ORDINARY MEETING No. 4110 · 2020. 12. 23. · MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING NO. 4110 – 24th...

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING No. 4110

24th September, 2001 at 7.30pm

ORDER OF BUSINESS PRAYER ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES, DECLARATIONS A. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES CIVIC CEREMONIES B. MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS TABLING OF PETITIONS ADDRESSES FROM THE PUBLIC C. NOTICE OF MOTION (INCLUDING RESCISSION

MOTIONS) REPORTS FROM STAFF D. DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT E. PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE F. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION G. CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES H. GENERAL MANAGER J. COMMITTEE REPORTS K. CORRESPONDENCE L. DELEGATES REPORTS M GENERAL BUSINESS N. QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE Z. COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

HUNTER’S HILL COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

4110 – 24th September, 2001

INDEX A – MINUTES

1. Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No. 4108 held on 10th September, 2001 ......1

B – MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS

1. Ryde - Hunters Hill Community Transport Association Inc. .......................1

C – NOTICE OF MOTION

1. Rescission Motion – 69 Woolwich Road, Woolwich. .................................1

D – DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

1. 69 Woolwich Road, Woolwich ...................................................................1 2. 3 Bayview Crescent, Hunters Hill ............................................................12 3. 25B Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill ...........................................................20 4. 27 Moorefield Avenue, Hunters Hill .........................................................32 5. 12A Ferdinand Street , Hunters Hill ..........................................................41 6. 6 Ramleh Street, Hunters Hill ..................................................................47 7. 22 Figtree Road, Hunters Hill ..................................................................51 8. 161 Victoria Road, Gladesville .................................................................59 9. Delegated Authority .................................................................................72

E – PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE

1. Tree Preservation Order – Approvals ........................................................1 2. State Transit – Response to Request for Retention of Route 536 Bus

Service .....................................................................................................3

G – CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES

1. Active Mind, Active Body Open Day ..........................................................1

H – GENERAL MANAGER

1. Committees of Council ..............................................................................1 2. Lease – Henley Bowling & Recreation Club ............................................10 3. 69 Woolwich Road, Hunters Hill ...............................................................11

-2-

J – COMMITTEES

1. Minutes of Hunters Hill Senior Support Group Meeting held 13th August, 2001................................................................................1

2. Minutes of 176th Meeting of Parks & Trees Advisory Committee held 18th September, 2001 .........................................................................4 3. Minutes of 86th Meeting of Public Transport and Traffic Advisory

Committee held 18th September, 2001 .......................................................7 4. Minutes of Occupational Health and Safety Committee Meeting

held 6th September, 2001 .........................................................................10

K – CORRESPONDENCE

1. Items 1-7 of Correspondence ....................................................................1

M – GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Meetings – Various Committees of Council ...............................................1

Z – COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

1. Renewal of Contract – General Manager – delivered under separate cover ...............................................................1

2. 19 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill - attached................................................3

A

Minutes

A – Minutes

4111– 8th October, 2001

Index 1. Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No. 4110 held on 24th September, 2001 1

.................................... Councillor Bruce Lucas

MAYOR

MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING NO. 4110 – 24th September, 2001 A1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4110 held 24th September, 2001. This is page

COMMENCEMENT TIME The meeting opened with Prayer at 7.58 p.m. IN ATTENDANCE The Mayor, Councillor B. Lucas, Councillors P. Astridge, J. Betar, M. Christie, P. Hart, S. Hoopmann, M. Kapel, R. Quinn and J. Scotford. ALSO PRESENT The General Manager, Barry Smith, the Manager Public Works & Infrastructure, Don Cottee, the Manager Development & Environment, Joe Vescio, and the Administration Officer, Greg Egan. APOLOGIES There were no apologies received. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Betar declared an interest in Item D5 – 12A Ferdinand Street, Hunters Hill, the interest being that the applicant is directly related to him. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 424/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Betar that the Minutes of

Ordinary Meeting No.4108 held on 10th September, 2001 be confirmed. MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS (Page B1) 1. RYDE/HUNTERS HILL COMMUNITY TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION INC. 425/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Betar that the report be

received and noted. NOTICE OF MOTION 1. RESCISSION MOTION – DA NO. 00/1023 – 69 WOOLWICH ROAD, WOOLWICH 426/901 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Quinn that Resolution No.

393/01 in respect of Item D1 – 69 Woolwich Road (DA No. 00/1023) adopted on 10th September, 2001 is rescinded.

REPORTS FROM STAFF DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT (Pages D1 – D74)



1. DA NO. 00/1023 – 69 WOOLWICH ROAD, WOOLWICH SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 427/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Hart that Standing Orders be

suspended to allow Item H3 – 69 Woolwich Road Mediation Meeting to be brought forward for consideration in conjunction with Item D1.

A motion was moved by Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Astridge that Development Application No. 00/1023, for a new dwelling at 69 Woolwich Road Woolwich, be approved subject to standard conditions (2001 Version) Nos. A1-A4, B2, B14 ($2,500), C1-C9A, C9B, C10, C12 (c, e, f, g, h, i), C14 (69), C19, C20, C21, C27, C33, C34, C35, C37, C40, C41, C46, C51, C59, C61, C62, C64, C81-C85, C87, C88, C90 (c, d, f, g, j, a6), C97, C98, C100 (01 1023) (Tony McLain Architect) (2033.1, 2033.2A, 2033.3A, 2033.4A, 2033.5A, 2033.6A, 2033.7A as amended by drawings number 2033.3C 2033.5C and 2033.7C 2033.14 dated 21.9.01), D1, D2, D5, D9, D14, D17, D22, D29, L1, L4, L8, PE6, PE8, PE14 and S1 and the following special condition:

22. There appears to be a nest – possibly a Ringtail Possum dray - in shrubs along

the western boundary of 69 Woolwich Road adjacent to the driveway of 67 Woolwich Road. It may or may not be currently occupied.

If the DA for this property requires the removal of the shrubs in question, it should be noted that the nest should first be properly identified and, if it is then necessary to remove a Ringtail Possum from the site, that this can only be undertaken by a licensed operator or by the property owner after they have acquired a licence from NPWS. It must then be released in an appropriate location within 50m of its current habitat (as per NPWS directive).

It should also be a requirement of the landscape plan with the DA that sufficient and appropriate vegetation is returned to the site, to once again provide fauna habitat, and ensure the biodiversity of Hunters Hill. Details are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Clr Christie moved an amendment, seconded by Clr Scotford, that the Development

Application be approved in the foregoing terms with the inclusion of an additional Condition No. 23 as follows:

“The whole building is to be moved to the north by 800mm to align at both the front

and rear first floor section with Numbers 65 and 67 in order to protect the living amenity at the rear of Number 67”.

The amendment was put to the meeting and was LOST. 428/01 The motion was then put to the meeting and was CARRIED.



429/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Quinn that Council receives

and notes the General Manager’s report regarding 69 Woolwich Road, Woolwich (Item H3).

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 430/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Betar that Standing Orders

be resumed. 2. DA NO. 00/1254 – 3 BAYVIEW CRESCENT, HENLEY

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF

Messrs. Vincent O’Donoghue and Hamid Fangeyan (Objectors) and Mr. Luke Romandi (Architect for the Applicant) addressed the meeting on this matter.

431/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Kapel that Development

Application No 00/1254, for demolition and construction of new dwelling at 3 Bayview Crescent Henley, be approved subject to standard conditions (2001 Version) Nos. A1-A4, B1, B2, B9, B14 ($5,000), C1-C12, C19-C21, C34, C36, C37, C38, C42, C43, C46, C47, C51, C56, C60, C61, C62, C63, C81-C85, C87, C100, C102, L2, L6, PE6, PE7, PE14, S10 and the following special conditions:

52. To reduce the potential impact on the amenity of the adjoining southern

property, the windows to the southern elevation of the living room and Bedroom 1 shall have obscure glazing to a height of 1600mm above the finished floor level. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

53. To reduce the bulk and scale of the roof and the resultant impact on views and

riverscape, the roof pitch is to be reduced to 25o. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

54. The roof gablet skylights on the northern and southern elevations and

proposed attic floor are to be deleted so as to simplify the roof, reduce the impact on views and ensure compliance with Clause 15 of the HHLEP. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

55. To reduce the visual impact on the riverscape, the proposed ground level

terrace shall not extend in excess of 3.0 metres measures from western external wall. Plans to be amended prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

56. Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas is to be piped to the foreshore.

