Agenda of Lane Cove Local Planning Panel

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 3 November 2020

28 Longueville Road, Lane Cove

Subject: 28 Longueville Road, Lane Cove

Record No: DA20/91-01 - 57113/20

Division: Environmental Services Division

Author(s): Greg Samardzic

Property:	Lot 1 DP 1055994, No. 28 Longueville Road, Lane Cove
DA No:	DA 91/2020
Date Lodged:	22 July 2020
Cost of Work:	$5,775,379.00
Owner:	G Kotevich
Applicant:	Edward Fernon

Description of the proposal to appear on determination	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a boarding house development with 44 boarding rooms
Zone	R4 High Density Residential
Is the proposal permissible within the zone	Yes - pursuant to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
Is the property a heritage item	No
Is the property within a conservation area	No
Is the property adjacent to bushland	No
Stop the Clock used	No
Notification	In accordance with Council’s notification policy

REASON FOR REFERRAL

The proposal is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel as 10 or more submissions have been received by way of objection and a 31.6% breach to the Building Height development standard under Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan (LCLEP) 2009 is proposed.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal is for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a five storey boarding house with 44 boarding rooms, managers room, associated landscaping, rooftop communal open space and lounge area and single level basement car parking for 12 vehicles.

The proposed boarding house is currently subject to a Class 1 Appeal to the NSW Land and Environment Court against the deemed refusal of the subject Development Application.

The proposed boarding house is not compliant with a number of numerical standards of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 including building height, floor space ratio (FSR), front setbacks, landscape treatment and car parking which are not considered to be satisfactory.

A maximum building height of 15.8m is proposed, which is a 31.6% variation to the permitted building height of 12m under LCLEP 2009. Further, a maximum FSR of 1.41:1 is proposed and the maximum permitted FSR under the SEPP is 1.3:1 (8.5% variation). The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 written justification however the proposed variations are not supported as the proposed development would not be compatible with the character of the locality.

The setbacks of the existing residential building is approximately 7m to Longueville Road and 5m to Kimberley Avenue. The front setback is not compatible with the current streetscape which is a minimum setback of 7.5m under Lane Cove Development Control Plan (LCDCP) where a proposed front setback of 3m and a nil basement setback is proposed to Longueville Road. Alternatively, if Kimberley Avenue were to be treated as the primary street frontage, a setback of 3m and a nil basement setback is proposed. Further, it is considered that there are reduced side setbacks proposed when compared to the setback requirements of LCDCP.

16 of the existing 17 trees are proposed to be removed and is not supported due to a significant decrease in tree canopy cover.

There is a substantial car parking shortfall of 10 car parking spaces which again is not supported.

The minimum site area for a residential flat building development is 1,500sqm under LCDCP. The subject site is undersized (851.4sqm) and fails to accommodate the excessive bulk and scale of development of this nature which has an appearance of a commercial office development. The proposed boarding house is not considered compatible or in keeping with the character of the local area provisions contained in Clause 30A of the SEPP. A residential flat building development is permissible and would provide for a better planning outcome in this instance as it would involve creating an isolated site and would reduce proposed adverse amenity impacts on the immediate locality and reduced number of units involved.

The proposal would isolate an adjoining site at Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road and it is considered that the sites should be combined. The applicant has not made reasonable attempts to purchase the adjoining properties to meet their obligations to pursue site amalgamation under Lane Cove DCP. The subject development site could amalgamate in order to prevent Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road being isolated and enable an efficient and functional multi dwelling house development to be built.

The proposed development does not satisfy the relevant R4 High Density Residential zoning objectives to ensure that the existing amenity of residences in the neighbourhood is respected; to avoid the isolation of sites and to ensure that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment.

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and 31 submissions were received. The concerns relate to the inappropriate nature of the proposed development in the immediate locality in relation to height, FSR, traffic, car parking, privacy, the isolation of Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road and the proposed development being out of character with the locality. The proposed variations to height, FSR and car parking are excessive and would adversely impact on the character of the locality by isolating the adjoining properties and by preventing the economic development of the area.

The Development Application is recommended for refusal for reasons stated above.

SITE

Property	Lot 1 DP 1055994, No. 28 Longueville Road, Lane Cove
Area	851.4m²
Site location	The site is located on the corner of Longueville Road and Kimberley Avenue
Existing improvements	Two storey dwelling house, detached carport and detached garage
Shape	Irregular corner allotment
Adjoining properties	To the east is a semi-detached dwelling at 26/26A Longueville Road and surrounded by a mix of high, medium and low density residential developments.

