde, being LOT: 13 & 14, DP: 26473, be approved as a Deferred Commencement Consent pursuant to section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

This consent does not become operative until the matters referred to in Part 1 have been submitted to, and approved by Council. Part 1 – Condition relating to a Deferred Commencement Consent pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The following condition is a Deferred Commencement condition imposed pursuant to section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

1. The submission and approval of amended plans in respect of the 2 front villa units (Unit 1 and 6). These plans shall provide for the second storey of these units to be wholly contained within the roofspace, with no upward projection of the “attic” level above the ground floor level of the rest of the unit. The attic storey shall comply with the following requirements:

A space within a building contained within a maximum of 35 degrees pitched roof, that is not immediately enclosed by vertical external walls, and having: a) a ceiling height of 2.4 metres across two-thirds of its floor area; and b) a minimum of 1.8 metres ceiling height at any point within this storey.

Part 2 – General Conditions of Consent The following requirements shall apply upon satisfactory completion of the requirements outlined in Part 1 of this consent (above). 1. Development is to be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, as

amended in red: • Architectural drawings prepared by Peter Hall Architects Pty Ltd:

Drawing Nos 3460 DO1B, DO2B, DA03C, DA04B dated 20 June 2007 NOTE: Subject to the amendments required in Part 1 (Deferred Commencement) above.

• Landscape Plan prepared by Michael Siu dated 20 February 2007

(Drawing Nos. L01/2-R12009 and L02/2-R12010). • Stormwater Management Design Plan prepared by Storm Civil

Engineering Solutions (Issue C) dated 28 July 2007 (Drawing No. 10209 C)(Sheets 1, 2 & 3).

2. The term of this Consent is limited to a period of two (2) years from the date of

approval. The consent will lapse if the development does not commence within this time frame.

3. All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the

provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

4. A separate Development Application shall be submitted for demolition of the existing dwellings.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

5. Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

a) All building work (other than work relating to the temporary building) must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (as in force on the date of the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made)

b) This clause does not apply to the extent to which an exemption is in force

under clause 187 or 188, in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, subject to any terms of any condition or requirement referred to in Clause 187(6) or 188(4).

6. Prior to commencing any construction works, the following provisions of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 are to be complied with:

a) A Construction Certificate is to be obtained in accordance with Section 81A (2)(a) of the Act.

b) A Principal Certifying Authority is to be appointed and Council is to be notified of the appointment in accordance with Section 81A (2)(b) of the Act and Form 7 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

c) Council is to be notified at least two (2) days prior to the intention to commence building works, in accordance with Section 81A (2)(c) of the Act and Form 7 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

7. The applicant may apply to the Council or an accredited certifier for the issuing

of a Construction Certificate and to Council or an accredited certifier to monitor compliance with the approval and issue any relevant documentary evidence or certificate/s.

Council Officers can provide these services and further information can be

obtained from Council by telephoning 9952 8222 (Customer Service). 8. Any architectural and/or fixture changes to the development will require the

submission of a new BASIX certificate. Please note that modifications may require the submission of a Section 96 application in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.


ITEM 3 (Continued) 9. Residential Building Work

a) Building work that involves residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates:

i) in the case of work to be done under the Act: has been informed in

writing of the licensee’s name and contractor licence number, and is satisfied that the licensee had complied with the requirements of Part 6 of the Act; or

ii) in the case of work to be done by any other person: has been informed

in writing of the person's name and owner-builder permit number; or has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land, that states that the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work is less than the amount prescribed for the purposes of the definition of “owner builder work” in Section 29 of that Act, and is given appropriate information and declarations under paragraphs (a) and (b) whenever arrangements for the doing of work are changed in such a manner as to render out of date any information or declaration previously given under either of those paragraphs.

b) A certificate purporting to be used by an approved insurer under Part 6 of

the Home Building Act 1989 that states that a person is the holder of an insurance policy issued for the purposes of that Part is, for the purpose of this clause, sufficient evidence that the person has complied with the requirements of that Part.

10. Excavations and backfilling

a) All excavations and backfill associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.

b) All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

11. Retaining walls and drainage.

If the soil conditions require it:

a) retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil must be provided.

b) adequate provision must be made for drainage.

12. Support for neighbouring buildings

If the soil conditions require it:

a) If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made: i) must preserve and protect the building from damage, and ii) if necessary, must underpin and support the building in an

approved manner, and iii) must, at least 7 days before excavating below the level of the base

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

b) The owner of the adjoining allotment of land is not liable for any part of the cost of work carried out for the purposes of this clause, whether carried out on the allotment of land being excavated or on an adjoining allotment of land.

c) In this clause, “allotment of land” includes a public road and any other public place.

13. Protection of Public Places

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


ITEM 3 (Continued)

b) If necessary, an awning is to be erected, sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place.

