Development Control Unit No. 016...CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 28 November 2018 Minutes of the...

Development Control Unit

No. 016 28 November 2018 at 10.30 AM

Hunter 's H i l l Counc i l

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Attendance, Apologies,

Declarations of Interests

1 Confirmation of Minutes

2 Development Applications

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 28 November 2018

Minutes of the Development Control Unit Meeting held on 14 November 2018. This is page 1

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL UNIT

28 November 2018

INDEX

1 – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1 Confirmation of Minutes of Development Control Unit 015 held 14 November 2018

2 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

2.1 10:30 am - 6 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill 1



COMMENCEMENT

The meeting commenced at approximately 10:00 am at Council Chambers.

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Steve Kourepis Group Manager, Development & Regulatory Control (Chair)

Kerry Smith Senior Development Officer

Shahram Zadgan Development Assessment Officer

Sara Philpott Environmental Health & Building Surveyor

Martin Peacock Landscape Consultant (Item 5)

Karen Rawstron Administration Officer

APOLOGIES

No apologies were received.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairperson called for Declarations of Interest without response.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of Development Control Unit of previous Meeting DCU 014 held on 24 October 2018 were read and accepted.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

2.1 10:00 AM - 14 FOSS STREET, HUNTERS HILL

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF

PROPOSAL Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new single storey extension to side and extend first floor over terrace - S4.55 - Delete skylight and windows, additional windows, external shutters, redesign internal staircase, reconfigure kitchen, alter roof and dormer. ATTENDEES Chris Betteridge Heritage Consultant Susan Ray Owner Darryl Lock Architect The Committee took into account the privacy concerns of the adjoining neighbour and determined there was no additional loss of privacy due to the these changes.



RESOLVED on the motion of Mr Kourepis, seconded Mr Smith

That the s.4.55 application No.2017/1086-1 to modify Development Application No.2017/1086 of consent dated 9 November 2017 for the alterations and additions plus new swimming pool and driveway at No.14 Foss Street, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the alteration to condition Part A No.2 as follows:

Drawing Number Drawn By Plan Dated Council Dated

Elevations Dwg. 1 Issue A

Darryl Lock Studio 28 Jul 2018 31 Aug 2018

Site Plan & Shadow Plan Dwg. 4 Issue A

28 July 2018 31 Aug 2018

Ground floor & First Floor Plans, Sectional Elevations AA & BB Dwg. 2 Issue A

28 July 2018 31 Aug 2018

Roof Plan, Fireplace, Doors & Windows Dwg. 4 Issue A

20 Mar 2017 15 Jun 2017

Staircase Elevations Dwg. 3 Issue A

28 July 2018 31 Aug 2018

Elevations Internal Dwg.6 Issue A

20 Mar 2017 15 Jun 2017

External Colours & Materials

2 May 2017 15 Jun 2017

Document(s) Dated Council Dated

Basix Certificate No.A274924_02 26 July 2018 31 Aug 2018

2.2 10:30 AM - 6 AVENUE ROAD, HUNTERS HILL


PROPOSAL Demolition of existing structures and construction of attached dual occupancy, swimming pools, cabanas, tree removal, landscaping and strata subdivision. ATTENDEES Mr El-Agha - Owner Andrew Martin - Town Planner (Owner Representative) Raymond Panetta - Architect William Fleming - Submission Representative Vicki McKinnon - Submission Dr Barbara Hungerford - Submission Mr & Mrs Krom - Submission

RECOMMENDATION

Following a site inspection held 10:30 am on Wednesday 14 November 2018 the development application was deferred until applicant provides amended plans to Council and the adjoining owners.



2.3 11.00AM - 21 HILLCREST AVENUE, GLADESVILLE


PROPOSAL Construction of secondary dwelling in rear yard. ATTENDEES Robert Fang Xia Liang Owner

RESOLVED on the motion of Mr Kourepis, seconded Mr Zadgan

A. That a “Deferred Commencement” consent be granted pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council.

Schedule 1 1. The Landscape Plan shall be amended to show:

(a) One (1) medium-sized canopy tree with a minimum container

size of (75L) incorporated into the landscape proposal for the rear of the site. Species shall be selected from: Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani)

Ceratopetalum gummiferum (NSW Christmas Bush)

Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle)

Pyrus calleryana ‘Capital’ (Callery Pear)

(b) The design intent for the area to the north of the proposed granny flat ‘existing impervious area to be removed’.

2. The Architectural Plans shall be amended to show:

(a) The design intent for the area to the north of the proposed

granny flat ‘existing impervious area to be removed’.

3. That a Stormwater Management Plan is to be submitted for assessment. Schedule 2

That Development Application No.2018/1013 for the construction of secondary dwelling in rear yard at No.21 Hillcrest Avenue, Gladesville, be approved, subject to the following conditions: Special Conditions:

PCW9 TPZ required for trees

Tree No or Location Species TPZ (m)

Tree 1 Robinia pseudoacacia (False Robinia) 12 x DBH



DEM20 Supervision by Arborist Tree 1 Robinia pseudoacacia (False Robinia) Standard Conditions:


Site Plan, Sheet 2 of 7 Granny Flats Australia 06.06.18 03.10.18

Floor Plan, Sheet 3 of 7 Granny Flats Australia 03.10.18 03.10.18

Elevations & Sections, Sheet 4 of 7

Granny Flats Australia 06.06.18 03.10.18

Schedule of Colours and Materials

Granny Flats Australia undated 01.03.18

Landscape Plan, 18-013/L01

Jocelyn Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd

11.05.18 15.06.18

GEN0 GEN1 GEN3 GEN5 GEN6 GEN7 GEN20 GEN21 PCC0 PCC1 ($409) PCC2 ($1400) PCC3 ($1500) PCC4 ($717) PCC11 PCC12 PCC13 PCC20 PCC21 PCC40 PCC41 PCW0 PCW1 PCW2 PCW3 PCW4 PCW5 PCW14 PCW17 PCW21 DEM21 DEM22 DEM23 DEM24 DEM25 CSI0 CSI2 CSI3 CON0 CON1 CON2 CON3 CON5 CON7 CON13 CON14 CON17 CON18 CON19 CON20 CON21 CON51 CON52 CON53 CON54 CON55 CON58 CON59 CON61 POC0 POC1 POC2 POC3 POC4 POC10 POC13 POC14 POC25 POC75

2.4 11.20AM - 1 BROOKES STREET, HUNTERS HILL


PROPOSAL Alterations and additions to existing dwelling - S4.55 - Modifications to roof, internal walls, windows, doors balustrade and lower deck. ATTENDEES Christina Sunairo Architect Miriam Green Architect The objection presented by Mr John Toon on behalf of adjoining neighbour Ms Ingrid Johnstone was considered, but did not require changes to the plans.


That the s4.55 application No.2013/1109-3 to modify Development Application No.2013/1109 of consent dated 24 March 2014 for alterations & additions to the existing dwelling at No.1 Brookes Street, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to altering Condition No.2, Condition No.10 and Condition No.11 and the addition of new Condition No.49 as follows:



2. The development consent No. 2013-1109 relates to the plans prepared by Tribe Studio Architects drawing numbers J353_S96_101A Rev. C, 101 Rev.G 102 Rev. F, 103 Rev. E, 104 Rev. E, 105 Rev.E, 106 Rev.E, all dated 11 July 2018 as received by Council on 11 July 2018, and 108 Rev.C dated 21 Sep 2015 as received by Council on 25 Sep 2015, 109 Revision E and DA_128 Revision B dated 9 December 2014 as received by Council on 12 December 2014 , DA_121 revision B dated 25 September 2013 as received by Council on 28 October 2013 and DA_128 Revision A dated 18 February 2014 as received by Council on 20 February 2014, except where amended by conditions of this consent.

10. Compliance with the provisions of the Basix Certificate No.A168488_04

dated 11 July 2018. 11. The materials and colours to be used in the development being in

accordance with the Drawing Finishes’ as prepared by Tribe Studio Architects Drawing No.CC_109 Rev.A dated 20 April 2018.

49. Trees covered under the provisions of Hunters Hill Council’s Tree

management Controls shall be retained except where Council’s prior written consent has been given.

2.5 11:40 AM - 48 MILLING STREET, HUNTERS HILL


PROPOSAL Removal of three (3) trees. ATTENDEES Jonathan Doo Applicant


That Development Application No. DA 2018-1078 for the removal of three (3) trees located within the property of 48 Milling Street, Hunters Hill be refused. Tree 1-Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) should be retained and damaged structures repaired using tree sensitive design and construction methods. The pruning of Tree 2-Erythrina crisa-galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree) should be approved with conditions imposed to limit the pruning works. The removal of Tree 3-Erythrina crisa-galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree) should be approved. Replacement planting is not required due to limited available space for a new tree. TREE1 TREE3 TREE4 The following trees may be pruned:

Tree Location Comments

Tree2 Erythrina crisa-galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree)

rear of studio

Crown Lift branches no greater than 100mm in diameter as required to provide additional clearance from studio.