Design is to be submitted to Council for consideration prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The design shall include the following elements:



(a) Silt arrestor pit beyond the last entry point of surface waters and

having a galvanised swing lid, outlet invert 100mm above the pit invert, soak away slots to prevent permanent ponding, minimum size 600 x 600, maximum depth 1 metre.

(b) Dispersal at the foreshore being detailed to minimise scouring. (c) An overland flow path being established between the southern side

of the proposed building and the boundary to allow passage of stormwater which may, in extreme storm events, enter the property from the driveway. Stormwater may not be diverted onto No. 1 Bayview Crescent.

57. A Silt and Sediment Control Plan is to be submitted for consideration prior to

the issue of a Construction Certificate or demolition. Reference shall be made to Council’s publication “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines”. Building materials are to be kept of the beach.

58. Sediment and Erosion control measures are to be adopted during construction

to prevent building materials and loose soil entering Council’s stormwater system, natural watercourses and bushland.

59. (a) A longitudinal section of the driveway drawn at 1:20 Natural scale

shall be prepared and designed using Council’s standard vehicle profile and submitted to Council prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

The section will show the vehicle path from the centre of the road through the layback/ dishdrain to the proposed garage, carport and parking place. (Reason: public access).

(b) All service adjustments if required will be at the applicant’s

expense. (Reason: public access). (c) All redundant crossing is to be removed and any necessary

reinstatement of the footpath and kerb and gutter carried out. Such work shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s specification. (Reason: public amenity). For design of the driveway boundary crossing level, the existing back of footpaths level is to be adopted. Construction is to be under Council supervision following payment of supervision fee.

60. Opening of the road and footpath for water or sewer connections shall be on

payment of Road Opening Fee and Restoration Charge to Council.



61. A bond of $1,000.00 refundable on successful protection of the Council

drainage pit and lintel at the frontage shall be lodged prior to demolition or issue of a Construction Certificate.

Waterway Conditions

62. The proposed construction works are carried out so that:

(a) No materials are eroded, or likely to be eroded, are deposited, or likely to be deposited, on the bed or shore or into the waters of the Parramatta River; and

(b) No materials are likely to be carried by natural forces to the bed,

shore or waters of the Parramatta River.

63. Any material that does enter the Parramatta River must be removed immediately.

64. In relation to condition 62 above, the best practice methods shall be adopted

for the on-site control of runoff, sediment and other pollutants during, and post, construction. The methods, performance measures, maintenance and management shall be addressed in an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a suitably experience person(s) prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Methods shall be in accordance with the relevant specifications and standards contained in the Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils & Construction Manual issued by the NSW Department of Housing in 1998 and any other relevant Council requirements.

65. The erosion and sediment controls for construction shall be installed and

stabilised before commencement of site works. This does not include the works associated with the construction of the appropriate controls.

66. The proposed system for erosion and sediment control is effectively

maintained at or above design capacity for the duration of the construction works and until such time as all ground disturbed by the works has been stabilised and rehabilitated so that it no longer acts as a source of sediment. The outlets and overflows are to be treated to protect against scouring and erosion.

67. Any material that is to be stockpiled on site is to be stabilised to prevent

erosion or dispersal of the material. 68. Native trees species are to be retained where possible. Foreshore landscaping

is to be comprised of locally indigenous species that represent the original plant communities, which would have been found along the shoreline in the vicinity of the subject land.



69. A screening device of 600mm high lattice is to be erected to the existing

northern boundary fence as shown on Diagram Two attached to the letter dated 23 January 2001 from V., T. and M. O’Donoghue.

3. DA NO. 01/1087 – 25B WYBALENA ROAD, HUNTERS HILL


Mrs. Denice Solden (Objector) and Mrs. Leticia Rankine (Owner) addressed the meeting on this matter.

432/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Hoopmann that Development

Application No. 011087, for a alterations and additions at 25B Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill, be approved subject to standard conditions (Draft 2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B1-B5, B7, B12-B14 ($2,450), C1-C9 (a-i), C13-C15, C21, C22, C24, C27, C30, C33-C41, C50, C58-C62, C81-C85, C87, C94-C96, C100(001087, Karl Romandi and Helen De Luis: 0015 1, 0015 2, 0015 3, 0015 4, 0015 5, 0015 6, 0015 7A, 0015 8A (submitted 10 July 2001), 0015 9, 0015 10, 0015 11, 0015 14, Landscape Plan 260401/109 (Focus Landscape Designs) Survey Plans Sheets 1 to 3 REF: 5372 ATS Land & Engineering Surveyors Pty Ltd), D2, D5, D9, D12, L6, L7, PE1, PE18, W1, S1, S4, S10, S14 and the following special conditions:

69. The dressing room window is to be deleted and all other proposed new

windows on the SE elevation (first floor), except for the kitchen window, shall be obscure glazed to minimise potential for overlooking.

70. Landscape Plan 260401/109 prepared by Focus Landscape Designs and

submitted as part of the DA submission shall be amended as follows:

(a) A mature and suitable replacement tree species to the satisfaction of Council shall be introduced along the SE boundary of the existing dwelling to replace the tree that has been removed.

(b) Landscaping shall be introduced between the subject site and the

adjoining neighbour at 25C Wybalena Road on the southeastern boundary and extending east from the western end of the kitchen window, in the form of a hedge that is a minimum 2.8m in height, to improve privacy between the two sites and contribute to an increase in the amount of soft landscaping on the site as a whole.

(c) These amendments shall be to the satisfaction of Council’s Parks

and Landscape Coordinator and shall be detailed on an amended landscape plan prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

71. The SW elevation shall be amended to reflect an increase in ratio of solids to

glazing to the satisfaction of the Manager Development and Environment by provision of minimum 230mm wide piers and 100mm wide mullion sections



to all glass panels. Furthermore, to provide additional shadowing to the

glazing on the western elevation of the family room, the proposed balcony above shall be extended by a minimum of 750mm by way of a non-trafficable pergola structure. Details are to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

72. The proposed external colours and finishes shall be in accordance with

drawing number 0015-14 dated April 2001 submitted to Council on 9 May 2001.

73. The stormwater drainage shall be constructed in accordance with plan

drawing No. 843d101-D-201 submitted by CARDNO-MBK, dated 9/7/01 and agreed noted in red pen dated 28/8/01 during phone call to Praveel Prasad of CARDNO-MBK, to retain an existing pit grate size.

74. The silt fence shall be extended up the southern boundary to prevent material

entering the neighbouring property during all phases of demolition, excavation and construction.

4. DA NO. 01/1129 – 27 MOOREFIELD AVENUE, HUNTERS HILL


Mr. Michael Parsons (Objector) and Mr. Lawrence Natale (Architect representing the Owner) addressed the meeting on this matter.

Clr Kapel left the meeting at 9.21pm and returned at 9.22pm during discussion of this

item. 433/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Kapel that a “Deferred

Commencement” consent be granted pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planing 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 following amendments are to be made to the architectural plans:

i. The masonry columns to the first floor verandah are to be deleted and replaced with dressed timber posts in accordance with Folio 1 dated 30 July 2001 by Natale architects.

ii. A fixed louvre privacy screen is to be located on the southern elevation of the first floor rear balcony and the louvre is to be fixed to ensure there is no direct visual access to the neighbour at No. 25 Moorefield Avenue;



iii. Obscure glass is to be fitted to the first floor bathroom window on

the southern elevation; and iv. The front elevation is to be amended in line with the faxed sketch

dated 30 July 2001. 2. The external colour scheme is to be amended to include “Bowral Blue” face

brick on the front masonry fence, banding and columns. 3. A fully detailed landscape plan, and specifications outlining protective

measure for all trees on site and all proposed planting, is to be submitted for approval. In this regard, the Murraya hedges are to be a minimum container size of 45 litres.