The subject site has a frontage of 26.01m to Longueville Road and 48.94m frontage to Kimberley Avenue. The site has a significant fall of approximately 9m from the Longueville Road frontage to the furthest point south along Kimberley Avenue. There is a significant drop in ground level at the boundary with Longueville Road. There are numerous trees and shrubs located on the site which provides for extensive tree canopy cover over the subject site. There is a retaining wall along the frontage to Longueville Road and for part of the frontage to Kimberley Avenue. There is a 0.305m wide easement for batter adjoining the retaining wall. The site is located within 100m walking distance to bus stops on Longueville Road. Site Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan (AT1 and AT2).

Aerial Photograph of 28 Longueville Road, Lane Cove

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

There are no previous approvals relating to the subject site and the subject Development Application.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a five storey boarding house with 44 boarding rooms with three accessible rooms and a manager’s room, associated landscaping, rooftop communal open space and lounge area and single level basement car parking for 12 vehicles accessible from Kimberley Avenue. Nine motorcycle and bicycle spaces are proposed. A waste storage area is provided for within the basement area. It is proposed to remove a total of 16 trees.

A Boarding House Management Plan and a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) has been submitted.

View of the Proposed Development at the Corner of Longueville Road and Kimberley Avenue

SECTION 4.15 ASSESSMENT

The following assessment is provided against the relevant provisions of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979:

Section 4.15 Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions of:-

(i) Any environmental planning instrument:

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The assessment against the SEPP is outlined in the following table:

Part 2 – New Affordable Rental Housing Division 3 – Boarding Houses
Clause	Control	Proposal	Complies
26 – Land to which this Division applies	Any of the following land use zones: (a) (a) Zone R1 General Residential, (b) (b) Zone R2 Low Density Residential, (c) (c) Zone R3 Medium Density Residential, (d) (d) Zone R4 High Density Residential, (e) (e) Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre, (f) (f) Zone B2 Local Centre, (g) (g) Zone B4 Mixed Use.	The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential under LCLEP 2009 and therefore the Division applies to the subject site.	Yes
27 – Development to which Division applies	(1) For the purposes of a boarding house	The proposal is for the purposes of a boarding house.	Yes
27 – Development to which Division applies	(2) Despite (1) clauses 29, 30 and 30A do not apply to land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area.	Not required to be accessible as the zoning of the site is R4 High Density Residential. Notwithstanding, the site is within walking distance to bus services.	Yes
28 – Development may be carried out with consent	Development to which this Division applies may be carried out with consent	The Development Application is for the purposes of seeking consent for a boarding house.	Yes
29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent 29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent 29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent 29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent	if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than: 1(a) the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land; or 1(b) – N/A 1(c) – if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on a State Heritage Register – the existing floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land plus: (i) 0.5:1 if the existing maximum FSR is 2.5:1 or less; (ii) 20% of the existing maximum FSR, if the existing FSR is greater than 2.5:1	Clause 29(1)(c) applies. The maximum FSR permitted under LCLEP 2009 is 0.8:1. Residential flat buildings are permitted in the zone therefore clause 29(1)(c) of the SEPP allows for a bonus FSR of 0.5:1 in addition to the maximum permitted under LCLEP 2009. The maximum permitted FSR therefore is 1.3:1. The proposed FSR is 1.41:1.	Yes No – refusal recommended
	2(a) If the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument.	The site has a maximum permitted building height of 12m under LCLEP 2009. The proposed maximum building height is 15.8m to the top of the acoustic fence for the rooftop plant.	No – refusal recommended
	2(b) if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.	The setbacks of the existing residential building on the subject site is approximately 7m to Longueville Road and 5m to Kimberley Avenue. A proposed 3m setback and a nil basement setback is proposed to Longueville Road. Alternatively, if Kimberley Avenue is treated as the primary street frontage, a setback of 3m and a nil basement is proposed. The front setback is not compatible with the current streetscape which a minimum setback of 7.5m is required under LCDCP). The landscape treatment of the front setback is not compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.	No – refusal is recommended
	2(c) where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum 3 hours direct sunlight between 9:00am and 3:00pm in mid-winter.	3 hours would be available to the top-level communal living room.	Yes
	2(d) if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area): i. one area of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers; ii. if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager, one area of at least 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres is provided adjacent to that accommodation.	i. One area at the upper level of the boarding house with an area of 214sqm is provided for use of the lodgers. ii. Provided on the ground level with the required dimensions.	Yes Yes
	2(e) (i) – N/A (ii) – N/A (iia) – In the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provided – at least 0.5 parking spaces are to be provided for each boarding room. (iii) – in the case of any development – not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site.	(i) N/A (ii) N/A (iia) The proposal provides for a total of 12 car parking spaces and 22 spaces are required. (The proposal is 0.27 cars per room) (iii) No parking space provided for on-site manager.	No - refusal is recommended No – refusal is recommended
	2(f) if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least: (i) 12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or (ii) 16 square metres in any other case.	Each boarding room has a GFA in accordance with the SEPP between 16sqm – 21sqm in area proposed.	Yes Yes
	3 – A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.	Each boarding room has private kitchenette and bathroom facilities.	Yes
	4 - A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).	The proposal does not comply with the provisions of subclause (1) and (2) as detailed above due to the unsatisfactory variations to Building Height, FSR and to car parking.	No – refusal is recommended
30 – Standards for Boarding Houses 30 – Standards for Boarding Houses	(1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following: (a) if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided, (b) no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres, (c) no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers, (d) adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger, (e) if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager, (f) (Repealed) (g) if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use, (h) at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.	(a) One communal living room provided. (b) Maximum 21sqm room size. (c) Appropriate condition could be imposed. (d) Provided to individual rooms. (e) A boarding house manager is required and proposed. (f) N/A (g) The land is primarily zoned for residential purposes and accordingly the requirements of subclause (g) do not apply. (h) Provided (9 motorcycle and 9bicycle).	Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes
30AA – Boarding houses in R2 Low Density Residential zone.	A consent authority must not grant development consent to a boarding house on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone unless it is satisfied that the boarding house has no more than 12 boarding rooms.	N/A – The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential.	N/A
Clause 30A – Character of local area	A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.	The proposal is not in keeping with the local character. Please see Built Character Statement prepared for the areas highlighting non-compliance further below in this report.	No – refusal is recommended.
Part 4 – Miscellaneous
Clause 52 – No subdivision of boarding houses	A consent authority must not grant consent to the strata subdivision or community title subdivision of a boarding house.	No strata subdivision or community title subdivision of the boarding house is permitted.	Yes