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

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

14. Australia Post Approval for the site and size of proposed household mailboxes must be

obtained from Australia Post. 15. Waste Management Plan - Should you wish to vary the information provided in

the Waste Management Plan you submitted to Council with your Development Application involving demolition and construction works, you are required to give written advice to Council of any changes.

Council’s DCP 2006, Part 7.2 – Waste Minimisation and Management, sets out

your obligations for waste management. 16. All demolition and all construction and associated work is to be restricted to

between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday (other than public holidays) and between 8.00am and 4.00pm on Saturday. No work is to be carried out on Sunday or public holidays.

17. No spoil, stockpiles, building or demolition material is to be placed on any public

road, footpath, park or Council owned land. 18. Site toilets shall be provided in accordance with the WorkCover Code of

Practice entitled “Amenities for Construction Work”. 19. At all times work is being undertaken within a public road adequate precautions

shall be taken to warn, instruct and guide road users safely around the work site. Traffic control devices shall satisfy the minimum standards outlined in AS1742.3-1996 “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”.

20. A first flush device shall be fitted to the rainwater tank system to divert the first

5mm of runoff from the area draining away from the storage tank (e.g. 0.5 litre per square metre).


ITEM 3 (Continued) 21. Adequate provisions shall be made to prevent mosquitoes breeding in the

reservoir. This should include suitable screening to prevent eggs being laid within the tank.

22. All tanks and tank stand installations shall be structurally sound and comply with

the manufacturer’s and/or designer’s instructions. 23. Tanks must be a commercially manufactured tank designed for the use of water

supply. 24. Overflow from the tank shall be piped directly to an approved stormwater

system. 25. The external finishes of tanks shall be painted or coloured to be compatible with

the surrounding environment. Alternatively, the water tank may be screened behind a permanent physical barrier that serves that purpose.

26. Taps associated with the tank shall be clearly marked indicating the source of

the water and that it is not to be used for Drinking Water. 27. Treads, risers and balustrades to comply with the Building Code of Australia

Part 3.9.1 and Part 3.9.2. Balustrading is to be a minimum 1.0 metres high and any openings are not to exceed 125mm.

28. All timber framing is to comply with Part 3.4.3 – Timber Framing of the Building

Code of Australia. 29. All steel framing is to comply with Part 3.4.2 – Steel Framing of the Building

Code of Australia. 30. Roofwater is to be disposed of to the approved/existing stormwater drainage

system. 31. Perimeter of slabs are to be provided with a drop-edge beam so as to provide

face brickwork from the natural ground level. 32. Full compliance shall be given to the requirements of the BASIX Certificate No.

122966M dated 21 February 2007. 33. All excavated material must be removed from the site. No fill is to be placed

above the natural ground level.


ITEM 3 (Continued) 34. Clothes line is to be provided to all dwellings in the rear yard or sheltered well

ventilated space. 35. Details of security lighting for internal driveways, visitor parking areas and the

street frontage shall be submitted for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. The details to include certification from an appropriately qualified person that there will be no offensive glare onto adjoining residents.

36. Driveway and garden edging must be rolled edged with concrete or brick. 37. All proposed retaining walls in proximity of the side and rear boundaries shall be

setback from the fence line so as to permit all boundary fencing to be located at natural ground level. No boundary fences shall be erected on top of retaining walls.

38. A dilapidation survey is to be undertaken in the locality of all properties and

adjoining trees that could be potentially affected by the construction of this development. The dilapidation survey shall be carried out prior to any work commencing on the site. The applicant shall, at their own cost, rectify any damage caused to other properties during construction of the proposal. A copy shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA).

39. Any replacement side boundary fencing required as a result of the proposed

development shall be provided at no cost to adjoining property owners. 40. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be

obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.

Please refer to the Building, Development and Plumbing section of the website at www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to "Water Servicing Coordinator" under "Developing Your Land" or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance. Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, as it may take some time to build water/sewer pipes and this may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.


ITEM 3 (Continued) A copy of Sydney Water's Notice of Requirements must be submitted to the

Principal Certifying Authority prior to the Construction Certificate being issued. The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying

Authority prior to occupation of the development / release of the plan of subdivision.

41. Sydney Water The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent

or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water assets, sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped.

Please refer to the website www.sydneywater.com.au for:

• Quick Check agents details - see Building, Developing and Plumbing then Quick Check; and

• Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water assets - see Building, Development and Plumbing then Building and Renovating.

Or telephone 13 20 92. The consent authority or a private accredited certifier must ensure that a Quick

Check agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the issue of any Construction Certificate.