SCHEDULE 2

That Development Application No. 01/1129, for a proposed new dwelling at 27 Moorefield Avenue, Hunters Hill, be approved subject to standard conditions (Draft 2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B1-B5, B13-B14 ($2100), C1-C12 (a-i), C13-C15, C21, C23 (all) (neighbours), C30, C33--C37, C40-C44, C46-C49, C58, C60-C62, C64-C66, C81-C85, C87, C92, C94-C98, C100 (011129, Natale Architects Pty Ltd, A1-A9, dated June 2001), D1-D14, D16, D19, D22, L8, L10, L13, PE1-PE2, PE5-PE6, PE8, PE14, PE21, SP1-SP16, SP19, SP21, SP22, SP23, SP27, SP30, SP31, SP37, S1, S14. and the following special conditions:

127. Stormwater is to be piped to the gutter in Moorefield Avenue as per Plan A1

provided to Council. Details are to be provided for comment prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

128. The existing vehicle crossing is to be restored to kerb, nature strip and path

and the proposed crossover installed in consultation with Council following payment of the Driveway Supervision Fee.

129. All required pruning of the Liquidambar and Angophora Costata is to be

undertaken by a suitably qualified arborist under the direct supervision of Council’s Parks and Landscape Coordinator. Only branches that are required for building clearance are to be removed.

130. A security bond of $4,000 is to be lodged for the successful protection of the

Liquidambar and Angophora Costata and is to be refunded twelve months after final occupation certificate and upon production of evidence of no adverse affect on their health.

Having declared an interest in the following matter, Clr Betar left the meeting at

9.43pm before the commencement of discussion. 5. DA NO. 01/1124 – 12A FERDINAND STREET, HUNTERS HILL



434/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Hart that Development

Application No. 01/1124, for proposed additions and alterations at 12A Ferdinand Street, be approved subject to standard conditions (2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B8, C1-C10, C12, C37, C39, C40, C55, C84, C85, C87, C95, C100, C102, L13, PE1, S1, S4, S13 (Mon-Fri 7-6, Sat 8-1,Sun & Pub Hols Nil), S19 and the following special condition:

33. The hard stand parking area is to be constructed from “grasscrete” or “turf

cell”. Details of the proposed item to be used are to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Cr Hoopmann left the meeting at 9.44pm and Clr Betar returned to the meeting at

9.45pm prior to discussion of the following matter. 6. DA NO. 01/1157 – 6 RAMLEH STREET, HUNTERS HILL Clr Hoopmann returned to the meeting at 9.46pm and Clr Betar left the meeting at

9.46pm and returned at 9.48pm during discussion of this item. 435/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Quinn that Development

Application No. 01/1157, for a carport at 6 Ramleh Street, be approved subject to standard conditions (2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B14, C1-10, C12, C19, C37, C55, C85, C87, C102, PE1, PE6, PE16, S1, S4, and the following special condition:

28. The driveway crossover from boundary to gutter, including the public

footpath, shall be constructed in plain concrete only, 125mm thick, under Council supervision following payment of the driveway supervision fee.

7. DA NO. 01/1103 – 22 FIGTREE ROAD, HUNTERS HILL


Mr. Terry Gates (Architect representing the Owner) addressed the meeting on this matter.

436/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Betar that Development

Application No. 011103, for a proposed new dwelling at 22 Figtree Road, Hunters Hill, be approved subject to standard conditions (Draft 2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B1-B3, B10, B14 ($1400), C1-C10, C12 (a-i), C15, C21-C23 (northern) (adjoining neighbour), C27, C30, C33-C52, C60, C61, C62, C64, C81-C85, C87, C94-C97, C100 (011103, Transplann, A01, A02 (rev A), A03 (rev A), A04, A05, A06(rev B), A07(rev B), A08 (rev B), A09(rev B), October 2000.), D1-D2, D5, D10, D14, L2, M8, M13, PE1-PE12, PE5, PE6, PE8, PE9, PE13, PE21, SP1-SP13, SP15-SP16, SP19, SP21, SP26, SP27, SP28, SP31, SP37, S1, S10, S14 and the following special conditions:

113. A landscape plan is required to be submitted for the pool area prior to issue of

a Construction Certificate. The landscape plan is to include screen planting along the northern and western boundaries surrounding the proposed pool.



114. The external colours and finishes are to be in accordance with the samples

submitted to Council on 13 August 2001. 115. The existing Colourbond garage door is to be retained under this application

in lieu of the proposed timber segmental door. The plans are to be amended to reflect this change prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

8. DA NO. 01/1103 – 161 VICTORIA ROAD, GLADESVILLE A motion was moved by Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Christie that the application be

deferred and a copy of the Heritage Impact Statement be provided to Councillors for consideration.

A proposal was made, and accepted by Clr Christie, that a second part be incorporated

into the motion that the application be referred back to the applicant for redesign and Council engage a suitably skilled urban design architect to review the design with the applicant’s architect to improve the impact on the streetscape and the adjacent heritage item. Clr Astridge advised that he did not wish to vary the motion and, accordingly, Clr Christie withdrew as the seconder.

The motion was then moved by Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Scotford that the

application be deferred and a copy of the Heritage Impact Statement be provided to Councillors for consideration.

An amendment was moved by Clr Christie, seconded Clr Kapel that: 1. The application be deferred and a copy of the Heritage Impact Statement be

provided to Councillors for consideration. 2. The application be referred back to the applicant for redesign following

review and advice from a suitably qualified urban designer/architect on issues of impact on the adjoining heritage item, the streetscape and façade, so as to provide a building of high architectural merit.

437/01 The amendment was put to the meeting and was CARRIED. 438/01 The amendment then became the motion and, on being put to the meeting, was

CARRIED. As a consequence of the resolution, the original motion then LAPSED.

Clr Kapel left the meeting at 10.25pm prior to discussion of the following item. 9. DELEGATED AUTHORITY 439/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hart, seconded Clr Quinn that the report be received

and noted.



PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE (Pages E1 – E3) 1. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER - APPROVALS 440/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Betar, seconded Clr Quinn that the report be received

and noted. Clr Kapel returned to the meeting at 10.28pm prior to discussion of the following

item. 2. STATE TRANSIT – RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RETENTION OF 536 BUS

SERVICE 441/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Betar, seconded Clr Hart that the response from the

State Transit Authority be received and noted. CUSTOMER AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (Page G1) 1. ACTIVE MIND ACTIVE BODY OPEN DAY 442/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Cl Betar, seconded Clr Hoopmann that the report be

received and noted. GENERAL MANAGER (Pages H1 – H12) 1. COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL 443/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Scotford that Clr Kapel replace

Clr Scotford on the Hunters Hill – Le Vesinet Friendship Committee. 444/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Betar that Council

nominates its remaining representatives for two years to Committees as provided within the report to Council.

2. LEASE – HENLEY BOWLING AND RECREATION CLUB 445/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Betar, seconded Clr Hoopmann that:

1. Council agrees to the revised conditions as amended. 2. Council agrees to vary the commencement date of the lease to the date of

signing.

3. The proposed lease is forwarded to the Minister for consent.

4. The Mayor and General Manager complete the lease agreement.



3. 69 WOOLWICH ROAD MEDIATION MEETING This item was dealt with earlier in the meeting (refer Resolution No. 429/01, Page

A3). COMMITTEE REPORTS (Pages J1 – J12) 1. MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL SENIOR SUPPORT GROUP MEETING

HELD ON 13TH AUGUST, 2001 446/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Betar that the report be

received and noted. 2. MINUTES OF THE 176TH PARKS AND TREES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD ON 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2001 447/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Betar that the report be

received and noted. 3. MINUTES OF THE 86TH PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC ADVISORY

COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2001 448/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Betar that the

recommendation to Council be adopted and the remainder of the report be received and noted.