The branches pruned shall represent no greater than 10% of the tree’s total crown volume.

Note: The removal of deadwood does not require Council approval

TREE2 TREE3 TREE4 TREE5 The following tree may be removed:

Tree Location Comments

Tree 3 Erythrina crisa-galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree)

rear garden adjacent to studio path

N/A

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 28 November 2018

Item 2.1 Page 1

ITEM NO : 2.1

SUBJECT : 10:30 AM - 6 AVENUE ROAD, HUNTERS HILL

STRATEGIC OUTCOME : MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER AND AMENITY OF HUNTERS HILL

ACTION : ALL BUILDING WORK COMPLIES WITH COUNCIL REGULATIONS

REPORTING OFFICER : SHAHRAM MEHDIZADGAN

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO

2017-1184

PROPOSAL DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY (RETAINING FRONT DWELLING), SWIMMING POOLS, CABANA, LANDSCAPING, TREE REMOVAL AND STRATA SUBDIVISON

APPLICANT TIFFANY STERNE

OWNER TIFFANY STERNE

DATE LODGED 29 NOVEMBER 2017

Ref:393236

INTRODUCTION This development application was initially reviewed at the previous DCU meeting held on 24 October 2018 at which time it was deferred to a site inspection to be held on Wednesday 14 November 2018. Upon site inspection the development application was referred back to DCU for discussion with the applicant to provide amended plans. The amended plans are attached to this report which are part of this consideration. Reasons for Report The proposal results in five (5) submissions received in response to the neighbour notification process. The reason for this amended report is due to an additional submission which was dated 19 February 2018 and received by Council on 19 October 2018, from Mr William Fleming, Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners, on behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford being the owners of 8 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill.


Item 2.1 Page 2

REPORT 1. SUMMARY Objectors Issues William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of John and Virginia Krom Owners of 4 Avenue Road Hunters Hill

Building height – rear dwelling should be single storey and a maximum height of 3.6 metres.

Setbacks – side setback of 1.24 metres to the eastern boundary of the front dwelling is non-compliant.

Visual privacy – potential overlooking into primary habitable space and private open space balcony. The setbacks proposed are unreasonable and may result in potential visual and acoustic privacy.

Acoustic Privacy – the proposed two pools would increase noise.

Tree Preservation – proposed development requires the removal of several trees which are identified in the Arborist report, 10 out of 17 mature trees have been designated for removal by the developers and arborist. This is excluding the already illegally removed Lilly Pilly.

Overshadowing.

Andy Kastanias 10 Avenue Road Hunters Hill

Construction of two separate and independent dwellings should comply with the standards under DCP 2013.

Privacy Impacts – from the balcony and windows on the first floor.

Dwelling No.2 exceeds the height requirements of 3.6 metres for second dwelling built in the backyard of the existing property.

Ensuring all vegetation comply with Hunters Hill requirements.

All external buildings and structures such as cabanas and pool filters need reviewing to ensure compliance with building size and noise pollution levels.

Added traffic to Avenue Road.

Dr Barbara Hungerford & Vicki McKinnon 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill


Item 2.1 Page 3

Question was raised regarding the determination of the s82A for the pervious DA2016/1147?

A formal request for an extension to the 6 February 2018, and that this will be acknowledged and confirmed in writing.

William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford Owners of 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill This is an additional submission received on 19 October 2018.



Visual privacy – potential overlooking into primary open space area located at the front of their dwelling. The proposed front balcony of dwelling 1 will result in an unreasonable level of overlooking into the private open space area of number 8. Privacy screens should be added to the balcony to provide additional screening to my client’s private open space area. The second story of the dwelling 2 will also result in opportunities for overlooking into my clients front garden.

Acoustic Privacy – dwelling No.2’s primary open space area is located directly adjacent to my client’s dwelling where 2 bedrooms are located, including master bedroom. Cabana will be used in tandem with the pool which is significant generator of noise. Pool pump and filter have not been noted on the plans. Also the single driveway running adjacent to the side boundary leading to two double garages would increase the noise impact made by the cars entering and exiting and the noise generated by the garage doors.

Tree Preservation – proposed development requires the removal of several trees which are identified in the Arborist report, 10 out of 17 mature trees have been designated for removal by the developers and arborist. This is excluding the already illegally removed Lilly Pilly. The protection of the Snappy Gum (identified as T2) adjacent to the driveway is if great importance to my client’s. The design of the dwelling and sitting of the driveway should be amended to minimise the impact of this significant tree.

JS & RA Stevens 203/64 Gladesville Road Hunters Hill

Bulk and scale

Over development of the site by replacing a single residential development with two residences both with swimming pools so close to boundaries raises serious concern of damage to mature jacaranda and liquid amber street from deep excavation and construction.


Item 2.1 Page 4

Submissions Five (5) submissions were received. An additional submission was received on 19 October 2018, from Mr William Fleming, Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners, on behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford being the owners of 8 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill. Recommendation The application is recommended for Deferred Commencement Approval for reasons that it is acceptable having regard to: 1. is permissible under the zoning

2. complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local

Environmental Plan 2012 and Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 3. will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The subject development application seeks consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling, garage, pool and any ancillary structures and tree, construction of a new attached dual occupancy, new swimming pools and cabanas and strata subdivision. The proposal would consist of the following: Demolition

Partial demolition of the existing dwelling

Removal of existing pool and garage and shed Attached Dual Occupancy Dwelling 1 (Fronting Avenue Road): Ground Floor: kid’s room, study bathroom, laundry, double garage with hallway to combined kitchen/living area. First Floor: Master bedroom and balcony with walk-in robe and ensuite, bedroom 2, bedroom 3 with WIR and balcony (with roof garden), shared bathroom. Ancillary: Inground pool, covered cabana behind pool and landscaping. Dwelling 2 (Rear of property): Ground Floor: Bedroom 4, formal lounge, bathroom and combined kitchen, living, dining, bar and laundry, double garage. First Floor: Master bedroom with ensuite, bedroom 2 and bedroom 3 with shared bathroom. Ancillary: Inground pool, covered cabana and landscaping. Also, the proposal seeks consent for strata subdivision.


Item 2.1 Page 5

On 5 February 2018, Council received amended plans and information as follows:

First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary.

The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary.

Schedule of colours and materials with actual swatches. Light colours have been removed from the plans and replaced with dark, recessive tones.

Windows acting as a swimming pool barrier have been updated to meeting the Australian Standards 1926.1-2012 and the plans are consistent with this notation.

All vegetation around the swimming pool complies with AS1926.1-201. There is a clear 900mm non-climbable zone around the pool.

On 8 May 2018, Council received an amended Arborist report and landscape plan, responding to Council’s Landscape Advisor’s letter dated 12 March 2018. These amended plans were not required to be re-notified, as the changes result in a lesser impact. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is known as No.6 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill, located on the southern side of Avenue Road. The site has an area of 1123.63sqm, irregular in shape, with the allotment frontage and vehicular access to Avenue Road. The site accommodates a single storey red brick and tiled roof dwelling, with detached garage adjacent the western boundary of the site. The site has a fall from the rear towards Avenue Road.

Surrounding development consists of a variety of single to two storey dwellings as well as some Residential flat building development. To the rear of the site is a set of residential units that overlook the rear garden of the site, next to the rear of the Hunters Hill Hotel. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY On 5 April 2017, Council under delegated authority refused Development Application No.2016/1147 for demolition of existing dwelling, garage, pool and any ancillary structures and tree, construct new attached dual occupancy, new swimming pools and cabanas and strata subdivision. This application was refused by Council, as there was a lack of information to make a proper assessment. The reasons of refusal were as follows:

1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, particularly in relation to clauses (1)(a)(i), (iii), (b)(c)(d) and (e) for general matters of consideration of development applications.

2. The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health & Building

Surveyor who requested amended plans and clarification. A letter was sent to the applicant on 30 November 2016, requesting this information, but to date no information has been submitted to address this concern. Thus, in the absence of this information, Council is unable to make a proper assessment of this application in its current form, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered the application in its present form should be refused.


Item 2.1 Page 6

3. The application was referred to Council’s tree consultants who requested additional information relating to tree and landscape management. A letter was sent to the applicant on 30 November 2016, requesting this information, but to date no information has been submitted to address this concern. Thus, in the absence of this information, Council is unable to make a proper assessment of this application in its current form, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered the application in its present form should be refused.