42. The applicant is to submit to and have approved by Council or an accredited

certifier engineer’s details for all concrete work and structural steelwork prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

43. Fire and Smoke Alarms are to be provided in accordance with Part 3.7.2 of the

Building Code. Location details are to be submitted and approved by Council or an accredited certifier prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

44. All retaining walls to excavated areas are to be completed at the earliest

possible stage and prior to the erection of the timber and masonry framework. Details are to be submitted to and approved by Council or an accredited certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/


ITEM 3 (Continued) 45. A site works plan must be prepared and submitted with the Construction

Certificate for every demolition, earthworks or building works indicating methods of sediment and pollution control in accordance with Council’s DCP 2006, Part 8.1 – Construction Activities.

Prior to Occupation Certificate 46. Documentary evidence of landscape planting and construction in accordance

with the approved plan and specified items is to be submitted to the Council prior to occupation of the building.

47. An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying

Authority (PCA) and a copy furnished to Council in accordance with Clause 151 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 prior to commencement of occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building, an altered portion of, or an extension to an existing building.

48. Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority

is to ensure that the BASIX commitments have been implemented in accordance with the BASIX certificate.

49. All land titles within the site must be consolidated into one allotment. A plan of

consolidation in a form capable of registration shall be lodged with the Land Titles Office prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

50. A certificate from a suitably qualified person is to be submitted to the Principal

Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) that the method of Termite Protection has been provided in accordance with Part 3.1.3 of the Building Code of Australia and the requirements of the Australian Standard 3660.1.


Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) that the method of waterproofing wet areas has been provided in accordance with Part 3.8.1 of the

Building Code of Australia and the requirements of the Australian Standard 3740 prior to wall tiling.


Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) that Fire and Smoke Alarms have been provided in accordance with Part 3.7.2 of the Building Code.


ITEM 3 (Continued) Prior to Construction Certificate 53. A contribution for the services in Column A and for the amount in Column B

shall be made to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

A B Public Space $28760 Stormwater Drainage $5576 Administration $296 The total contribution is $33,732

This contribution is a contribution under the provisions of Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as specified in Section 94 Contribution Plan No. 1 (2003 Amendment) adopted by City of Ryde on 19 August 2003. The above amount, if not paid within one calendar year of the date of this consent, shall be adjusted for inflation by reference to the Consumer Price Index published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Catalogue No 5206.0) on an annual basis in accordance until such time as the contribution is paid.

54. A security deposit (category: other buildings with delivery of bricks or concrete or machine excavation) is to be paid to Council (Public Works and Services Group) as well as the infrastructure inspection fee. Please refer to Council's Management Plan for the current fee amounts.

55. An Enforcement levy is to be paid to Council on lodgement of the

Construction Certificate application in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Management Plan (scheduled fees).

56. Documentary evidence of payment of the Long Service Levy under Section 34

of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 is to be received prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.

57. The applicant is to apply to Council, pay the required fee, and have issued

street alignment levels by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

58. Documentary evidence of compliance with Conditions 53 – 57 to the satisfaction

of Council or an accredited certifier is to be submitted to the Council prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.


ITEM 3 (Continued) 59. Landscaping of the development site is to be carried out in accordance with the

landscape plan/concept submitted with the development application. General Engineering Conditions 60. Design and Construction Standards. All engineering plans and work shall be

carried out in accordance with the requirements as outlined within Council’s publication Environmental Standards Development Criteria and relevant Development Control Plans except as amended by other conditions.

61. Service Alterations. All mains, services, poles, etc., which require alteration

shall be altered at the applicant’s expense. 62. Restoration. Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition at all times.

Restoration of disturbed road and footway areas for the purpose of connection to public utilities will be carried out by Council following submission of a permit application and payment of appropriate fees. Repairs of damage to any public stormwater drainage facility will be carried out by Council following receipt of payment.

63. Engineering Compliance Certificates. Engineering Compliance Certificates

must be obtained for the following works at the specified stage (If Council is appointed the PCA then the appropriate inspection fee is to be paid to Council) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate:

• Prior to backfilling of pipelines in which Council has an interest. • Prior to backfilling of drainage connections to pipelines or channels in

which Council has an interest. • Prior to casting of pits and other concrete structures in which Council has

an interest including kerb & gutter, access ways, aprons, pathways, vehicular crossings, dish crossings and pathway steps.

NOTE: Council has an interest in all pipelines which drain public reserves and public

road reserves, and in all structures located within public road reserves. All Engineering Compliance certificates are to contain the following declarations:

a) This certificate is supplied in relation to <<address of property>>. b) <<name of engineer and company >> have been responsible for the

supervision of all the work nominated in (a) above.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

c) I have carried out all tests and inspections necessary to declare that the work nominated in (a) above has been carried out in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and the conditions of the development consent.

d) I have kept a signed record of all inspections and tests undertaken during the works, and can supply the Principal Certifying Authority [PCA] with a copy of such records and test results if and when required.

64. Road Opening Permit. The applicant shall apply for a road-opening permit

where a new pipeline is proposed to be constructed within or across the footpath. Additional road opening permits and fees may be necessary where there are connections to public utility services (e.g. telephone, electricity, sewer, water or gas) are required within the road reserve. No drainage work shall be carried out on the footpath without this permit being paid and a copy kept on the site.