4. MINUTES OF THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD ON 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2001 449/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Betar that the report be

received and noted. 5. REPORT OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE SITE INSPECTIONS

HELD ON 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2001 450/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Betar that the report be

received and noted subject to amendment to show Clr Kapel as attending and Clr Astridge as offering his apology.

CORRESPONDENCE (PRECIS) (Pages K1 – K7) 1. CORRESPONDENCE 451/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Quinn that Council makes a

donation of $912.50 to the 1st Hunters Hill Scout Group.



452/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Hart that Council make a

donation of $50 each ($150 in total) to sponsor its staff members and that Special Leave be granted to them on Thursday 18 October and Friday 19 October to participate in the event.

453/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Betar that the remainder of

the correspondence be received and noted. GENERAL BUSINESS (Pages M1-M2) 1. MEETINGS – VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL 454/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Betar, seconded Clr Quinn that the report listing the

various Committees of Council be received and noted. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

No. Author Date Question Answer 142/01 Clr Betar 24/09/00 Would Council please attend

to some spring plantings in the roundabout in Valentia Street? Some suggestions include blue Violas, red and blue Pansies, red and blue Primula obconica, silver dust and brilliant red Coleus or such other desirable plants.

The bed is being planted in Flower Carpet Roses (thornless), which are low maintenance and flower for most of the year.

143/01 Clr Hart 24/09/01 Could the No Standing sign in front of No. 52 Manning Road be moved away (downhill) from the roundabout? In its present location, vehicles park too close to the roundabout causing a narrow gap (and traffic hazard) between the vehicle and the Manning Road traffic island island.

This matter will be listed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Public Transport and Traffic Advisory Committee.

COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 455/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Kapel at 10.36pm that Council

sit in Committee of the Whole to consider Item Z1- Contract – General Manager and Item Z2 – DA No. 1939/95 – 19 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill.

Clr Christie left the meeting at 10.38pm and returned at 10.40pm during the

Committee discussions.



Clr Kapel left the meeting at 10.42pm during the Committee discussions. OPEN COUNCIL RESUMED 456/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Quinn at 10.48pm that the

meeting resume in Open Council. REPORT OF COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE The General Manager submitted the following report of the Committee of the Whole: PRESENT Clr Astridge Clr Betar Clr Christie Clr Hart Clr Hoopmann Clr Lucas Clr Quinn Clr Scotford 1. CONTRACT – GENERAL MANAGER

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL

1. The remuneration package for the position of General Manager is set at a base of $120,000 per annum commencing from the 24th September 2001.

2. An expense allowance of $5,000 per annum (inclusive of FBT) is made

available to the General Manager.

3. The recommendations contained in the Consultant’s report are adopted and included in a new Contract.

4. The Assessment Panel finalises a new Contract document as agreed with the

General Manager.

5. The Seal of Council is affixed and the Mayor executes the Contract. 2. DA NO. 1939/95 – 19 WYBALENA ROAD, HUNTERS HILL

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL

That Council instruct Abbott Tout to defend the Class 4 application and brief Mr. Chris McEwan, Barrister at Law, to act on behalf of Council.

457/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Quinn that the recommendations of Council in Committee of the Whole be adopted.



TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 10.50pm. I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Meeting No. 4110 of Council held on 24th September, 2001.

Barry Smith Councillor Bruce Lucas GENERAL MANAGER MAYOR

B

Mayoral Minutes & Reports

B – Mayoral Minutes & Reports


Index 1. Ryde/Hunters Hill Community Transport Association Inc. 1

............................. Councillor Susan Hoopmann

MAYOR

MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS Meeting 4110 – 24th September, 2001 B1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4110 held on 24th September, 2001. This is page

ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : RYDE/HUNTERS HILL COMMUNITY TRANSPORT

ASSOCIATION INC. BUSINESS PROGRAM : COMMUNITY SERVICE REPORTING OFFICER : COUNCILLOR SUSAN HOOPMANN FILE : 200/07 Councillor Bruce Lucas attended, on my behalf, the Ryde/Hunters Hill Community Transport Association Annual General Meeting on Tuesday 18th September, 2001 at the Ryde/Wesley Uniting Church Hall.

The meeting was well attended and the following Management Committee was elected:

Chair Ms Jean Winston Vice Chair Mr. Keith Chinchen OAM Treasurer Mr. James Henman Secretary Mr. Ron Buttrey Committee Members: Ms Bon Pfueller Mr. Max Pryor Mr. Ern Sharpham Ms Jenni Dwyer The Community Transport Association is a worthwhile organization, which provides transport for frail, aged and disabled people in the Ryde and Hunters Hill Local Government area and, during the past fifteen years, the Association has grown and prospered.

Being without a manager for several months during the past year put a lot of strain on staff, who work tirelessly, and the Chairman was pleased to advise that Ms Amanda Hamwi has now been appointed as Manager.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact as a result of consideration of this report.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

C

Notice Of Motion

C – Notice Of Motion


Index 1. Rescission Motion - DA No. 00/1023 – 69 Woolwich Road, Woolwich 1

.................................... Councillor Susan Hoopmann

……………………….. Councillor Bruce Lucas

REPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION Meeting 4110 – 24th September, 2001 C1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4110 held on 24th September, 2001. This is page

ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : RESCISSION MOTION - DA NO. 00/1023 - 69

WOOLWICH ROAD, WOOLWICH BUSINESS PROGRAM : HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : COUNCILLOR SUSAN HOOPMANN & COUNCILLOR

BRUCE LUCAS FILE : 210/02 & 1760/69

We, the undersigned Councillors, hereby give notice of our intention to move at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council that the resolution in respect of Item D1 – 69 Woolwich Road (DA No. 00/1023) adopted on 10th September 2001 is rescinded.

……………………………. …………………………….. Councillor Susan Hoopmann Councillor Bruce Lucas

Proposed Motion

At the next Ordinary Meeting of Council, it is our intention that, if the above rescission motion is adopted, to move that:

Development Application No. 00/1023, for a new dwelling at 69 Woolwich Road Woolwich, be approved subject to standard conditions (2001 Version) Nos. A1-A4, B2, B14 ($2,500), C1-C9A, C9B, C10, C12 (c, e, f, g, h, i), C14 (69), C19, C20, C21, C27, C33, C34, C35, C37, C40, C41, C46, C51, C59, C61, C62, C64, C81-C85, C87, C88, C90 (c, d, f, g, j, a6), C97, C98, C100 (01 1023) (Tony McLain Architect) (2033.1, 2033.2A, 2033.3A, 2033.4A, 2033.5A, 2033.6A, 2033.7A undated as amended by drawings number 3022.3B 2033.5B and 2033.6B 2033.7B dated 2.9.01), D1, D2, D5, D9, D14, D17, D22, D29, L1, L4, L8, PE6, PE8, PE14 and S1 and the following special condition:

1. The rear section of the first floor being set back not less than 5200mm from the rear of the proposed building as demonstrated on the sketch plan labeled number 3 attached to the report.

D

Development & Environment

D – Development & Environment


Index 1. 69 Woolwich Road, Woolwich 1 2. 3 Bayview Crescent, Henley 12 3. 25B Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill 20 4. 27 Moorefield Avenue, Hunters Hill 32 5. 12A Ferdinand Street, Hunters Hill 41 6. 6 Ramleh Street, Hunters Hill 47 7. 22 Figtree Road, Hunters Hill 51 8. 161 Victoria Road, Gladesville 59 9. Delegated Authority 72

............................. Joe Vescio

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

Meeting 4110 – 24th September 2001 D1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4110 held on 24th September 2001. This is page

9ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 00/1023

PROPERTY: 69 WOOLWICH ROAD, WOOLWICH APPLICANT: RANDOLF GRIFFITHS OWNER: RANDOLF GRIFFITHS & JOHN BENJAMIN PROPOSAL: NEW DWELLING APPLICATION LODGED: 6.2.2001

BUSINESS PROGRAM : HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : ANDREW MARTIN

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FILE : 1760/69 BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted amended plans, which propose the rear 5.2 metres as a single storey component, and makes the following submission for Council’s consideration.