4. The subject application was referred to Council’s Design & Development

Engineer who requested additional plans and engineering information. A letter was sent to the applicant on 7 February 2017, requesting this information, but to date no information or correspondence has been submitted to Council address this concern. Thus, in the absence of this information, Council is unable to make a proper assessment of this application in its current form, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered the application in its present form should be refused.

5. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for

consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Development Control Plan 2013. There is lack of information to properly assess the application in its current form, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered the application in its present form should be refused.

6. The proposal would create an undesirable precedent for Council. 7. The proposal would not be in the public interest.

The s82A Review of the refused Development Application 2016/1147 lapsed, hence that application was not determined by Council.

On 29 November 2017, Council received the subject Development Application No.2017/1184.

An additional submission was received on 19 October 2018, from Mr William Fleming, Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners, on behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford being the owners of 8 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill.

5. STATUTORY CONTROLS Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan 2012 Zone: R2 Conservation Area: Yes River Front Area: No SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005: No Development Control Plan: DCP 2013 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes


Item 2.1 Page 7

6. POLICY CONTROLS Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor who raided no concern subject to conditions. 7.3 Heritage As stated within the body of the report, the property is within a conservation area under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who provided the following comments:

Heritage Status: within Hunters Hill Conservation Area C1 (“The Peninsula”); nearest items are 1 & 12 Avenue Rd, and 64-68 Gladesville Road. Proposal: Attached Dual Occupancy / strata subdivision.

Statement of Heritage Impact: by Perumal Murphy Alessi

Comments: the proposal is largely as previous, but now retains a portion of the front of the existing house. A hipped roof, similar to the existing, is to be used to the front dwelling and a hipped roof to the rear. There is some mention of a colour scheme in the Statement of Heritage Impact: “...grey tones with sandstone features...”. I have reviewed the proposed external colours and consider them appropriate. Recommendation: Approval.

7.4 Works & Services The application was referred to Council’s Design and Development Engineer who stated the following information is required for assessment:

A stormwater management concept Plan

A driveway plan, cross section plan A condition will form part of the Schedule No.1 of the Deferred Commencement to reflect the above comments. 7.5 Parks & Landscape The application was referred to Council’s Tree Consultants who provided the following comments:


Item 2.1 Page 8

Further to the Review of Determination dated 5 March 2018 the following additional information

has been received and reviewed:

Transplant Feasibility Assessment Statement 2018

(prepared by McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 4 May 2018, not

date stamped).

The following additional documentation and/or plans were reviewed as part

of the Review of Determination:

Architectural Plans (prepared by Raymond Panetta Architects, dwg no DA01-39 Rev N, dated 10.10.2017, date stamped 29.11.2017)

Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 G, dated 12.10.2017, date stamped 29 Nov 2017)

Survey Plan (prepared by Norton Survey Partners, ref 18154, dated 16.10.2015, date stamped 29 Nov 2017)

Arboricultural Assessment & Development Impact Report (Report 1) (prepared by Rain Tree Consulting, dated 18.10.2017, not date stamped)

Arboricultural Picus Sonic Tomograph Test Report (Report 2) (prepared by Rain Tree Consulting, dated 21.12.2016, not date stamped)

Tree Management

Tree removals were undertaken without Council consent on the subject site during April 2016. Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly) and Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) are plotted on Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 - 02, dated 05/12/2016, date stamped 14 June 2017). Tree 3 is noted as a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 3 and Tree 4 were removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. Tree 3 was removed without Council consent. The Transplant Feasibility Assessment Statement 2018 (Report) has addressed the feasibility of transplanting Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle). The Report concludes that with correct pruning, staking and a rigorous irrigation and maintenance program, moving with an experienced crane operator and under the supervision of an AQF Level 5 Arborist, Tree 6 is suitable for transplanting. The health of Tree 6 should be reassessed by an AQF Level 5 Arborist 12 months after the date of transplanting. The AQF Level 5 Arborist must provide a statement outlining that Tree 6 has successfully re-established. The statement must be submitted to the certifying authority for approval. If Tree 6 has not fully re-established within this period a super-advanced sized replacement tree must be supplied and planted. Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying authority upon completion of the works.


Item 2.1 Page 9

The Arboricultural Assessment and Development Impact Report (Report 1) has addressed the impact of the proposed works on a number of trees located onsite and/or neighbouring sites. The trees are discussed in detail below: Tree 1 Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) is a Council-managed street tree located in front of the subject site. Tree 1 has a calculated Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 2.4m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 4.8m. The proposed works are outside of the TPZ. Standard tree protection measures implemented in accordance with AS4970-2009 apply. Tree 2 Eucalyptus racemosa (Snappy Gum) is located along the western side boundary. Tree 2 is a large, mature specimen with high landscape significance. The Report has calculated a Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 3.7m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 15m. The results of the Arboricultural Picus Sonic Tomograph Test (Report 2) show that Tree 2 contained 92% sound wood and 8% of wood under first stages of decay. The decay is primarily located within the central pith area and is increasing at a slow rate. Based on the assessment, Tree 2 is considered viable for retention. Retesting of the decay should be conducted within a five (5) year period. New works within the TPZ of 15m of Tree 2 include additional driveway access, new foundations along the existing building footprint and second storey elevation. New works proposed within the SRZ of 3.7m include a driveway turning circle, part driveway addition and excavations for dwelling foundation works. The Report 1 outlines that several hard surfaces exist within the SRZ and TPZ and the new works have a calculated incursion of <15%. The Report 1 outlines site specific tree protection measures relating to Tree 2. The driveway addition is to be constructed above existing grade and of a porous material. Demolition and excavation for the dwelling will be within the existing footprint. No over excavation must occur. Any removal of vegetation, including grass, to facilitate construction of the driveway turning circle should be undertaken by hand. The turning circle should be constructed from a permeable material and on a permeable subbase. The Report 1 outlines canopy reduction pruning to accommodate the upper floor level. The specified pruning is considered acceptable. Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is plotted on the Landscape Plan. Tree 4 is shown for removal. Tree 4 was removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. An additional tree, Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly), was also removed in April 2016 without Council consent. Tree 3 was a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 5 Macadamia integrifolia (Macadamia) is located along the rear western side boundary. Tree 5 has a calculated SRZ of 2m and a TPZ of 3m. The Report has calculated a minor incursion from the secondary dwelling footprint within the TPZ (the % incursion has not been provided). The works are setback outside of the SRZ. Tree protection measures have been outlined in the Report 1. Tree 7 Morus rubra (Mulberry Tree) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 7 has damage at the base with an open spilt increasing upwards on the lower trunk. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 7 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 7 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable.


Item 2.1 Page 10

Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) is located in the rear of the site (adjacent to Tree 7). Tree 8 is an 8m specimen with a 10m canopy spread. Tree 8 is considered to have high landscape significance. The Report provides a SRZ of 2.5m and TPZ of 5.4m. The Report outlines a minor <10% incursion occurs by the location of the swimming pool with associated infrastructure such as pool fencing and Cabana within the SRZ. The Report provides tree sensitive construction methods including Tree Protection Fencing, excavation to accommodate the pool is to be limited to 0.3m (300mm) beyond the line of the proposed pool footprint to ensure no SRZ encroachment occurs. Pool hydraulics are to be limited to the eastern side to minimize additional excavation within the TPZ, the Cabana is recommended to be suspended above ground level, supported on isolated pier footings, and be cantilevered towards the tree spanning over the SRZ. Where excavation for post / pier foundations are required for the Cabana & pool fencing within the SRZ the project arborist is to certify that no significant roots >30mm(Ø) have been damaged. Canopy impacts have been reduced by the location of Dwelling 2 being setback by undertaking site survey and canopy impact assessments to achieve suitable building line clearances. The Report outlines minor reduction pruning will be required to reduce canopy conflicts with the proposed roof line. The line of the building footprint has been surveyed and marked on ground and based on site assessment with use of height poles the main structural extending limb is retainable. Tree 9 Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 9 is a structurally damaged tree with decay sections at two sides near ground level. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 9 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 9 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 10 Ligustrum lucidum (Large-Leafed Privet) along the rear boundary, Tree 13 and Tree 14 Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cocos Palm) in the rear south-eastern corner and Tree 12 Celtis spp. (Hackberry) in the eastern side boundary. The species proposed for removal are listed on Council’s Exempt Species List (DCP 2013). Consent from Council for removal is not required. Tree 11 and Tree 15 Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) are located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 11 and Tree 15 have been heavily pruned in the past. Tree 11 is multi-stemmed at the base with the central leader with decline and damage. Tree 15 has one side canopy biomass. The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the swimming pool to Tree 11 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 11 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The pool pavers are to be placed on top of ground level without grading. All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist. The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the building footprint with part incursion within the 2m SRZ to Tree 15 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 15 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The Report recommends minor canopy pruning to provide building clearance (no greater than 10% of the live canopy with stems no greater than 40mm diameter). All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist.