Engineering Conditions to be complied with Prior To Construction Certificate 65. Drainage Security Deposit. The applicant shall lodge with Council a security

deposit of $1,000 prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate to ensure the Positive Covenant has been prepared, lodged and registered and that the onsite stormwater detention system is constructed in accordance with the approval plans; this includes the correct sediment sump construction and fitting of the orifice plate and debris screen in the outlet control pit. Refund of this security deposit will be made on satisfactory completion of the works and notification to Council of lodgement of the Positive Covenant with the Department of Lands.

66. DRAINS Model Submission & External Drainage Fee. A DRAINS computer

model is to be prepared for the site drainage system and submitted to Council for approval demonstrating the following:

(a) That the proposed 300mm diameter RCP Pipeline extension running

through the existing public pathway has been designed sufficiently to cater for the runoff created by the properties of 10-12 Olive Street and future developments from 8 Olive Street.

(b) The OSD volume and permissible discharge are in accordance with City of

Ryde, Development Control Plan 2006: - Part 8.2; Stormwater Management.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

Additionally, an external drainage fee will be required to be paid to Council in relation to the proposed Council’s pipeline extension. This fee is based on Council’s Management Plan 2007-2008. Council’s Development Engineer will determine this fee and contact the applicant to ensure payment occurs before the issue of the Construction Certificate.

67. Rainwater Tank Details & Sections. The applicant is to submit detailed cross

sections of the rainwater tank(s) including all invert and reduced levels. A first flush mechanism is required for each rainwater tank. Details are to be submitted before the issue of the Construction Certificate.

68. Driveway Grades. The maximum grade of all internal driveways and vehicular

ramps shall be 1 in 4 and in accordance with the relevant section of AS 2890.1. The maximum change of grade permitted is 1 in 8 (12.5%) for summit grade changes and 1 in 6.7 (15%) for sag grade changes. Any transition grades shall have a minimum length of 2.0m. The driveway design is to incorporate Council’s issued footpath and gutter crossing levels where they are required as a condition of consent. A driveway plan, longitudinal section from the centreline of the public road to the garage floor, and any necessary cross-sections clearly demonstrating that the driveway complies with the above details, and that vehicles may safely manoeuvre within the site without scraping.

69. Drainage Plans. The plans and supporting calculations of the proposed

drainage system, including the on-site detention system and details addressing any overland flow from upslope properties are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

A positive covenant shall be executed and registered against the title of any lot

containing an on site detention system to require maintenance of the system in accordance with Council's standard terms.

Any drainage pit within a road reserve, a Council easement, or that may be

placed under Councils’ control in the future, shall be constructed of caste in-situ concrete. Details shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.


ITEM 3 (Continued) 70. On-Site Stormwater Detention. Stormwater runoff from the indicated

impervious areas shall be collected and piped by gravity flow to a suitable on-site detention system in accordance with the City of Ryde, Development Control Plan 2006: - Part 8.2; Stormwater Management. The minimum capacity of the piped drainage system shall be equivalent to the collected runoff from a 20 year average recurrence interval storm event. Overland flow paths are to be provided to convey runoff when the capacity of the piped drainage system is exceeded up to the 100 year average recurrence interval and direct this to the on-site detention system. Runoff which enters the site from upstream properties should not be redirected in a manner which adversely affects adjoining properties.

The on-site detention system shall be designed to ensure peak flow rates at any

point within the downstream drainage system do not increase as a result of the development during storms from the 5 year to the 100 year average recurrence interval of all durations. Outflow from the basin shall be piped to a point of discharge in accordance with the City of Ryde, Development Control Plan 2006: - Part 8.2; Stormwater Management. The gutters, pipes and downpipes shall be designed for the 1 in 100 year, 5 minute storm events.

The system is to be cleaned regularly and maintained to the satisfaction of Ryde

City Council. 71. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

(ESCP) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines set out in the manual “Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction“ prepared by the Department of Housing. These devices shall be maintained during the construction works and replaced where considered necessary.

The following details are to be included in drawings accompanying the Erosion

and Sediment Control Plan;

(a) Existing and final contours (b) The location of all earthworks, including roads, areas of cut and fill (c) Location of all impervious areas (d) Location and design criteria of erosion and sediment control

structures, (e) Location and description of existing vegetation (f) Site access point/s and means of limiting material leaving the site (g) Location of proposed vegetated buffer strips


ITEM 3 (Continued)

(h) Location of critical areas (drainage lines, water bodies and unstable slopes)

(i) Location of stockpiles (j) Means of diversion of uncontaminated upper catchment around

disturbed areas (k) Procedures for maintenance of erosion and sediment controls (l) Details for any staging of works

(m) Details and procedures for dust control. Engineering Conditions to be complied with Prior to Commencement of Construction 72. Sediment and Erosion Control. The applicant shall install appropriate

sediment control devices in accordance with an approved plan prior to any earthworks being carried out on the site. These devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced where considered necessary. Suitable erosion control management procedures shall be practiced. This condition is imposed in order to protect downstream properties, Council's drainage system and natural watercourses from sediment build-up transferred by stormwater runoff from the site.