Enclosed please find revised drawings following last week’s Council meeting.

Please note that, in response to Council’s resolution, we have deleted, with great regret, the main internal architectural feature of the house, namely the internal void.

We have been able to then “slide” the first floor to the North as requested but not to the full extent asked, as to do so would severely compromise the design as it relates to the master bedroom. Our primary consideration has been the maintenance of the access to the bedrooms terrace to the East (see attached sketches). To have access to the South would mean that the neighbour to the rear will be able to see into the bedroom from close proximity and this loss of privacy is simply not acceptable.

Whilst not fully complying with Council’s resolution, the proposed amendments are considered reasonable in the circumstances and would appear to satisfy Council’s intent to reduce the visual impact on the adjoining heritage item.

Copies of objection letters and supporting documentation were attached to the previous Business Paper for Ordinary Meeting No. 4107. This Development Application was reported to Council at Ordinary Meeting No. 4107 held on 27th August, 2001. It was resolved that the application be referred back to the applicant for redesign to modify the first storey so as to ensure that at least the rear seven (7) metres of the proposed first storey building be single storey, in order to protect the amenity of the adjacent heritage-listed building at No. 67 Woolwich Road and to comply with the purpose of DCP 15.

This development application was reported to Council at Ordinary Meeting No. 4108 held on 10th September, 2001 and was deferred for a Conciliation meeting.




Councillor Susan Hoopmann has lodged a rescission motion for consideration at Ordinary Meeting No. 4110 being held on 24th September, 2001. A report on the outcome of a mediation meeting convened by the General Manager is included with the General Manager’s reports to this meeting and should be considered in conjunction with this report. DETAILS A Development Application is submitted for demolition of the existing cottage at 69 Woolwich Road, Woolwich and construction of a new two-storey dwelling house, which will comprise the following: Ground Floor: double garage, study, lounge room, bathroom, family room, dining room, kitchen,

breakfast and laundry.

First Floor: main bedroom with ensuite, three bedrooms, bathroom and two external decks.

The subject application is reported to the DCU given the objection to the proposal from the adjoining property owner at No. 67 Woolwich Road. The objection has been reviewed and it is forwarded within the report that the amendments made to the design adequately deal with the issues raised by the adjoining neighbour, Council’s planning staff and Council’s Heritage Adviser. Amended plans have been received and forwarded to the objector who wishes to maintain the objection.

The subject proposal received a mixed response from the Conservation Advisory Panel (the Panel). The Panel generally required more information regarding the damage by termites and wood rot. This report has now been received and reviewed by Council’s Heritage Adviser who supports the application given the contents of the report prepared by Jerry Tyrell (attached). In accordance with the requirements of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, the application is supported by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Godden Mackay Logan. The existing building has significant termite damage, which renders the cottage unsuitable for alterations and additions.

The applicant has submitted a State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objection to the 50% Garden Area provisions of Local Environmental Plan No.1. Essentially, the applicant seeks a concession of 11sqm. The objection is supported given that there is adequate vehicle access (as the site has the benefit of two driveways) and, therefore, it is reasonable to allow the minor concession. The area sought for the concession is identified in the plan SEPP 1 Plan B. The SEPP No.1 objection is supported on the grounds that application of the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

The subject site is located within the Conservation Area and Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

This development application was reported to Council at Ordinary Meeting No. 4106 held on 13th August, 2001 and was deferred for a General Purpose Committee site inspection.

SITE AND ENVIRONS

The subject site is regular in shape and has a total site area of 633.16 sq. m. The site is vegetated with low-level shrubs with the site lacking maintenance in the last 10 years. Erected on the site is a late nineteenth/early twentieth century detached two-bedroom weatherboard cottage. The southern and northern boundaries each have an equal length of 17.985 metres and the eastern and western




boundaries each have an equal length of 35.205 metres. The site slopes from right to left and towards Woolwich Road.

RELEVANT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

LEP No 1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a2) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes Development Control Plan: No. 15 - Residential Development State Environmental Policies: SEPP No. 1 Regional Environmental Plans: No Heritage Listed: No Adjoining Heritage Listed Property: Yes - 65 Woolwich Road

67 Woolwich Road 73 Woolwich Road, “Tybridge”

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

REQUIRED/ PERMISSIBLE

PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

NO OF STOREYS 2 2 Yes HEIGHT 7.2m 6.5m Yes SETBACKS -West Side (single storey) -West Side (two storey) -East Side




RESPONSE TO NEIGHBOURS’ OBJECTIONS As stated, the applicant submitted amended plans in an attempt to address the concerns of neighbours, Council’s Heritage Adviser and planning staff. The amendments improve the appearance of the proposal and ensure greater compliance with the garden area controls. The original plans failed to achieve the 50% garden area control, with the breach being reduced to 11sq. m. under the amended proposal. The main objection to the proposal, as advised by the adjoining neighbour, is the visual impact of the wall and the resultant overshadowing. The rear terrace has been deleted, which adequately addresses the issue of privacy loss. Excessive Wall Length, Height and Scale The western wall of the proposed dwelling is not considered to be unduly excessive in its proportions so as to significantly adversely impact on the adjoining property at No.67 Woolwich Road. The garage encroaches into the 1.5 metre setback, which is permissible in accordance with Clause 7.2.5 of DCP 15. The proposed development with the reduced setback for the single storey garage wall does not unreasonably impact on the adjoining amenity and therefore satisfies the objectives of Clause 7.2.1 of DCP 15 Residential Development. The rear setback also complies with the exemption clauses in DCP 15 given that the portion of the building encroaching into the 6m. rear setback is single storey and does not occupy more than one third of the rear boundary length. Overshadowing The adjoining owners have reviewed the shadow diagrams prepared by Tony McClain Architects and it is forwarded that the impact of the proposed development is excessive, which results in loss of sunlight that would create additional mould growth and general dampness. It is true to say that the adjoining property will be subjected to additional shadow at 9.00 am mid- winter, however this is the worst case scenario and by 11.00 am the shadow is no longer cast onto the building. There is no additional impact throughout other periods for the simple reason of the site’s northerly orientation. The impact is not of a level that would warrant further redesign or refusal of the application and satisfies the objectives of Clause 7.4.1 of DCP 15 Residential Development. Impact on Views The proposed development will reduce the openness of the adjoining property, however the likely impact is not so significant as to warrant redesign of the proposal. The question that remains is whether or not the degree of view loss is unreasonable in the circumstance. Following an inspection of the adjoining property, it is concluded that the proposed development does not unreasonably reduce the views afforded to the objector’s property. The objectives of Council’s view policy are set down under Clause 7.6.1 of DCP 15, which are: • To provide opportunities for view sharing by both the existing and future residents of the

Municipality. • To ensure that the maximum number of residents enjoy a view by avoiding the monopolising

of a view by existing dwellings and undue obstruction of views by new dwellings or additions.




It is forwarded that the proposed development adequately satisfies the above objectives. The impact is not so significant to warrant refusal or further modification of the development. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Statutory Planning Controls

The subject site is zoned Residential 2(a2) under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, gazetted on the 10th December 1982. As such, the proposed development is permissible in the zone subject to consent.