Item 2.1 Page 11

Tree 16 Camellia sasanqua (Camellia) is located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 16 is an 8m specimen. Tree 16 has been heavily pruned in the past with one sided canopy biomass. The Report has allocated a Short ULE. The SRZ of Tree 16 is located within the building footprint with additional major canopy impacts resulting from the proposed building elevation. With consideration to the small size and reduced ULE removal and replacement of Tree 16 is considered acceptable. Landscape Management The Landscape Plan appears to show Tree 8 for removal (a dashed black outline). The Landscape Plan should be amended to show Tree 8 for retention.

To compensate for the removal of Tree 3, and improve the sites future amenity, a replacement tree is recommended along the western side boundary. The replacement tree should be in the approximate location of Tree 4. With consideration to site constraints, including available planting space, a tree with a fastigiate habit is recommended. Recommended species include, Stenocarpus sinuatus (QLD Firewheel Tree), Banksia integrifolia (Coast Banksia), Elaeocarpus eumundi (Eumundi Quandong). The tree should be an advanced sized specimen. The Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2012 commenced on 29 October 2012 and made a number of amendments to the Swimming Pools Act 1992. Swimming pools that commenced construction from 1st September 2008 must have a barrier that complies with AS 1926. 1-2012 Part 1: Safety barriers for swimming pools, which

includes new requirements for non-climbable zones. Trees and shrubs, existing or proposed, must not be within the 900mm ‘non-climbable zone’ (NCZ). The (NCZ) is a zone measured in an arc shape. Where the NCZ is measured from depends on if the barrier is a 1200mm pool fence, or an 1800mm boundary barrier. All existing and proposed plantings must ensure compliance with AS 1926. 1-2012 Part 1. Recommendations Council’s Tree and Landscape Consultant has determined that the development proposal is satisfactory in terms of tree preservation and landscaping, subject to compliance with Conditions of Consent (Deferred Commencement). Conditions The following Conditions of Consent apply: Schedule 1 Landscape Plan The Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 G, dated 12.10.2017, date stamped 29 Nov 2017) shall be amended as follows: Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) for retention.

A replacement tree along the western side boundary. The replacement tree

should be in the approximate location of Tree 4. Species shall be selected from

- Stenocarpus sinuatus (QLD Firewheel Tree) or,


Item 2.1 Page 12

- Banksia integrifolia (Coast Banksia) or,

- Elaeocarpus eumundi (Eumundi Quandong).

The replacement tree shall be an advanced-sized 200L specimen grown in accordance with Australian Standard 2303 (2015) Tree Stock for Landscape Use.

Schedule 2

GEN21 Tree planting in accordance with Australian Standard 2303-2015 “Tree Stock for Landscape Use”


Tree No/ Location Species TPZ (m)

Tree 1 Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) 4.8

Tree 2 Eucalyptus racemosa (Snappy Gum) 15

Tree 5 Macadamia integrifolia (Macadamia) 3

Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) 5.4

Tree 11 Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) 4.6

Tree 15 Lagerstromia indica

(Crepe Myrtle)

Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) 3.6

PCW14 Arboricultural Report CON47 Compliance with AS1926.1-2012 Part 1 CON50 Tree Removal

Tree No Location

Tree 7 Morus rubra (Mulberry Tree) Rear of site

Tree 9 Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) Rear of site

Tree 10 Ligustrum lucidum (Large-Leafed Privet) Rear boundary

Tree 13 and Tree 14 Syagrus romanzoffiana

(Cocos Palm) Rear south-eastern corner

Tree 12 Celtis spp. (Hackberry) Rear eastern side boundary

Tree 16 Camellia sasanqua (Camellia) Rear of the site along the eastern side boundary.

CON51 Planting undertaken at the completion of construction CON52 Planting to be in accordance with Tree Management Control CON53 Establishment of landscape for 2 years CON54 Section 96 require for amended landscape CON55 Trees to be retained under Tree Management Control

CON56 Stump Grinding


Item 2.1 Page 13

CON57 Tree Condition CON58 TPZ CON59 Tree Planting CON60 Adjacent Trees CON61 Practising Arborist CON62 Tree Transplantation

Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle). Prepared by McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 4 May 2018, not date stamped

POC10 Compliance with Arboricultural Report

Prepared by Rain Tree Consulting, dated 18.10.2017, not date stamped)

POC75 Landscaping prior to Final Occupation Certificate

The following Special Conditions apply;

GEN Tree Transplantation

(a) The health of Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) should be reassessed by an AQF Level 5 Arborist 12 months after the date of transplanting. The AQF Level 5 Arborist shall provide a statement outlining that Tree 6 has successfully re-established. The statement must be submitted to the certifying authority for approval.

(b) If Tree 6 has not successfully re-established within this period an advanced-sized replacement tree of the same species shall be supplied and planted.

(c) The replacement tree shall be a minimum container size of 400 Litres.

(d) The replacement tree shall be planted using healthy and vigorous stock grown in accordance with Australian Standard 2302 (2015) Tree Stock for Landscape Use.

(e) Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying authority upon completion of the works.

A condition will form part of the Schedule No.1 of the Deferred Commencement to reflect the above comments. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings.


Item 2.1 Page 14

9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION 9.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) Not applicable. 9.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs Not applicable. 9.3 Other Legislation Not Applicable. 10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012 10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Zone The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone R2 and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.2012.

Compliance with Current Statutory Controls

Proposed Control Compliance

HEIGHT Ridge Front Dwelling Rear Dwelling

8.5 metres 7.7 metres


Yes Yes

Storeys Front Dwelling Rear Dwelling

2 storey 2 storey

2 storeys 2 storey

Yes Yes

Landscape Area 48% 45% Yes

10.3 Site Area Requirements The proposal complies with these requirements. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi-unit housing-density and garden

area controls Not Applicable. 10.5 Height of Buildings The height of the proposal, being 8.5 metres for the front dwelling and 7.7m for rear dwelling in height comply with the maximum of 8.5 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012.


Item 2.1 Page 15

10.6 Landscaped Area The proposed landscaped area of 48% complies with the 45% minimum (for dual occupancy) permissible landscaped area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. 10.7 Subdivision Lot Size There would be no change to the allotment size. The proposal is for strata subdivision of the existing allotment. 10.8 Floor Space Ratio The proposal has a FSR of 0.42:1, which complies with the 0.5:1 requirements of the LEP 2012. 10.9 Street Frontage Not Applicable. 10.10 Dual Occupancy The proposal having a site area of 1123.63sqm would comply with the minimum 700sqm area requirement in which two (2) new attached dwelling-houses can be erected, under Part 4.1A of LEP No.2012. The proposal indicates two (2) attached dwellings, one being new and the other existing. 10.11 Foreshore Building Lines Not Applicable. 10.12 River Front Area Not Applicable. 10.13 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards Not Applicable. 11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS (DCPs) 12.1 Compliance Table Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)



Height

Ridge Front Dwelling Rear Dwelling

External Walls Front Dwelling Rear Dwelling





Yes Yes

Yes Yes


Item 2.1 Page 16



Storeys Front Dwelling Rear Dwelling

2 storeys 2 storeys

2 storeys 2 storeys

Yes Yes

Landscaped Area 48% 45% Yes

Floor Space Ratio 0.42:1 0.5:1 Yes

Planning Policy –All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Part 2 and 3 of Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. Heritage Conservation Areas The proposal complies comply with the relevant objectives under Part 2 of Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. Riverfront Area Not applicable. Visually Prominent Sites Not applicable. Height Refer to section 10.5 of this report “Height of Buildings”. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies. First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. Landscaped Area Refer to section 9.6 of this report “Landscaped Area”. Solar Access The shadow diagrams indicate that at 9:00 am mid winter, the shadows are cast to the south-west of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.8 and 8A Avenue Road. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the site.

The shadow diagrams indicate that at 12 noon mid winter the shadows are cast to the south of

the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.64-66 Gladesville Road, 8 and 8A Avenue Road. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the site.