73. Compliance Certificate. A Compliance Certificate must be obtained

confirming that the constructed erosion and sediment control measures comply with the construction plan and the City of Ryde, Development Control Plan 2006: - Part 8.1; Construction Activities

74. Vehicle Footpath Crossings. Concrete footpath crossings shall be

constructed at all locations where vehicles cross the footpath, to protect it from damage resulting from the vehicle traffic. The location, design and construction shall conform to the requirements of Council. Crossings are to be constructed in plain reinforced concrete and finished levels shall conform with property alignment levels issued by Council’s Public Works Division. Kerbs shall not be returned to the alignment line. Bridge and pipe crossings will not be permitted.

75. Truck Shaker. A truck shaker grid with a minimum length of 6 metres must be

provided at the construction exit point. Fences are to be erected to ensure vehicles cannot bypass them. Sediment tracked onto the public roadway by vehicles leaving the subject site is to be swept up immediately.

76. Temporary Footpath Crossing. A temporary footpath crossing must be

provided at the vehicular access points. It is to be 4 metres wide, made out of sections of hardwood with chamfered ends and strapped with hoop iron, and a temporary gutter crossing must be provided.


ITEM 3 (Continued) Engineering Conditions to be complied with Prior to Occupation Certificate 77. Disused Gutter Crossing. All disused gutter and footpath crossings shall be

removed and the kerb and footpath reinstated to the satisfaction of Council. 78. Work-as-Executed Plan. A Work-as-Executed plan signed by a Registered

Surveyor clearly showing the surveyor’s name and the date, the stormwater drainage, including the on-site stormwater detention system if one has been constructed and finished ground levels is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and to Ryde City Council if Council is not the nominated PCA. If there are proposed interallotment drainage easements on the subject property, a Certificate from a Registered Surveyor is to be submitted to the PCA certifying that the subject drainage line/s and pits servicing those lines lie wholly within the proposed easements.

79. On-Site Stormwater Detention System - Marker Plate. Each on-site

detention system basin shall be indicated on the site by fixing a marker plate. This plate is to be of minimum size: 100mm x 75mm and is to be made from non-corrosive metal or 4mm thick laminated plastic. It is to be fixed in a prominent position to the nearest concrete or permanent surface or access grate. The wording on the marker plate is described in the City of Ryde, Development Control Plan 2006: - Part 8.2; Stormwater Management. An approved plate may be purchased from Council's Customer Service Centre on presentation of a completed City of Ryde OSD certification form.

80. Footpath Paving Construction. The applicant shall, at no cost to Council,

construct standard concrete footpath paving across the frontage of the property. Levels of the footpath paving shall conform with levels issued by Council's Engineering Services Division.

81. Positive Covenant, OSD. The creation of a Positive Covenant under Section

88 of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the property with the requirement to maintain the stormwater detention system on the property. The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's draft terms of Section 88E instrument for Maintenance of Stormwater Detention Systems and to the satisfaction of Council.

82. On-site Stormwater Detention Certification. The submission of certification

by a suitably qualified Civil Engineer for the on-site stormwater detention system, attesting the storage volume, discharge rate and satisfactory operation of the system prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.


ITEM 3 (Continued) 83. 88B Instrument. In order to ensure that all easements, Positive Covenants,

restrictions as to user, etc are properly documented on the title, an instrument under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 plus 2 copies creating these encumbrances on the title with the City of Ryde being the authority empowered to release or modify the same, shall be submitted for approval with the subdivision certificate.

84. Film Plan of Subdivision. The submission of a Film Plan of Subdivision plus 5

copies suitable for endorsement by the Chief Executive pursuant to Section 327 of the Local Government Act.

85. Drainage Construction. The stormwater drainage on the site is to be

constructed in accordance with the approved construction certificate version of the Stormwater Drainage Plans Drawings No. 1,2 & 3 of 3 Issue C dated the 28th July 2007 prepared by StormCivil Engineering Solutions

Strata Subdivision 86. Certification Documents. The submission of all certification as required under

this consent prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate. 87. Council will only issue a Subdivision Certificate pursuant to the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Section 109 J when the development consent is complied with and Council or an accredited certifier has lodged documentary evidence of completion of a final inspection of any building or engineering works with Council.

88. Please contact Energy Australia’s Local Customer Service Office to obtain

documentary evidence that Energy Australia has been consulted and that their requirements have been met.