In determining an application, Council shall consider the underlying objectives of the local plan. The relevant clauses, and those sections within each clause, are identified for the purposes of this report and assessment. Clause 2 of LEP No.1 states that: “The aims of this plan are to conserve the identity of the Municipality of Hunters Hill, Council as established by its heritage, character, topography and residential amenity, by- (a) conserving the environmental heritage significance, the foreshore and riverscape, the

townscape quality and tree covered environment of the Municipality through regulation of the use and development of land, buildings and structure;

(b) retaining specific evidence of the thematic development of the environmental heritage of the municipality through conservation of items of environmental heritage; (b1) integrating heritage conservation into the planning and development control processes; (b2) providing for public involvement in the matters relating to the conservation of the area’s

environmental heritage; (b3) ensuring that new development is undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to, and

does not detract from, the heritage significance of the items and their settings, as well as the streetscapes and landscapes and the distinctive character that they impart to the land to which this land applies…….”

The information provided in support of the application demonstrates that the proposed development satisfies the underlying aims and objectives of the local plan. The dwelling will read as a two-storey dwelling from all adjoining public places in accordance with the above objectives and those of LEP 35. The design has been amended to better reflect the desired future character of the Conservation Area. The deficiency in compliance with the development standards (ie. garden area) is not in itself reason to refuse the application. A formal SEPP No.1 objection has been lodged to the provisions of Clause 16A(2) of LEP No. 1 in which the applicant suggests that the proposal satisfies the criteria specified under Clause 5(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The garden area as calculated using the definition under LEP No.1 and DCP 15 is 48.2%, which equates to an 11sqm deficiency. Notwithstanding the numerical non-compliance, the accepted test is to ask whether the “underlying object” of the standard is met. This necessitates an inquiry into the objectives of the particular standard that have been identified above. It is forwarded that the proposed development as revised satisfies the abovementioned objectives and the objectives of Garden Area specified in Clause 7.3.1 of DCP 15 - Residential Development.




Under the provisions of Local Environmental Plan No. 14, the site is located within the Conservation Area and Foreshore Scenic Protection Area as discussed below.

A property located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area shall satisfy the following objectives prescribed under Clause 18A of LEP No.1, which states: “The Council shall not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown on the map marked “Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14 – Heritage Conservation”, unless it has made an assessment of : (a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from the

waterway; (b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway from public roads

and from public reserves or from land within zone No. 6(a) or 6(b)” The building has been designed so that it fits comfortably within the context of its immediate surrounds defined by the built and natural environment. The building is not out of scale for the site, having regard to the adjoining heritage-listed dwelling. The dwelling has been set back two metres from the western boundary and the eastern elevation is well articulated. The proposed dwelling is relatively simplistic in its presentation and will not dominate the setting, particularly when viewed from the park opposite. Given that the building is located within the Conservation Area, Council must have regard to Clause 19A of LEP No.1, which states: “19A (2) The Council shall not grant consent to an application to carry out development on land

within a conservation area unless it has made an assessment of the extent to which the carrying out of the development in accordance with the consent would affect the heritage significance of the conservation area.

(3) The Council shall not grant consent to such an application, being an application to erect a

new building or to alter the exterior of an existing building, unless the Council has made an assessment of -

(a) the pitch and form of the roof; (b) the style, size, proportion and position of the openings for windows and doors; and (c) whether the colour, texture, style, size and type of finish of the materials to be used

on the exterior of the building are compatible with the materials used in the existing buildings in the conservation area.

In regard to the above, the proposed building is satisfactory in terms of its scale, materials, roof form and proportioning, when viewed from a public place, and this view is supported by Council’s Heritage Adviser. A key requirement in satisfying the objectives of the aforementioned clause is to provide a pitched roof, simple articulated presentation and recessive colour scheme, so that the building is consistent with the established character of Hunters Hill. Some concern was raised as to the extent of the termite damage and, in this regard, the applicant provided a report prepared by Jerry Tyrell, an experienced building assessor, which confirms the poor condition of the building. Based on the report prepared by Jerry Tyrell and inspection of the building, Council’s Heritage Adviser raises no objection to the demolition of the existing dwelling. The poor condition of the existing building must be considered in this assessment of the application.




The proposed development as revised satisfies the objectives of the Policy for Conservation and Change in that the new development will be undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to and does not detract from the streetscape, landscape and the distinctive character of Hunters Hill. Given the appropriateness of the dwelling as revised, there is unlikely to be any adverse impact on the Conservation Area. Section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Section 79C of the EP& A Act 1979 lists the matters the Council shall take into consideration as are of relevance in determining a development application. The assessment process has taken into consideration the relevant matters as detailed below. (1)(a)(i) – the provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) These matters are addressed above and concluded to be satisfied given the submission of a SEPP No. 1 objection. (1)(a)(ii) – any Draft Planning Instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority There are no draft local environmental plans of relevance to the proposed development. (1)(a)(iii) – any development control plan

Development Control Plan No. 15 – Residential Development As detailed below, the proposal is satisfactory in satisfying the performance objectives of the DCP. Development Control Plan No.15 Development Control Plan No 15 is the applicable policy that applies to residential development in the municipality. The purpose of the plan is to provide more detailed planning and building controls than are available in the LEP No.1. The proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives of DCP No.15. The proposed development is compatible with the landscape character of the area, particularly when viewed from the street, parkland opposite and neighbouring properties. A detailed landscape plan is submitted, which will build upon the existing vegetation on the site. The proposed development as amended is acceptable in terms of height, bulk and scale and represents a modest residential dwelling adjoining a heritage item due to its uncomplicated built form and architectural design. Special objectives apply to development in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, which build on those provisions contained in LEP No.1. The objectives relative to development in the FSPA are: a. To encourage residential development that ensures dwelling form, including alterations and

additions, that does not degrade the amenity of the surrounding residents or the aesthetic quality of Hunter’s Hill;

b. To minimise the visual impact of development when viewed from adjacent land, public reserves




and waterways; c. To ensure that dwellings be designed with regard to the site conditions, to minimise the impact

on the landform and visual amenity; d. To ensure that dwellings blend into the natural surroundings; e. To ensure that dwelling designs have regard to preserving existing views. The proposed development will not degrade the visual amenity of the locality and is not out of character in terms of its bulk and scale considering the adjoining development. It is only on the basis that the proposed amendments, as detailed on the revised plans and conditions of consent, that the application is supported. The proposed development as amended satisfies the objectives given that the building mass is controlled so as not to unduly impact on the surrounding residential amenity and existing vegetation. The proposed development as revised satisfies the setback objectives of DCP 15, which are: a. To ensure that setbacks of new dwellings and alterations and extensions to existing dwellings

respect the characteristic pattern of setbacks in the locality and in particular conserve the identity of the Municipality established by its townscape of pre-1930s buildings.

b. To maintain the garden space between buildings which is part of the existing character of the Municipality, and to minimise the adverse visual impact on adjacent and adjoining properties.

c. To further the objectives of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area by maintaining and where possible improving public water views between buildings.

d. To ensure equitable access to sunlight, privacy and private views. e. To preserve and enhance the streetscape. One of the key functions of DCP No.15 is to establish parameters for the assessment of amenity issues such as privacy, solar access, views and car parking. It is considered that the proposed development as revised satisfies the objectives of DCP No.15 with respect to the preservation of natural sunlight, views and privacy. Given the minor non-compliance with the garden area controls, it is forwarded that the proposed development satisfies the objectives of Garden Area prescribed under Clause 7.3.1, which are as follows: a. To conserve the character of the Municipality derived from detached houses set in and

separated by individual gardens, by establishing the minimum proportion of garden area per allotment.

b. To retain, protect and augment the tree-covered environment for which the Municipality is noted.

c. To ensure that gardens are useful, accessible and have adequate sunlight and privacy. d. To ensure that new buildings respect rather than alter the existing steep sandstone topography

for which the Municipality is noted. e. To protect the existing drainage system from increased stormwater run-off. (1)(b)(c) – the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality. suitability of the site for the development.