Item 2.1 Page 17

The shadow diagrams indicate that at 3:00pm mid winter there would be shadows cast south-east of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.64-66 Gladesville Road, No.4 Avenue Road and No.18 Joubert Street. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the site. The proposal would comply with the general requirements, being that new development must not eliminate more than one third of the existing sunlight to adjacent properties at ground level, measured at 9:00 am, 12 noon and 3:00 pm of the winter solstice. The proposal would comply with the general requirements and objectives stipulated under Part 3.5.2 of the Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013, as the proposal would allow for reasonable access to sunlight to adjoining buildings and their recreational open space. Privacy In an urban residential area, it is considered that there is sufficient distance separation from the proposed first floor elevations of the dwellings to the adjoining properties. Also, the proposed first floors of both dwellings contain low trafficable areas used mainly for bedrooms, with limited number of window openings. It is considered that the proposed development is not likely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. Views It is considered that the height of dwelling No.1 and 2 roofs would not have significant impact on any views to the Lane Cove River from the adjoining properties. When considering the principles set out by the Land & Environment Court in the ‘Tenacity’ case, the expectation to retain side or distant views are often unrealistic. It is considered that the shared view loss will not be ‘severe’ or ‘devastating’. Car Parking The proposal would provide two car parking spaces for each unit dwelling, in total four (4) car parking spaces. The proposal complies with Part 5.3.3 of the DCP 2013, as four (4) car parking spaces have been provided for a gross floor area in excess of 125sqm. Garages and Carports The proposal would construct a double garage for each dwelling. The location and design of the proposed garages are considered to be acceptable and due to the siting of the garages on the allotment they would not impact on the streetscape. Fences The proposal would retain the existing retaining fence and repair it. Also, proposed is a metal fence proposed on top of the retaining wall. However, no detail has been submitted in regards to dimensions, elevations, and finish of this fence. A condition will form part of the Schedule No.1 of the deferred commencement that the applicant submit dimensions, elevations, and finishes for the proposed front fence. Also, indicating that the front fence has a maximum height of 1.2 metres from adjacent ground level.


Item 2.1 Page 18

12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies

Hunter’s Hill Council S94A Developer Contributions Plan 2011

13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT Subject to conditioning, the proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or Avenue Road Streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 and LEP 2012. Subject to conditioning, there would be no impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 for a period of fourteen (14) days commencing on the 11 December 2017. Within the specified time period five (5) submissions were received. An additional submission was received on 19 October 2018, from Mr William Fleming, Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners, on behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford being the owners of 8 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report. On 5 February 2018, Council received amended plans and information as follows:

First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary.

The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary.

Schedule of colours and materials with actual swatches. Light colours have been removed from the plans and replaced with dark, recessive tones.

Windows acting as a swimming pool barrier have been updated to meeting the Australian Standards 1926.1-2012 and the plans are consistent with this notation.

All vegetation around the swimming pool complies with AS1926.1-201. There is a clear 900mm non-climbable zone around the pool

On 8 May 2018, Council received an amended Arborist report and landscape plan, responding to Council’s Landscape Advisor’s letter dated 12 March 2018. These plans were not required to be re-notified, as the changes result in a lesser impact.

NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES

NUMBER NOTIFIED 100

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of John and Virginia

Building height – rear dwelling should be single storey and a maximum height of 3.6m

Setbacks – side setback of 1.24m to the eastern boundary of the front dwelling is non-compliant


Item 2.1 Page 19

Krom Owners of 4 Avenue Road Hunters Hill

Visual privacy – potential overlooking into primary habitable space and private open space balcony. The setbacks proposed are unreasonable and may result in potential visual and acoustic privacy

Acoustic Privacy – the proposed two pools would increase noise

Tree Preservation – proposed development requires the removal of several trees which are identified in the Arborist report, 10 out of 17 mature trees have been designated for removal by the developers and arborist. This is excluding the already illegally removed Lilly Pilly

Overshadowing

Andy Kastanias 10 Avenue Road Hunters Hill

Construction of two separate and independent dwellings should comply with the standards under DCP 2013

Privacy Impacts – from the balcony and windows on the first floor

Dwelling No.2 exceeds the height requirements of 3.6m for second dwelling built in the backyard of the existing property

Ensuring all vegetation comply with Hunters Hill requirements

All external buildings and structures such as cabanas and pool filters need reviewing to ensure compliance with building size and noise pollution levels

Added traffic to Avenue Road

Dr Barbara Hungerford & Vicki McKinnon 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford Owners of 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill


A formal request for an extension to the 6th February 2018, and that this will be acknowledged and confirmed in writing




Acoustic Privacy – dwelling No.2’s primary open space area is located directly adjacent to my client’s dwelling where 2 bedrooms are located, including master bedroom. Cabana will be used in tandem with the pool which is significant generator of noise. Pool pump and filter have not


Item 2.1 Page 20

been noted on the plans. Also the single driveway running adjacent to the side boundary leading to two double garages would increase the noise impact made by the cars entering and exiting and the noise generated by the garage doors.


JS & RA Stevens 203/64 Gladesville Road Hunters Hill

Bulk and scale

Over development of the site by replacing a single residential development with two residence both with swimming pools so close to boundaries raises serious concern of damage to mature jacaranda and liquid amber street from deep excavation and construction

The main issues of concern outlining the objections are discussed below: William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of John and Virginia Krom Owners of 4 Avenue Road Hunters Hill

Building height – rear dwelling should be single storey and a maximum height of 3.6m

Comment: This requirement is only applicable to detached dwellings. In this case, the proposal is for an attached dual occupancy, in which both dwellings are connected through common walls, and the height limit is 2 storeys and 8.5 metres, complying with the maximum of 8.5 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Setbacks – side setback of 1.24m to the eastern boundary of the front dwelling is non-compliant

Comment: The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies. First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013.


Item 2.1 Page 21

These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Visual privacy – potential overlooking into primary habitable space and private open space balcony. The setbacks proposed are unreasonable and may result in potential visual and acoustic privacy

Comment: In an urban residential area, it is considered that there is sufficient distance separation from the proposed first floor elevations of the dwellings to the adjoining properties Also, the proposed first floors of both dwellings contain low trafficable areas used mainly for bedrooms, with limited number of window openings. It is considered that the proposed development is not likely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Acoustic Privacy – the proposed two pools would increase noise Comment: The proposed pools would be used for domestic residential use and are unlikely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. A standard condition has been imposed to ensure that the pool pump is setback from adjoining properties and is sound insulated. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Tree Preservation – proposed development requires the removal of several trees which are identified in the Arborist report, 10 out of 17 mature trees have been designated for removal by the developers and arborist. This is excluding the already illegally removed Lilly Pilly

Comment: The application was referred to Council’s Tree Consultants who provided the following comments: Further to the Review of Determination dated 5 March 2018 the following additional information has been received and reviewed:


(prepared by McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 4 May 2018, not date stamped)

The following additional documentation and/or plans were reviewed as part of the Review of Determination: Architectural Plans

(prepared by Raymond Panetta Architects, dwg no DA01-39 Rev N, dated 10.10.2017, date stamped 29.11.2017)



Item 2.1 Page 22




Tree Management Tree removals were undertaken without Council consent on the subject site during April 2016. Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly) and Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) are plotted on Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 - 02, dated 05/12/2016, date stamped 14 June 2017). Tree 3 is noted as a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 3 and Tree 4 were removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. Tree 3 was removed without Council consent. The Transplant Feasibility Assessment Statement 2018 (Report) has addressed the feasibility of transplanting Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle). The Report concludes that with correct pruning, staking and a rigorous irrigation and maintenance program, moving with an experienced crane operator and under the supervision of an AQF Level 5 Arborist, Tree 6 is suitable for transplanting. The health of Tree 6 should be reassessed by an AQF Level 5 Arborist 12 months after the date of transplanting. The AQF Level 5 Arborist must provide a statement outlining that Tree 6 has successfully re-established. The statement must be submitted to the certifying authority for approval. If Tree 6 has not fully re-established within this period a super-advanced sized replacement tree must be supplied and planted. Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying authority upon completion of the works. The Arboricultural Assessment and Development Impact Report (Report 1) has addressed the impact of the proposed works on a number of trees located onsite and/or neighbouring sites. The trees are discussed in detail below: Tree 1 Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) is a Council-managed street tree located in front of the subject site. Tree 1 has a calculated Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 2.4m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 4.8m. The proposed works are outside of the TPZ. Standard tree protection measures implemented in accordance with AS4970-2009 apply.

Tree 2 Eucalyptus racemosa (Snappy Gum) is located along the western side boundary. Tree 2 is a large, mature specimen with high landscape significance. The Report has calculated a Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 3.7m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 15m.

The results of the Arboricultural Picus Sonic Tomograph Test (Report 2) show that Tree 2 contained 92% sound wood and 8% of wood under first stages of decay. The decay is primarily located within the central pith area and is increasing at a slow rate. Based on the assessment, Tree 2 is considered viable for retention. Retesting of the decay should be conducted within a five (5) year period.