Energy Australia Building No. 2 Bridge Road (near Sherbrook Road) Hornsby Telephone: 9477 8201 Facsimile: 9477 8295 Postal Address: GPO Box 4009, Sydney NSW 2001 Website Address: www.energy.com.au This information is to be submitted to Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

89. Film Plan of Subdivision. The submission of a Film Plan of Subdivision plus 5 copies suitable for endorsement by the Chief Executive pursuant to Section 327 of the Local Government Act.

90. Certification of Building Works. If Council is not the PCA, certification that all

building works as detailed in Local Development Consent No 108/2007 have been completed in accordance with that consent is to be submitted with the application for the Subdivision Certificate.

91. Provide 2m wide driveway splays which transition from the Property Line to the

kerb line on both sides of the driveway. 92. No Stopping restrictions for a minimum length of 6m along the northern side and

10 metres along the southern side from the edge of the driveway splay (the limit of the No Stopping restriction along the southern side would be the boundary line with the adjacent property).

(b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of Council's decision. Bob Tillott Chris Young Consultant Assessment Officer Team Leader - Assessment Environment & Planning Environment & Planning Liz Coad Manager Assessment Environment & Planning


ITEM 3 (Continued) Indicates submissions received

COPYRIGHT


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


City of Ryde

108/2007Development Application

Civic Centre, 1 Devlin StreetRYDE NSW 2112


Tel: 9952 8222 Fax: 9952 8070



Date: 13/11/2007

83

81

7

4

6

2

84

82

84

82

55100

2

4

6

8

10

96

92

6

87

96

92

94

98

1

1

85

86

88

90

2

4

8

86

88

90

2

4

6

8

1

1

98

94

100

2

4

6

8

10

94

9A

49

9A

7

8

12

5 6

9

3

5

77

5

3

9

65

12

8

7

44

23

25

27

29

30

32

30

31

32

30

29

27

25

23

33

7

9

1111

9

7

8

28

10

12

14

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

16

13

15

17

19

21

28

21

19

17

15

13

26

24

22

20

18

26

8

3

55

3

7

2525 22

24

26

2828

26

24

22

10

1011

10

20

18

16

14

12

11

13

15

17

19

21

23 20

18

16

14

12

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

1110

7

30

31

33

P W 78

P W 78

BRIDGE RD

RK

OLIVE S

T

E ST

DOROTHY

ST

ELLEN S

T

SP 72291

SP 6977

0SP 5

7731

SP 61768

DP 1256

9

DP 8681

26

0

DP 1256

928281

DP 413634

14

13

18

19

48

18

34

49

19

17

16

4

21

12

35

20

41

42

44

45

40

39

3

14

15

B

A20

36

15

17

16

1

15

17

37

SP 61266

DP 2647

3

DP 2669

6

DP 6DP 380817

DP 2647

3

DP 2700

6

DP 3985

12

DP 2681

1

DP 383714

DP 27

006

DP 92681

1DP 2681

1

DP 387

803

33

3126

B

13

12

2

4

5

2

6

7

13

10

2

28

16

27B

30

9

14

6465

59

8

68

58

113

13

4

12

10

7

76

67 5

66 6

2

26A

11

1415

3

8283

9

75

74

84

73

72

8

1

11

60

14

96

Site

Site


ITEM 3 (Continued)


ITEM 3 (Continued)


ITEM 4 10 FAIRYLAND AVENUE, CHATSWOOD WEST 2067. Non-compliance with Council’s Order No. 15 Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

INTERVIEW 5.20PM The Manager Environmental Health & Building Reports 4 October 2007 FILE NO: P254.10 1. Report Summary This report is for Council to consider if any further action should be taken in relation to the enforcement of Council’s Order No. 15 Under Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, requiring the 500mm high lattice sight screening to be re-instated above the 1100mm high railing along the north-eastern side of the existing decking, as shown on the approved plans at 10 Fairyland Avenue, Chatswood West. 2. Background A written complaint was received on 27 December 2006 alleging that a recently installed privacy screen from the rear extension had been removed and that the owners have rigged up a clothes line. Site was inspected on 30 January 2007 which revealed that the privacy screen adjoining the deck area had been removed which was part of the conditions of the development consent No.6/2006 approval. A final inspection was carried out on 23 November 2006 when the privacy screen was in place. The application was finalised as all the conditions of development consent have been satisfied. A Notice of Proposed Order was issued on the owners of the property to comply with the following work on the timber deck:- 1. “Development is to be carried out in accordance with Dwg No. P0506-01,

P0506-02 (*As amended in red by Council), P0506-03 ‘A” (Amended 24.02.06), P0506-04, P0506-05 ‘A” (Amended 24.02.06), P0506-06, P0506-07, P0506-08, P0506-09 and support information submitted to Council.


ITEM 4 (Continued) 2. The 500mm high lattice sight screening must be re-instated above the 1100mm

high railing along the north – eastern side of the existing decking, as shown on the approved plans.