The impacts on the natural and built environments are of a level considered acceptable for residential development of the scale and nature proposed. There will be impacts on the environment as with any residential development. In this instance, the level is not to the extent that would require refusal or further modification of the proposal. Given the above and the discussion of the matters within the report, the proposed development is considered suitable for the site. (d) – any submissions made in accordance with this act or the regulations

The original proposal was notified to the adjoining neighbours as well as the revised plans. One submission was received to the amended plans as detailed in the report. The other two original objectors did not make submissions to the revised plans. A copy of the letter sent to the neighbours explaining the changes is attached to this report. (e) - the public interest Given that the appropriate assessment procedure has occurred and all submissions have been received and noted, the development as revised does not have an adverse impact on the public interest in the circumstance of the case, particularly noting the satisfactory design and the attention to minimising the impact on the streetscape, adjoining heritage item, Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and Conservation Area. HERITAGE COMMENTS The original proposal was reported to the Conservation Advisory Panel at its meeting of the 18th April, 2001. Conservation Advisory Panel The proposal was reviewed by the Hunters Hill Conservation Advisory Panel at its April 2001 meeting and the following observation made. Demolition of Existing House It is considered that the cottage standing on the land is of historical significance and, being of timber construction, a declining building type in the Conservation Area. The issue of the extent of damage due to termite and borer attack (and possibly other pests) has not been addressed to the satisfaction of the members of the CAP. An inspection in late 2000 revealed some damage, and the applicant was requested to further investigate the extent with a view to establishing the condition of the frame , claddings and linings, so that a proper assessment of the viability of the structure could be made. Assessment There is also some interest in the possible associative significance of the cottage vis-à-vis the Kelly connection mentioned in the Godden Mackay Logan Statement. This, it is considered by the CAP, should be investigated further.




Alternative Proposals It was considered that the alternative approaches to facilitating additional accommodation of the land, whilst retaining the cottage, show some potential and should be developed further. The success of the design of such alternatives is, of course, contingent upon the expectations of the owners as reflected in the brief. The presence of a building on the site that is considered of heritage value is seen as a constraint on the design, in much the same way as many other constraints, such as easements and the like, and is an element to be considered as part of the normal design process. It may well be that the constraint imposed by the presence of the cottage is such as to cause some modification to the client brief. Proposed “Replacement” Dwelling Some disquiet was expressed at the “historicist” nature of the element fronting Woolwich Rd, and the arrangement of the garage doors in relation to the verandah component of composition of the Woolwich Rd façade. It was felt that the approach to the rear wing is more appropriate in terms of expression, and the proposal would be more consistent in its architectural composition if some consistency with the rear wing could be transferred into the overall design. These perceived design issues could be resolved through further discussions with Council officers. PUBLIC WORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTS

Engineering No objection is raised to the proposed development subject to standard conditions. Bushland There appears to be a nest – possibly a Ringtail Possum dray - in shrubs along the western boundary of 69 Woolwich Road adjacent to the driveway of 67 Woolwich Road. It may or may not be currently occupied. If the DA for this property requires the removal of the shrubs in question, it should be noted that the nest should first be properly identified and, if it is then necessary to remove a Ringtail Possum from the site, that this can only be undertaken by a licensed operator or by the property owner after they have acquired a licence from NPWS. It must then be released in an appropriate location within 50m of its current habitat (as per NPWS directive). It should also be a requirement of the landscape plan with the DA that sufficient and appropriate vegetation is returned to the site, to once again provide fauna habitat and ensure the biodiversity of Hunters Hill. Landscape No objection is raised to the proposed development subject to the completion of all landscaping in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by CLASP.




CONCLUSION The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Hunters Hill LEP No. 1 (as amended) and DCP No. 15. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 00 1023, for a new dwelling at 69 Woolwich Road Woolwich, be approved subject to standard conditions (2001 Version) Nos. A1-A4, B2, B14 ($2,500), C1-C9A, C9B, C10, C12 (c, e, f, g, h, i), C14 (69), C19, C20, C21, C27, C33, C34, C35, C37, C40, C41, C43, C46, C51, C59, C61, C62, C64, C81 – C85, C87, C88, C90 (c, d, f, g, j, a6), C97, C98, C100 (01 1023) (Tony McLain Architect) (2033.1, 2033.2A, 2033.3A, 2033.4A, 2033.5A, 2033.6A, 2033.7A undated as amended by drawings number 2033.3B 2033.5B and 2033.6B 2033.7B dated 2.9.01), D1, D2, D5, D9, D14, D17, D22, D29, L1, L4, L8, PE6, PE8, PE14 and S1 and the following special condition: 22. There appears to be a nest – possibly a Ringtail Possum dray - in shrubs along the western

boundary of 69 Woolwich Road adjacent to the driveway of 67 Woolwich Road. It may or may not be currently occupied.

If the DA for this property requires the removal of the shrubs in question, it should be noted that the nest should first be properly identified and, if it is then necessary to remove a Ringtail Possum from the site, that this can only be undertaken by a licensed operator or by the property owner after they have acquired a licence from NPWS. It must then be released in an appropriate location within 50m of its current habitat (as per NPWS directive).

It should also be a requirement of the landscape plan with the DA that sufficient and appropriate vegetation is returned to the site, to once again provide fauna habitat, and ensure the biodiversity of Hunters Hill. Details are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

DCU RECOMMENDATION 1. The assessing officer’s recommendation to Council be approved.

2. The General Purpose Committee undertakes a site inspection on Saturday 11 August.




ITEM NO : 2 SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 00/1254

PROPERTY: 3 BAYVIEW CRESCENT, HENLEY OWNER/APPLICANT: JULIE SMITH & CHRIS FISHER PROPOSAL: NEW DWELLING APPLICATION LODGED: 18.12.2001

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : ANDREW MARTIN

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FILE : 1075/3 BACKGROUND A Development Application has been received for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two-storey dwelling at 3 Bayview Crescent, Henley. The proposed building will comprise: Ground Floor: double garage, workshop, entrance, laundry, kitchen, family room, living room,

dining room and rear terrace First Floor: main bedroom with walk-in robe and ensuite, two bedrooms, bedroom with

ensuite, bathroom, study and external balcony Basement Area: basement with wine cellar having a ceiling height of 1400mm Ancillary: in-ground pool, retaining walls and boatshed The application is referred to Council for determination given the objections to the proposal. The properties have been inspected following the erection of height poles indicating the height of the eaves and ridge in the southern elevation. The objections are acknowledged but are not considered of sufficient determining weight to warrant redesign or refusal of the application. The applicant is required to redesign the roof to a pitch of 27 degrees in lieu of 30 degrees, which lowers the ridge height by 400mm and consequently reduces the roof bulk. The applicant was requested to submit revised plans that accurately represent the existing natural ground levels, and lower the floor levels so as to comply with the number of storeys as defined under LEP No.1. The amended plans now detail a building that complies with the LEP No.1 with regard to number of storeys and maximum height as measured to the ceiling. The building will sit on a sandstone plinth, which reads as an undercroft area, and satisfies the primary objectives of LEP No.35 in that the building will read as a two-storey building from the river.