It is noted that no Clause 4.6 written requests have been submitted for the proposed variations to the front landscaped treatment and car parking development standards.

A. Clause 4.6 Written Request – Building Height

A maximum building height of 12m applies to the site under LCLEP 2009. The proposed building has a maximum building height of 15.8m (a variation of 3.8m or 31.6%). Relevant sectional diagrams of the proposed building are provided below.

Figure 3: Sections Showing Proposed Building Height Breach

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 allows exceptions to development standards. Consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered and agrees with the written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard. This written request must demonstrate compliance with the relevant provisions of Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009. These matters are discussed below:

Written request provided by the applicant

The applicant has provided a written request seeking a variation to the development standard with the lodged application. A copy of the request provided to the Panel (AT3). Under Clause 4.6(3) the applicant is required to demonstrate:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

1. Whether compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

The Clause 4.6 variation has argued that it is unreasonable or unnecessary to require strict compliance with the development standard for the following reasons:-

· Strict compliance with this diverse housing standard is considered unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case because strict adherence to the standard will not result in a development that is anymore consistent with the desired future character of the locality as a high-density residential environment.

The proposal achieves the relevant objectives of the Building Height standard by:

· Minimising overshadowing and loss of privacy to nearby properties.

· Achieving a perceived bulk and scale that is in character with existing development in the locality.

· Maximising sunlight for the public domain, particularly along the pedestrian/cycleway along the frontage of the site.

· Having the development relate to the topography of the site.

Comment:

Compliance with the development standard is not considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the subject proposal. The written request fails to demonstrate that the breaches to height would not result in the departure from the building height objectives in relation to privacy/visual physical impacts and to ensure that the development relates to the topography of the subject site. The proposed development fails to identify the desired future character of the locality in that it fails to be appropriately stepped down the slope of the subject site and that it is further exacerbated by not providing for satisfactory building setbacks, deep soil landscaped areas and tree canopy cover. The reduced setbacks would have an adverse streetscape impact and would contain adverse privacy impacts with the adjoining site.

2. Environmental planning grounds to justifying contravening the development standard.

The requirement in Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the LEP to justify there are sufficient environmental planning grounds for the variation, requires identification of grounds particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, and not simply grounds that apply to any similar development on the site or in the vicinity.

The applicant has provided the same arguments as to the proposed FSR variation.

Comment:

The environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard are considered relevant and fails to justify the case. The SEPP allows for an FSR bonus, that is not necessarily anticipated by the building height control within LCLEP 2009. The applicant has sought to provide lesser building setbacks to achieve only a part of the additional FSR available. However, the proposed FSR exceeds the maximum FSR permitted under the SEPP which also contributes to the excessive heights proposed. The additional massing has been created horizontally and vertically where no attempts have been made to appropriately step the development in line with the topography of the subject site.