The owners wrote to Council requesting an extension of time to comply with the Notice of Proposed Order on 8 February 2007. The Order was served on 19 February 2007 which incorporated an extension of time as the owner did not specify time required. The standard 60 days was granted to comply with the Order. A further written complaint was received on 22 February 2007 from the adjoining owners advising that the privacy screen still has not been re-instated and the clothes line was still up. The complainant was advised in writing on 1 March 2007 that the owners had until 20 April 2007 to comply with the Order. Subsequently a submission has been received from the owners on 8 March 2007 in response to Council’s Notice of Proposed Order dated 31 January 2007. This letter was received after the Order was issued on 19 February 2007. Reasons asking Council to not take further action are listed below:- “In explanation, my husband Charlie is 80 years and I am 74. I have a bad right shoulder and have had an unsuccessful right knee replacement, which makes descending our stairs to the back yard extremely difficult…. We initially installed an alternative clothesline on the eastern fence between our property and No. 12’s property. For two reasons we were forced to abandon the use of the old line in the yard, as the neighbours has a barrier of pencil pines. The height of these trees is an intrusion onto our property taking most of the sun. Our latest extension was to locate the laundry upstairs with disabled bathroom and also another clothes line, as we do not want to face stairs. The reason the lattice was removed without permission was because I cannot raise my arm above shoulder height, I could not hang clothes above the lattice line and I can’t climb a ladder to reach. The clothes will receive sun and drying and I need enough room to put my sheets on the line.


ITEM 4 (Continued) We understand that permission to remove the lattice should have occurred and know that our health problems are not Council’s responsibility, but would appreciate some consideration in this matter.” A report was prepared for Council’s Team Leader Compliance on 10 April 2007 outlining the above history and submission received from the owners of 10 Fairyland Avenue. (a copy is available on file for Councillors to view) Subsequently a letter was sent to the owners on 10 April 2007 advising them that “Council has reviewed your response to the Notice of Proposed Order and you are advised that the Development Consent Condition No. 6/2006 required privacy screen and its necessity was considered during the assessment” of the application. “That being the case, you are required to re-instate the screen as indicated on the approval plans Dwg No. P0506-01, P0506-02 (*As amended in red by Council), P0506-03 ‘A” (Amended 24.02.06), P0506-04, P0506-05 ‘A” (Amended 24.02.06), P0506-06, P0506-07, P0506-08, P0506-09 and support information submitted to Council as approved under Development Consent 6/2006 dated 29 March 2006. You are further advised that an extension of 28 days from the expiry of the Order will be granted to comply. Failure to comply with the Order will lead to further legal action including the issue of a Penalty Infringement Notice for non-compliance with the requirements of Development Consent 6/2006 approved on 29 March 2006. The Order No. 20/2007 was due to lapse on 20 April 2007 due to the additional time of 28 days being granted the Order will now lapse on 18 May 2007” Subsequently the owners of 10 Fairyland Avenue lodged an application for a modification under Section 96 (2) of the EP&A Act, 1979 to modify Local Development Application No. 6/2006 to delete lattice privacy screen to western side of decking. The Section 96 application was refused on 21 June 2007 for the following reasons: 1. The elevated rear deck is 4m in length and allows direct overlooking into the rear

yard and pool at No.12 Fairyland Avenue. Council’s Development Control Plan 2006: Part 3.3 ‘Dwelling Houses’ requires that direct overlooking of private open spaces is minimised by the use of screening devices.


ITEM 4 (Continued) 2. The lattice privacy screen is not a solid material, therefore sunlight will still enter

onto the deck area. 3. The lattice privacy screen along the western side of the deck was shown by the

architect on the approved plans for “sight screening” and must remain for that purpose.

b) That the matter be referred to the Manager Environmental Health & Building for the reinstatement of the privacy screen. Subsequently to this determination a letter was sent to the owners on 5 July 2007 advising that “As a result of this merit assessment and determination of the s96 modification to Development Consent No. LDA 6/2006 Council in this instance will allow an additional period of 30 days from the date of this letter to comply with the requirements as outlined in Order No. 20/2007, which will lapse on 6 August 2007”. The site was re-inspected on 21 August 2007. The Order had not been complied with. Subsequently the adjoining resident has lodged various complaints to the privacy screen not being re-instated, 3. Report Order No. 20/2007 has not been complied with and as such the matter is put before Council to determine the next course of action with regard to compliance of the Order. 4. Management Plan Linkages N/A 5. Relationship to Key Outcomes Areas Assets The City of Ryde is committed to the delivery and maintenance of high quality infrastructure and facilities. This matter has no direct relationship to this key outcome area.