Item 2.1 Page 23

New works within the TPZ of 15m of Tree 2 include additional driveway access, new foundations along the existing building footprint and second storey elevation. New works proposed within the SRZ of 3.7m include a driveway turning circle, part driveway addition and excavations for dwelling foundation works. The Report 1 outlines that several hard surfaces exist within the SRZ and TPZ and the new works have a calculated incursion of <15%. The Report 1 outlines site specific tree protection measures relating to Tree 2. The driveway addition is to be constructed above existing grade and of a porous material. Demolition and excavation for the dwelling will be within the existing footprint. No over excavation must occur. Any removal of vegetation, including grass, to facilitate construction of the driveway turning circle should be undertaken by hand. The turning circle should be constructed from a permeable material and on a permeable subbase. The Report 1 outlines canopy reduction pruning to accommodate the upper floor level. The specified pruning is considered acceptable. Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is plotted on the Landscape Plan. Tree 4 is shown for removal. Tree 4 was removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. An additional tree, Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly), was also removed in April 2016 without Council consent. Tree 3 was a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 5 Macadamia integrifolia (Macadamia) is located along the rear western side boundary. Tree 5 has a calculated SRZ of 2m and a TPZ of 3m. The Report has calculated a minor incursion from the secondary dwelling footprint within the TPZ (the % incursion has not been provided). The works are setback outside of the SRZ. Tree protection measures have been outlined in the Report 1. Tree 7 Morus rubra (Mulberry Tree) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 7 has damage at the base with an open spilt increasing upwards on the lower trunk. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 7 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 7 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) is located in the rear of the site (adjacent to Tree 7). Tree 8 is an 8m specimen with a 10m canopy spread. Tree 8 is considered to have high landscape significance. The Report provides a SRZ of 2.5m and TPZ of 5.4m. The Report outlines a minor <10% incursion occurs by the location of the swimming pool with associated infrastructure such as pool fencing and Cabana within the SRZ. The Report provides tree sensitive construction methods including Tree Protection Fencing, excavation to accommodate the pool is to be limited to 0.3m (300mm) beyond the line of the proposed pool footprint to ensure no SRZ encroachment occurs. Pool hydraulics are to be limited to the eastern side to minimize additional excavation within the TPZ, the Cabana is recommended to be suspended above ground level, supported on isolated pier footings, and be cantilevered towards the tree spanning over the SRZ. Where excavation for post / pier foundations are required for the Cabana & pool fencing within the SRZ the project arborist is to certify that no significant roots >30mm(Ø) have been damaged.


Item 2.1 Page 24

Canopy impacts have been reduced by the location of Dwelling 2 being setback by undertaking site survey and canopy impact assessments to achieve suitable building line clearances. The Report outlines minor reduction pruning will be required to reduce canopy conflicts with the proposed roof line. The line of the building footprint has been surveyed and marked on ground and based on site assessment with use of height poles the main structural extending limb is retainable. Tree 9 Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 9 is a structurally damaged tree with decay sections at two sides near ground level. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 9 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 9 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 10 Ligustrum lucidum (Large-Leafed Privet) along the rear boundary, Tree 13 and Tree 14 Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cocos Palm) in the rear south-eastern corner and Tree 12 Celtis spp. (Hackberry) in the eastern side boundary. The species proposed for removal are listed on Council’s Exempt Species List (DCP 2013). Consent from Council for removal is not required. Tree 11 and Tree 15 Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) are located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 11 and Tree 15 have been heavily pruned in the past. Tree 11 is multi-stemmed at the base with the central leader with decline and damage. Tree 15 has one side canopy biomass.

The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the swimming pool to Tree 11 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 11 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The pool pavers are to be placed on top of ground level without grading. All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist.

The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the building footprint with part incursion within the 2m SRZ to Tree 15 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 15 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The Report recommends minor canopy pruning to provide building clearance (no greater than 10% of the live canopy with stems no greater than 40mm diameter). All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist.

Tree 16 Camellia sasanqua (Camellia) is located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 16 is an 8m specimen. Tree 16 has been heavily pruned in the past with one sided canopy biomass. The Report has allocated a Short ULE. The SRZ of Tree 16 is located within the building footprint with additional major canopy impacts resulting from the proposed building elevation. With consideration to the small size and reduced ULE removal and replacement of Tree 16 is considered acceptable.

Landscape Management The Landscape Plan appears to show Tree 8 for removal (a dashed black outline). The Landscape Plan should be amended to show Tree 8 for retention.


Item 2.1 Page 25


includes new requirements for non-climbable zones. Trees and shrubs, existing or proposed, must not be within the 900mm ‘non-climbable zone’ (NCZ). The (NCZ) is a zone measured in an arc shape. Where the NCZ is measured from depends on if the barrier is a 1200mm pool fence, or an 1800mm boundary barrier. All existing and proposed plantings must ensure compliance with AS 1926. 1-2012 Part 1. Recommendations Council’s Tree and Landscape Consultant has determined that the development proposal is satisfactory in terms of tree preservation and landscaping, subject to compliance with Conditions of Consent (Deferred Commencement). Conditions

The following Conditions of Consent apply: Schedule 1 Landscape Plan The Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 G, dated 12.10.2017, date stamped 29 Nov 2017) shall be amended as follows: Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) for retention.







These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.


Item 2.1 Page 26

Overshadowing Comment: The shadow diagrams indicate that at 9:00 am mid winter, the shadows are cast to the south-west of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.8 and 8A Avenue Road. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the site.

The shadow diagrams indicate that at 12 noon mid winter the shadows are cast to the south of the

subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.64-66 Gladesville Road, 8 and 8A Avenue Road. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the site. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 3:00 pm mid winter there would be shadows cast south-east of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.64-66 Gladesville Road, No.4 Avenue Road and 18 Joubert Street. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the recreational open space of the site. The proposal would comply with the general requirements, being that new development must not eliminate more than one third of the existing sunlight to adjacent properties at ground level, measured at 9:00 am, 12 noon and 3:00 pm of the winter solstice. The proposal would comply with the general requirements and objectives stipulated under Part 3.5.2 of the Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013, as the proposal would allow for reasonable access to sunlight to adjoining buildings and their recreational open space. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Andy Kastanias 10 Avenue Road Hunters Hill

Construction of two separate and independent dwellings should comply with the standards under DCP 2013

Comment: This proposal is not for detached dwellings. This proposal is for an attached dual occupancy, in which both dwellings are connected through common walls. The proposal having a site area of 1123.63sqm would comply with the 700sqm area requirement in which two (2) new attached dwelling-houses can be erected, under Part 4.1A of LEP No.2012.

Privacy Impacts – from the balcony and windows on the first floor

Comment: The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies. First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. In an urban residential area, it is considered that there is sufficient distance separation from the proposed first floor elevations of the dwellings to the adjoining properties Also, the proposed first floors of both dwellings contain low trafficable areas used mainly for bedrooms, with limited number of window openings.


Item 2.1 Page 27

It is considered that the proposed development is not likely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises.

Dwelling No.2 exceeds the height requirements of 3.6m for second dwelling built in the backyard of the existing property

Comment: Comment: This requirement is only applicable to detached dwellings. In this case, the proposal is for an attached dual occupancy, in which both dwellings are connected through common walls, and the height limit is 2 storeys and 8.5 metres, complying with the maximum of 8.5 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Ensuring all vegetation comply with Hunters Hill requirements

Comment: Refer to Part 7.5 - Parks & Landscape of this report.

All external buildings and structures such as cabanas and pool filters need reviewing to ensure compliance with building size and noise pollution levels

Comment: The proposed pools would be used for domestic residential use and are unlikely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. All external structures are single storey, non-habitable, low traffic, ancillary and used for domestic residential use. A standard condition has been imposed to ensure that the pool pump is setback from adjoining properties and is sound insulated. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Added traffic to Avenue Road Comment: The proposal would increase the occupancy of the existing site from one to two occupancies. It is considered that an additional occupancy would not significantly impact on the overall traffic volume of Avenue Road. It should be note that the area is an urban residential area. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. Dr Barbara Hungerford & Vicki McKinnon 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill


Comment: Development Application No.2016/1147 s82A Review lapsed, hence that application was not determined by Council.

A formal request for an extension to the 6th February 2018, and that this will be acknowledged and confirmed in writing

Comment: On 2 February 2018, Council sent a letter advising that Council extends the exhibition notification period and grants you an extension until the 20 February 2018.


Item 2.1 Page 28

William Fleming Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners On behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford Owners of 8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill An additional submission was received on 19 October 2018, from Mr William Fleming, Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners, on behalf of Vicki Mckinnon and Dr Barbara Hungerford being the owners of 8 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill.


Comment: This requirement is only applicable to detached dwellings. In this case, the proposal is for an attached dual occupancy, in which both dwellings are connected through common walls, and the height limit is 2 storeys and 8.5 metres, complying with the maximum of 8.5 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.


Comment: The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies. First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.


Comment: The proposed front balconies of dwelling No.1 are sufficiently setback and offset, with more of an active view towards the front of the site. The western elevation of dwelling No.2 indicates only two (2) windows, one is from the void area along the stairwell, which is a low trafficable area, and the other window from bedroom No.1, which is also considered a low trafficable area. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.