No clear or detailed analysis has been made in the submitted Clause 4.6 written justification. The overall impact on the locality has not been minimised where the proposal would adversely impact on the adjoining and surrounding premises. The environmental planning grounds provided are not considered satisfactory and are not supported. Clause 4.6(3)(b) is not considered to be satisfied.

3. Consistent with the zone objectives and objectives of the development standard.

Development consent cannot be granted to vary a development standard unless a consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. An assessment against the objectives of building height and the R4 High Density Residential zone contained within LCLEP 2009 are provided as follows:

Height of Building Objectives

Clause 4.3 (1) provides the following objectives:-

(a) to ensure development allows for reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas;

Comment: The development would allow for reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas.

(b) to ensure that privacy and visual impacts of development on neighbouring properties, particularly where zones meet, are reasonable;

Comment: There would be adverse privacy and visual impacts onto the adjoining property at Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road.

(c) to seek alternative design solutions in order to maximise the potential sunlight for the public domain; and

Comment: The development would allow for reasonable sunlight for the public domain.

(d) to relate development to topography

Comment: The site has a considerable slope falling to the rear of the site and the proposal has not been designed which appropriately considers topography and to respond to the falling topography by stepping the proposed development down the site. The proposed development fails to be appropriately stepped down the slope of the subject site.

In accordance with the above, the development does not comply with the LCLEP 2009 objectives for the height control and is not supported.

R4 High Density Residential Zone Objectives

The R4 High Density Residential Zone objectives are as follows:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment

Comment: The proposal provides 44 boarding rooms to the community in a high-density building form. The proposed boarding house, as limited and allowed for by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 would provide for reasonable amenity for future occupants with well-sized rooms for a boarding house development however only 12 car parking spaces are proposed where 22 spaces are required, it is considered that there is insufficient on-site car parking proposed.

· To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

Comment: A boarding house is an alternate housing type allowed for by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in the high density residential environment. It provides for a limited range and type of housing only. A permissible use (RFB) would be obliged to provide housing diversity ranging from 1,2 and 3 bedrooms.

· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

Comment: Not applicable.

· To provide for a high concentration of housing with good access to transport, services and facilities.

Comment: The location is acceptable. The proposal has good access to Longueville Road public transportation services (buses only). Notwithstanding, SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 has no access requirements for sites zoned R4 High Density Residential.

· To ensure that the existing amenity of residences in the neighbourhood is respected.

Comment: The proposed building design has little regard to the existing amenity of residences in the neighbourhood. The height and FSR variations itself along with minimal building setbacks and on-site car parking spaces would cause adverse impacts on the existing amenity of the neighbourhood. The creation of an isolated site for Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road would occur. It is considered that a residential flat building development would provide for a better planning outcome in this instance as it would need to address adverse amenity impacts on the immediate locality as there would a reduced number of units involved.

· To avoid the isolation of sites resulting from site amalgamation.

Comment: The proposal would result in the isolation of the adjoining site containing an existing semi-detached dwelling development to the east and no reasonable attempts have been made by the applicant to acquire or include this site.

· To ensure that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment.

Comment: The proposal does not provide for landscaped areas in accordance with SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 which limits the scope of assessing landscaping to the front setback area only. The front setback area to Longueville Road or whether Kimberley Avenue is to be treated as the front setback area does not provide for compatible landscaping with the surrounding residential environment.

In accordance with the above, the development does not comply with the LCLEP 2009 objectives for the R4 High Density Residential zone.

4. Concurrence of the Director General.

The Local Planning Panel can assume concurrence for exceptions to development standards where the variation to the development standard is greater than 10%. The building height variation is more than 10% (31.6%). As the proposal is referred to the Local Planning Panel for determination; concurrence is taken to be assumed should the panel be satisfied that notwithstanding the above impacts and non-compliances the proposal is acceptable.

5. Conclusion

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards and to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. The variations to the height standard of LCLEP 2009 are not considered to be justified and is not supported in the circumstances of this case. The development would not satisfy the objectives of the control despite the non-compliance with the height control. The development fails to satisfy the objectives and the criteria outlined in clause 4.6. As such, the variation is not considered to be well founded, nor does it result in a better planning outcome and would not be in the public interest.

B. Clause 4.6 Written Request – FSR

A maximum FSR of 1.3:1 applies to the site under LCLEP 2009. The proposed building has a maximum FSR of 1.41:1 (8.5% variation).