ITEM 4 (Continued) Environment The City of Ryde is committed to maintaining an ecologically sustainable City through the management of our City’s natural and physical environment. This matter has no direct relationship to this key outcome area. Governance The City of Ryde is committed to effective decision making processes that ensure transparency and involvement of its community. • Members of the community are engaged through involvement in democratic

decision making and the promotion of active citizenship. • Compliance with all legislative requirements and statutory obligations. Council has followed the notification process under DCP 2006 Part 2.1 while assessing the s96 application and the order process set out in Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. People The City of Ryde is committed to maintaining a socially sustainable City through effective community participation in our products and services. • A city that plans for people by identifying their diverse needs and involving

them in decision making to improve their quality of life. The report has considered the issues raised by the local residents in the submissions that have been received. 6. Financial Impact Council’s Health and Building area has a legal budget of $25,000. Should this matter proceed to a fully defended two (2) day hearing, the likely cost for legal services will be approximately $16,000 including GST but not including consultant’s fees, should specialist advice or further investigation be required as a result of legal advice in defending an appeal. The actual costs may vary depending on the circumstances such as:


ITEM 4 (Continued) - The number of issues and complexity of the matter. - The extent of pre-trial procedures undertaken by the owner of the property. 7. CONCLUSION The owners of 10 Fairyland Avenue have clearly not complied with Council’s order to reinstate the 500mm high lattice sight screening above the 1100mm high railing along the north - eastern side of the existing decking, as shown on the approved plans. There is a range of issues that Council can take into account when deciding whether or not to take enforcement action. These issues include the effect of complying with Council’s development consent and then removing the privacy screening a month after the Construction Certificate application was finalised and damage deposit refunded. The effect the unscreened elevated open deck which allows direct overlooking of the private open spaces of the adjoining property at No. 12 Fairyland Avenue. Other alternatives that the owner’s 10 Fairyland Avenue can use to dry their clothes. The effect of the elevated deck on the local area and the amenity of the adjoining neighbours with respect to loss of privacy, whether the person subject of the breach has received a previous warning, and issues such as reasonableness and the public interest. Under Section 121ZG of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Council has discretion and may revoke an order at any time. When exercising such discretion Council would need to take a number of factors into consideration, such as the seriousness of the breach and the likely outcome of any legal proceedings. Under Section 121K of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Council after considering representation made concerning the order may continue with the order. The owner of 10 Fairyland Avenue may appeal to the Land and Environment Court against the order. RECOMMENDATION: Submitted for Council’s consideration. Ken Nagle Manager Health & Building


ITEM 4 (Continued)

COPYRIGHT


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


DISCLAIMER

This map has been compiled from various sources and the publisher and/orcontributors accept no responsibility for any injury, loss or damage arisingfrom its use or errors or omissions therein. While all care is taken to ensurea high degree of accuracy, users are invited to notify Council of any discrepancies.

City of RydeCivic Centre, 1 Devlin StreetRYDE NSW 2112


Tel: 9952 8222 Fax: 9952 8070



Date: 13/11/2007

147147

136

132 130 128 126124

122120

1513

119

7

188

118

116

114

90

138

84

383

81

79

77

75

10

8

6

4

82A4

6A8

6

21

26

28

30

35

17

15

13

11

9

7

5

24

22

20

18

16

3

91

89

87

85 12

14

134

6

63

63

63

63

63

273

70 18

16

14

12

1082

80

78

76

74

72

70

71

69

56

68

66

64

62

67

65

63

61

59

2A

57 60

5855

53

59

57

55

53

51

61

49

FAIRYLAND AVE

RIV

ER A

VE

FAIRYLAND AVEBEC

RD

LOBE

LIA

ST

RIVER AVE

DP 16042

DP 8496

09

DP 5

2725

7

213 278

2

249

232

277

272

273

258

274

257

275

243

256255

252251250

170171

172173

244

245

231

246

247

248

230

229

228

227

226

225

224

5

254253

174

276

214

223

233

2

242

239

195

240

208

212

92

234

210

93

279

2

97

280

241

238

237

236

23521

120

9

94

DP 16042

DP

16042

04

45

84

43

88

98

100

103

44

42

8999

101104

205

41

8687

102

85

207

206

46

81

34

110

33

77

36

79

108

11237

35

111

8078

76

109107

105

83

38

106 39

82

0240

Site


ITEM 5 CONFIDENTIAL 100 LANCASTER AVENUE, MELROSE PARK. Lot 50 DP 15965. Illegal Land filling. Owner: DP & KL & PA & VD Jepson. FILE NO: P407.100 The Manager Health & Building Reports 4 September 2007 Confidential This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under Section 10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act, 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following: (g) advice concerning litigation or advice that would be privileged from production

in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege. This matter is classified confidential because it contains advice concerning legal matters that are:- (a) substantial issues relating to a matter to which the Council is involved. (b) clearly identified in the advice, and (c) fully discussed in that advice. It is not in the public interest to reveal all details of this matter as it would prejudice Council’s position in any court proceedings. Ken Nagle Manager Health & Building