Item 2.1 Page 29

Acoustic Privacy – dwelling No.2’s primary open space area is located directly adjacent to my client’s dwelling where two (2) bedrooms are located, including master bedroom. Cabana will be used in tandem with the pool which is significant generator of noise. Pool pump and filter have not been noted on the plans. Also the single driveway running adjacent to the side boundary leading to two double garages would increase the noise impact made by the cars entering and exiting and the noise generated by the garage doors.

Comment: The proposed pools and cabana are low trafficable areas, only used during the warmer periods of the year, the cabana is not a habitable space and would have a satisfactory setback of 2 metres from the western boundary, and would be used for domestic residential use, and thus unlikely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. A standard condition has been imposed to ensure that the pool pump is setback from adjoining properties and is sound insulated. The proposed driveway and garages would have a reasonable setback from the western side boundary, they would be low trafficable areas, with the garages being non-habitable, and would be used for domestic residential use. The proposed garages are unlikely to unreasonably reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.


Comment: T2 Snappy Gum is to be retained and Council’s Landscape Advisor has imposed Condition PCW9 for the applicant to provide a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for this tree. The application was referred to Council’s Tree Consultants who provided the following comments:

Further to the Review of Determination dated 5 March 2018 the following additional

information has been received and reviewed:


(prepared by McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 4 May 2018, not

date stamped).

The following additional documentation and/or plans were reviewed as part

of the Review of Determination:

Architectural Plans (prepared by Raymond Panetta Architects, dwg no DA01-39 Rev N, dated 10.10.2017, date stamped 29.11.2017)



Item 2.1 Page 30




Tree Management

Tree removals were undertaken without Council consent on the subject site during April 2016. Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly) and Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) are plotted on Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 - 02, dated 05/12/2016, date stamped 14 June 2017). Tree 3 is noted as a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 3 and Tree 4 were removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. Tree 3 was removed without Council consent. The Transplant Feasibility Assessment Statement 2018 (Report) has addressed the feasibility of transplanting Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle). The Report concludes that with correct pruning, staking and a rigorous irrigation and maintenance program, moving with an experienced crane operator and under the supervision of an AQF Level 5 Arborist, Tree 6 is suitable for transplanting. The health of Tree 6 should be reassessed by an AQF Level 5 Arborist 12 months after the date of transplanting. The AQF Level 5 Arborist must provide a statement outlining that Tree 6 has successfully re-established. The statement must be submitted to the certifying authority for approval. If Tree 6 has not fully re-established within this period a super-advanced sized replacement tree must be supplied and planted. Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying authority upon completion of the works.

The Arboricultural Assessment and Development Impact Report (Report 1) has addressed the impact of the proposed works on a number of trees located onsite and/or neighbouring sites. The trees are discussed in detail below: Tree 1 Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) is a Council-managed street tree located in front of the subject site. Tree 1 has a calculated Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 2.4m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 4.8m. The proposed works are outside of the TPZ. Standard tree protection measures implemented in accordance with AS4970-2009 apply. Tree 2 Eucalyptus racemosa (Snappy Gum) is located along the western side boundary. Tree 2 is a large, mature specimen with high landscape significance. The Report has calculated a Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 3.7m and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 15m.


Item 2.1 Page 31

The results of the Arboricultural Picus Sonic Tomograph Test (Report 2) show that Tree 2 contained 92% sound wood and 8% of wood under first stages of decay. The decay is primarily located within the central pith area and is increasing at a slow rate. Based on the assessment, Tree 2 is considered viable for retention. Retesting of the decay should be conducted within a five (5) year period. New works within the TPZ of 15m of Tree 2 include additional driveway access, new foundations along the existing building footprint and second storey elevation. New works proposed within the SRZ of 3.7m include a driveway turning circle, part driveway addition and excavations for dwelling foundation works. The Report 1 outlines that several hard surfaces exist within the SRZ and TPZ and the new works have a calculated incursion of <15%. The Report 1 outlines site specific tree protection measures relating to Tree 2. The driveway addition is to be constructed above existing grade and of a porous material. Demolition and excavation for the dwelling will be within the existing footprint. No over excavation must occur. Any removal of vegetation, including grass, to facilitate construction of the driveway turning circle should be undertaken by hand. The turning circle should be constructed from a permeable material and on a permeable subbase. The Report 1 outlines canopy reduction pruning to accommodate the upper floor level. The specified pruning is considered acceptable. Tree 4 Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is plotted on the Landscape Plan. Tree 4 is shown for removal. Tree 4 was removed in April 2016. It should be noted that Olea europaea susp cuspidate (African Olive) is listed on Council’s Exempt Species List. Consent from Council for removal of this species is not required. An additional tree, Tree 3 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pilly), was also removed in April 2016 without Council consent. Tree 3 was a 14m specimen with a 14m spread. Tree 5 Macadamia integrifolia (Macadamia) is located along the rear western side boundary. Tree 5 has a calculated SRZ of 2m and a TPZ of 3m. The Report has calculated a minor incursion from the secondary dwelling footprint within the TPZ (the % incursion has not been provided). The works are setback outside of the SRZ. Tree protection measures have been outlined in the Report 1. Tree 7 Morus rubra (Mulberry Tree) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 7 has damage at the base with an open spilt increasing upwards on the lower trunk. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 7 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 7 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) is located in the rear of the site (adjacent to Tree 7). Tree 8 is an 8m specimen with a 10m canopy spread. Tree 8 is considered to have high landscape significance. The Report provides a SRZ of 2.5m and TPZ of 5.4m. The Report outlines a minor <10% incursion occurs by the location of the swimming pool with associated infrastructure such as pool fencing and Cabana within the SRZ. The Report provides tree sensitive construction methods including Tree Protection Fencing, excavation to accommodate the pool is to be limited to 0.3m (300mm) beyond the line of the proposed pool footprint to ensure no SRZ encroachment occurs. Pool hydraulics are to be limited to the eastern side to minimize additional excavation within the TPZ, the Cabana is recommended to be suspended above ground level, supported on isolated pier footings, and be cantilevered towards the tree spanning over the SRZ. Where excavation for post / pier foundations are required for the Cabana & pool fencing within the SRZ the project arborist is to certify that no significant roots >30mm(Ø) have been damaged.


Item 2.1 Page 32

Canopy impacts have been reduced by the location of Dwelling 2 being setback by undertaking site survey and canopy impact assessments to achieve suitable building line clearances. The Report outlines minor reduction pruning will be required to reduce canopy conflicts with the proposed roof line. The line of the building footprint has been surveyed and marked on ground and based on site assessment with use of height poles the main structural extending limb is retainable. Tree 9 Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) is located in the rear of the site. The Report 3 outlines that Tree 9 is a structurally damaged tree with decay sections at two sides near ground level. The Report 3 has allocated Tree 9 a Very Short ULE (Useful Life Expectancy) – trees which should be scheduled for removal within the very short term. Removal and replacement of Tree 9 with advanced-sized stock is considered acceptable. Tree 10 Ligustrum lucidum (Large-Leafed Privet) along the rear boundary, Tree 13 and Tree 14 Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cocos Palm) in the rear south-eastern corner and Tree 12 Celtis spp. (Hackberry) in the eastern side boundary. The species proposed for removal are listed on Council’s Exempt Species List (DCP 2013). Consent from Council for removal is not required. Tree 11 and Tree 15 Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) are located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 11 and Tree 15 have been heavily pruned in the past. Tree 11 is multi-stemmed at the base with the central leader with decline and damage. Tree 15 has one side canopy biomass. The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the swimming pool to Tree 11 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 11 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The pool pavers are to be placed on top of ground level without grading. All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist. The Report outlines there will be a Minor incursion from the building footprint with part incursion within the 2m SRZ to Tree 15 (the % incursion is not provided). The Report outlines that with consideration to the species resilience Tree 15 is unlikely to be significantly affected by the works. The Report recommends minor canopy pruning to provide building clearance (no greater than 10% of the live canopy with stems no greater than 40mm diameter). All works within the TPZ/ SRZ are to be supervised by the AQF Level 5 Arborist. Tree 16 Camellia sasanqua (Camellia) is located in the rear of the site along the eastern side boundary. Tree 16 is an 8m specimen. Tree 16 has been heavily pruned in the past with one sided canopy biomass. The Report has allocated a Short ULE. The SRZ of Tree 16 is located within the building footprint with additional major canopy impacts resulting from the proposed building elevation. With consideration to the small size and reduced ULE removal and replacement of Tree 16 is considered acceptable. Landscape Management The Landscape Plan appears to show Tree 8 for removal (a dashed black outline). The Landscape Plan should be amended to show Tree 8 for retention.