The subject site is located outside the Conservation Area and is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. This Development Application was reported to Council at Ordinary Meeting No. 4108 held on 10th September, 2001 at which Council resolved to defer the application for a General Purpose Committee site inspection. SITE AND ENVIRONS

The subject site is known as Lot 10, DP 232432, No. 3 Bayview Crescent, Henley and is located on the eastern (low) side of the street. The site is generally regular in shape and slopes towards the eastern boundary, which it shares with the Parramatta River. The site is generally devoid of any significant vegetation. Erected on the site is a red brick, part one and two-storey dwelling constructed in the 1960s. The existing building has no notable heritage value. RELEVANT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

Hunters Hill Zone: Residential 2(a2) Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes LEP No. 1 (as amended) DCP No. 15 – Residential Development DCP Sydney Harbour and Tributaries Heritage Item: No Contributory Building: No Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.22 – Parramatta River DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

REQUIRED/ PERMISSIBLE

PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HABITABLE FLOORS 2 2 Yes HEIGHT (max) -LEP No.1

7.2m

7.2m

Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS -Side

1.5m

1.5-2.0m

Yes GARDEN AREA 60% 60% Yes CAR PARKING 2 3 Yes FSBL 15m 16m Yes




NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION

NOTIFICATION REQUIRED Yes NUMBER NOTIFIED NAME & ADDRESS OF RESPONDENTS

ISSUES OF CONCERN TO THE RESPONDENTS

Mr H and Mrs S Fanaeyan 4 Bayview Crescent HENLEY

�� Roof is too big and too high

Mr D McBride 8 Crown Street HENLEY

�� Excessive bulk and scale �� Excessive roof pitch �� Loss of private and public views

Mr TJ and Mrs MA O’Donoghue 5 Bayview Crescent HENLEY

�� Roof pitch is excessive �� Need to determine the position and depth of the

sewer �� Loss of privacy �� Suggested amendments to the design to reduce

the impact

Mr Joseph Cheong 2 Bayview Crescent HENLEY

• Loss of view to the harbour • Roof is a dominant element contrary to the DCP • Attic space is substantial for storage purposes

and therefore the ridge should be reduced Mr P H Stevenson 6 Crown Street HENLEY

• Roof volume grossly out of proportion imposing on the streetscape and the river

• Major concern is the loss of views NEIGHBOURS’ OBJECTIONS The latest plans do not amend the proposal so as to improve the views to neighbouring properties, as the applicant maintains that the development complies with the numerical controls and therefore satisfies the objectives of view sharing as detailed in DCP 15 – Residential Development. The amended plans simply clarify the ambiguities and deficiencies with the original plans and a reduced ground floor level is proposed so as to achieve technical compliance with the numerical standards regarding height and number of storeys. The applicant’s consultant planner supports the applicant’s view that the degree of view loss is not of a level that requires further modification to the design given that a view corridor is provided along the southern side of the property. View Loss, Height, Bulk and Scale The objectors’ properties have been inspected and it is true to say that each property is affected by the subject proposal, albeit to varying degrees, which is to be expected. Following an assessment of each site, it is forwarded that the level of view loss is not so significant as to warrant refusal of the application. The proposed development, it is considered, satisfies the view sharing principles of DCP 15 which are: To provide opportunities for view sharing by both the existing and future residents of the Municipality, and




To ensure that the maximum number of residents enjoy a view by avoiding the monopolising of a view by existing dwellings and undue obstruction of views by new dwellings or additions. The applicant has had to design around the constraints of the site and one positive contribution is the view corridor along the southern boundary when viewed from Bayview Crescent. In terms of the public interest, the proposed development is acceptable and is worthy of approval. The proposed building could hardly be regarded as grandiose, simply because the width of the building is in the order of 10.5 metres, equivalent to the width of two rooms. It is difficult to preserve views from the ground floor level of properties set back in the third tier of development, as is the case for properties located in Crown Street. Notwithstanding the above, a condition of consent is imposed requiring the applicant to delete the roof ventilation as this element is uncharacteristic, gives the impression of a third storey and is easily adaptable for use for purposes other than storage contrary to the LEP No.1. The area is not habitable and, therefore, there is no requirement under any building code to provide natural light and ventilation to the roof space. Other methods are available to the owner to ventilate this space. The applicant is also required to reduce the roof pitch from 30 degrees to 27 degrees in order to reduce the roof volume and mass. The site is not located in the Conservation Area and, hence, a lowering of the roof pitch is supported which will not unreasonably compromise the design and presentation to the river. The height of the building is essentially governed by the internal ceiling height of the front garage and playroom above, which are at minimum. These ceiling heights are extended through the building to give a finished ceiling height of RL 13.93. It is fair to say that a better design response for the site would be to step the building therefore reducing the wall mass. The reason why this building is supported is due to the fact that the width has been limited to essentially two rooms enabling maintenance of a reasonable view from the street. The building as proposed totally complies with the numerical development standards in LEP No.1 and DCP 15 - Residential Development. The proposed retaining walls, which facilitate construction of the elevated terrace at ground floor level, are considered excessive in height. From the survey plan, the height above the existing natural ground level is in the order of 2.5 metres. Therefore, a condition of consent is imposed requiring the terrace to be reduced to a maximum length of 3.0 metres from the rear of the new rear wall. This condition will significantly reduce the unnecessary formalisation of the site, which is highly visible from the river. No objection is raised to the proposed boat shed, which generally adopts the design principles of the DCP for Sydney Harbour and Tributaries. Given the physical operation between the proposed building and existing building at No. 5, and the need to maximise passive northern solar access to the living room, it is considered that the level of amenity to the two windows in the southern elevation of No. 5 will not be unreasonably affected. On the other hand, the siting of the adjoining southern building allows direct viewing into the rear yards of No. 1 Bayview and, accordingly, a condition is imposed requiring increased sill heights to the main bedroom and living room. HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

The proposed development is not a Schedule 6 or 7 item under LEP No.1 and is not located within the vicinity of a listed item. Accordingly, there are no heritage issues pertaining to the proposed development.




PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The Development Control Assessment table above demonstrates that the proposed development totally complies with the numerical standards prescribed under LEP No.1 and DCP No. 15. Notwithstanding technical compliance with the numerical standards, an assessment must be made as to compliance with the objectives of the LEP No.1, LEP No. 35 and DCP 15. In determining an application, Council shall consider the underlying objectives of the local plan. The relevant clauses, and those sections within each clause, are identified for the purposes of this report and assessment. Clause 2 of LEP No.1 states that: “The aims of this plan are to conserve the identity of the Municipality of Hunters Hill, Council as established by its heritage, character, topography and residential amenity, by- (a) conserving the environmental heritage significance, the foreshore and riverscape, the

townscape quality and tree covered environment of the Municipality through regulation of the use and development of land, buildings and structure;

(b) retaining specific evidence of the thematic development of the environmental heritage of the municipality through conservation of items of environmental heritage; (b1) integrating heritage conservation into the planning and development control processes (b2) providing for public involvement in the matters relating to the conservation of the area’s

environmental heritage; (b3) ensuring that new development is undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to, and

does not detract from, the heritage significance of the items and their settings, as well as the streetscapes and landscapes and the distinctive character that they impart to the land to which this land applies…….”

The information provided in support of the application demonstrates that the proposed development satisfies the underlying aims and objectives of the local plan. The dwelling will read as a two-storey dwelling from any adjoining public place in accordance with the above objectives and those of LEP 35.

Under the provisions of Local Environmental Plan No. 14, the premises are located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area as discussed below.

A property located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area must be considered under Clause 18A of LEP No.1 which states: “The Council shall not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown on the map marked “Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14 – Heritage Conservation”, unless it has made an assessment of: (a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from the

waterway; (b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway from public roads

and from public reserves or from land within zone No. 6(a) or 6(b)” The proposed development will have minimal impact on the riverscape and generally satisfies the objectives under LEP No.1.




The proposed development does not unduly impact with the living enjoyment of the adjoining properties nor does it adversely impact on the streetscape or riverscape. The proposed bulk and scale are minimised by the reduction in the roof pitch. The proposed site is determined to be Landscape Character 14 under the Sydney Harbour DCP, given the statement of Character and Intent and the associated maps. Sites defined as Landscape Character 14 generally have the following attributes “the areas are mostly developed with detached residential development on the upper slopes and boatshed and wharves along the foreshore. Further development in these areas must consider protecting key visual elements including rock outcrops, native vegetation, vegetation in and around dwellings and maintaining the density and spacing of development”. It is forwarded that the proposed development satisfies the performance criteria applicable to development in this zone. The natural foreshore and intertidal zone is preserved and the building will not dominate the setting. Henley is acknowledged as an area where the traditional building form can be varied to allow for modern architectural expression within the parameters of local planning controls, although the applicant has declined the opportunity by adopting a restr

Date post:	27-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

ORDINARY MEETING No. 4110 · 2020. 12. 23. · MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING NO. 4110 – 24th...

Documents