Item 2.1 Page 33


includes new requirements for non-climbable zones. Trees and shrubs, existing or proposed, must not be within the 900mm ‘non-climbable zone’ (NCZ). The (NCZ) is a zone measured in an arc shape. Where the NCZ is measured from depends on if the barrier is a 1200mm pool fence, or an 1800mm boundary barrier. All existing and proposed plantings must ensure compliance with AS 1926. 1-2012 Part 1. Recommendations Council’s Tree and Landscape Consultant has determined that the development proposal is satisfactory in terms of tree preservation and landscaping, subject to compliance with Conditions of Consent (Deferred Commencement). Conditions The following Conditions of Consent apply: Schedule 1 Landscape Plan The Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 G, dated 12.10.2017, date stamped 29 Nov 2017) shall be amended as follows: Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) for retention.







Schedule 2

GEN21 Tree planting in accordance with Australian Standard 2303-2015 “Tree Stock for Landscape Use”



Item 2.1 Page 34








(Crepe Myrtle)

Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) 3.6

PCW14 Arboricultural Report CON47 Compliance with AS1926.1-2012 Part 1 CON50 Tree Removal

Tree No Location




Tree 13 and Tree 14 Syagrus romanzoffiana

(Cocos Palm) Rear south-eastern corner



CON51 Planting undertaken at the completion of construction CON52 Planting to be in accordance with Tree Management Control CON53 Establishment of landscape for 2 years CON54 Section 96 require for amended landscape CON55 Trees to be retained under Tree Management Control

CON56 Stump Grinding CON57 Tree Condition CON58 TPZ CON59 Tree Planting CON60 Adjacent Trees CON61 Practising Arborist CON62 Tree Transplantation

Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle).


Item 2.1 Page 35

Prepared by McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 4 May 2018, not date stamped

POC10 Compliance with Arboricultural Report

Prepared by Rain Tree Consulting, dated 18.10.2017, not date stamped)

POC75 Landscaping prior to Final Occupation Certificate

The following Special Conditions apply;


(f) The health of Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) should be reassessed by an AQF Level 5 Arborist 12 months after the date of transplanting. The AQF Level 5 Arborist shall provide a statement outlining that Tree 6 has successfully re-established. The statement must be submitted to the certifying authority for approval.

(g) If Tree 6 has not successfully re-established within this period an advanced-sized replacement tree of the same species shall be supplied and planted.

(h) The replacement tree shall be a minimum container size of 400 Litres.

(i) The replacement tree shall be planted using healthy and vigorous stock grown in accordance with Australian Standard 2302 (2015) Tree Stock for Landscape Use.

(j) Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying authority upon completion of the works.

A condition will form part of the Schedule No.1 of the Deferred Commencement to reflect the above comments. JS & RA Stevens 203/64 Gladesville Road Hunters Hill

Bulk and scale

The height of the proposal, being 8.5 metres for the front dwelling and 7.7 metres for the rear dwelling in height comply with the maximum of 8.5 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012.

The proposed landscaped area of 48% complies with the 45% minimum (for dual occupancy) permissible landscaped area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal has a FSR of 0.42:1, which complies with the 0.5:1 requirements of the LEP 2012.


Item 2.1 Page 36

The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies with the 1.5 metres requirement of DCP 2013. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained.

Over development of the site by replacing a single residential development with two residence both with swimming pools so close to boundaries raises serious concern of damage to mature jacaranda and liquid amber street from deep excavation and construction

Comment: Refer to Part 7.5 - Parks & Landscape of this report.

The height of the proposal, being 8.5 metres for the front dwelling and 7.7 metres for rear dwelling in height comply with the maximum of 8.5 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012.

The proposed landscaped area of 48% complies with the 45% minimum (for dual occupancy) permissible landscaped area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal having a site area of 1123.63sqm would comply with the 700sqm area requirement in which two (2) new attached dwelling-houses can be erected, under Part 4.1A of LEP No.2012. The proposal indicates two (2) attached dwellings, one being new and the other existing. The proposal has a FSR of 0.42:1, which complies with the 0.5:1 requirements of the LEP 2012.

The side setback along the eastern boundary of the existing ground floor of the front dwelling is 1240mm, which does not alter as this wall is being kept. The proposed first floor along this boundary would have a setback of 2200mm, which complies. First floor balcony on the northern side towards the east has been setback 1.5 metres from the boundary. The cabana has been setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary. The proposal complies with the building setback requirements under Part 3.3.3 of DCP 2013. These concerns are not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Hence, the objections cannot be sustained. CONCLUSION The proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 and Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, the application is considered acceptable. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under S4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, and Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the adjoining residential properties and accordingly is recommended for deferred commencement approval.


Item 2.1 Page 37

FINANCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct environmental impact on Council arising from Council consideration of this matter. SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT There is no direct social impact on Council arising from Council consideration of this matter. RISK ASSESSMENT There are no direct or indirect risks impacting on Council arising from consideration of this matter. HUNTERS HILL 2028 This matter relates to ensuring that heritage and conservation of the area is respected, preserved and enhanced including the preservation of the character, views to and from the Municipality, and the preservation of the tree canopy.

RECOMMENDATION

A. That a “Deferred Commencement” consent be granted to pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contacted in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council.

Schedule No. 1 1. That the following plans be provided with the following information:

A stormwater management concept plan.

A driveway plan and cross section plan. 2. The Landscape Plan (prepared by Space Landscape Design, dwg no L-01 G, dated

12.10.2017, date stamped 29 Nov 2017) shall be amended as follows: Tree 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) for retention.







3. Amended plans are to be submitted with dimensions, elevations, and finishes for the proposed front fence. Also, indicating that the front fence has a maximum height of 1.2 metres from adjacent ground level.


Item 2.1 Page 38

Schedule No. 2 That Development Application No. 2017/1184 for the demolition of the existing dwelling, garage, pool and any ancillary structures and tree, construction of a new attached dual occupancy, new swimming pools and cabanas and strata subdivision at No.6 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill be approved, subject to the following conditions. PCW9 TPZ required for trees








(Crepe Myrtle) Lagerstromia indica (Crepe Myrtle) 3.6

CON50 Tree Removal

Tree No Location




Tree 13 and Tree 14 Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cocos

Palm) Rear south-eastern corner



CON62 Tree Transplantation

Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle). Prepared by McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 4 May 2018, not date stamped

POC10 Compliance with Arboricultural Report Prepared by Rain Tree Consulting, dated 18.10.2017, not date stamped)


(a) The health of Tree 6 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) should be reassessed by an AQF Level 5 Arborist 12 months after the date of transplanting. The AQF Level 5 Arborist shall provide a statement outlining that Tree 6 has successfully re-established. The statement must be submitted to the certifying authority for approval.


Item 2.1 Page 39

(b) If Tree 6 has not successfully re-established within this period an advanced-sized replacement tree of the same species shall be supplied and planted.

(c) The replacement tree shall be a minimum container size of 400 Litres. (d) The replacement tree shall be planted using healthy and vigorous stock

grown in accordance with Australian Standard 2302 (2015) Tree Stock for Landscape Use.

(e) Evidence of replanting must be provided to the certifying authority upon

completion of the works. Standard Conditions


Site Plan, DA02, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

Ground Floor Plan, DA07, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

First Floor Plan, DA08, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

Roof Plan, DA09, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

South & North Elevations, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

East & West Elevations, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

Building 1 – Pool & Cabana, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

Building 2 – Pool & Cabana, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

Landscape Plan, revision I Raymond Panetta

Architect 24.01.18 14.11.2018

Schedules of Colours, DA39, issue Q Raymond Panetta

Architect 18.01.18 14.11.2018

GEN0 GEN1 GEN3 GEN5 GEN6 GEN7 GEN8 GEN20 GEN21 PCC0 PCC1($5,645) PCC2($3,000) PCC3($2,600) PCC4($2,750) PCC5($16,128) PCC11 PCC12 PCC13 PCC16 PCC17 PCC18 PCC20 PCC21 PCC40 PCC41 PCC47 PCW0 PCW1 PCW2 PCW3 PCW4 PCW5 PCW14 CSI0 CSI1 CSI2 CSI3 CSI7 DEM0 DEM1 DEM3 DEM4 DEM5 DEM6 DEM7 DEM8 DEM9 DEM10 DEM11 DEM15 CON0 CON1 CON2 CON3 CON5 CON7 CON9 CON10 CON11 CON13 CON18 CON19 CON20 CON21 CON23 CON28 CON41 CON42 CON43 CON44 CON45 CON47 CON51 CON52 CON53 CON54 CON55 CON56 CON57 CON58 CON59 CON60 CON61 POC0 POC1 POC3 POC4 POC8 POC13 POC14 POC20 POC24 POC25 POC75

ATTACHMENTS

1. Plans 2. Location Map 3. Submission


Item 2.1 Attachment 1 Page 40















































Date post:	24-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Development Control Unit No. 016...CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 28 November 2018 Minutes of the...

Documents