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Written request provided by the applicant

The applicant has provided a written request seeking a variation to the development standard with the lodged application. A copy of the request is provided to the Panel (AT3). Under Clause 4.6(3) the applicant is required to demonstrate:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

1. Whether compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

The Clause 4.6 variation has argued that it is unreasonable or unnecessary to require strict compliance with the development standard for the following reasons:-

· The existing character of the locality, particularly in relation to bulk and scale, is reflected in the higher density developments along the southern side of Longueville Road between Kimberley Avenue and Pacific Highway. This block of development is characterised by residential flat buildings that range in height from 4 storeys fronting Longueville Road to 6 storeys at the rear fronting Mafeking Avenue. On the corner of Longueville Road and Pacific Highway residential development is 7 storeys in height. In accordance with the primary objective of the FSR standard, the proposed development has a bulk and scale that is compatible with the existing character of the high-density locality.

Comment:

Compliance with the development standard is not considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the subject proposal. The written request fails to demonstrate that the breach to FSR is consistent with the LEP FSR objective to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality. Clause 4.6(3)(a) is not considered to be satisfied in this instance.

2. Environmental planning grounds to justifying contravening the development standard.

The requirement in Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the LEP to justify that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds for the variation, requires identification of grounds particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, and not simply grounds that apply to any similar development on the site or in the vicinity.

The applicant has argued that:

· The proposal achieves a high level of amenity for future occupants.

· There will be no detrimental impacts on both the natural and built environments.

· There will be no detrimental social or economic impacts.

· Site Is suitable for the proposed development.

· It is in the public interest.

Approval of the proposed development will not impact on the proposal’s ability to:

· achieve an appropriate balance between development and management of the environment that will be ecologically sustainable, socially equitable and economically viable.

· minimising adverse impacts of development.

· protect and enhance the amenity of residents.

· protect and enhance the natural and built environment.

· meet the future housing needs of the population of the LGA.

Comment:

The environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard are considered relevant and fails to justify the case. The SEPP allows for an FSR bonus, that is not necessarily anticipated by the building height control within LCLEP 2009. The applicant has sought to provide even more FSR with lesser front, secondary and side building setbacks which is not supported. No clear or detailed analysis has been made in the submitted Clause 4.6 written justification. The environmental planning grounds provided are not considered satisfactory. Clause 4.6(3)(b) is not considered to be satisfied.

3. Consistent with the zone objectives and objectives of the development standard.

Development consent cannot be granted to vary a development standard unless a consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. An assessment against the objectives of FSR and the R4 High Density Residential zone contained within LCLEP 2009 are provided as follows:

FSR Objective

Clause 4.4(1) provides the following objective:-

(d) to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.

Comment: There are numerous non-compliances involved which contribute to unnecessary bulk and scale of the proposed development and in turn would adversely affect the character of the locality.

In accordance with the above, the development does not comply with the LCLEP 2009 objective for the FSR control and is not supported.

R4 High Density Residential Zone Objectives

See the R4 zone objectives discussion above under the Building Height Clause 4.6 written request section of this report.

In accordance with the above, the development does not comply with the LEP 2009 objectives for the R4 High Density Residential zone.

4. Concurrence of the Director General.

The Local Planning Panel can assume concurrence for exceptions to development standards where the variation to the development standard is greater than 10%. In this instance the variation is less than 10% (8.5%) however the application is referred to the Panel on other grounds (31 submissions by way of objection and a building height variation of 31.6%). As the proposal is referred to the Local Planning Panel for determination; concurrence is taken to be assumed should the variation be supported by the panel.

5. Conclusion

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards and to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. The variation to the FSR standard of LCLEP 2009 is not considered justified and not supported in the circumstances of this case. The development would not satisfy the objectives of the control despite the non-compliance with the FSR control. The development fails to satisfy the objectives and the criteria outlined in Clause 4.6. As such, the variation is neither considered well founded, nor would it result in a better planning outcome and would not be in the public interest.

C. Character of Local Area

Built Character Statement

The local area provides for higher density residential living in a high density zone. The existing character of the locality particularly in relation to bulk and scale is reflected in the higher density developments along the southern side of Longueville Road between Kimberley Avenue and Pacific Highway. This block of development is characterised by predominantly older style residential flat building that range in height from four storeys fronting Longueville Road to six storeys at the rear fronting Mafeking Avenue. There is a significant drop in ground levels at the Longueville Road frontage due to the raised level of the road/pedestrian footpath where much of the first two levels are below the road/pedestrian level. However, the rear elevations is quite the opposite with the buildings being significantly higher due to the slope of the land and would be generally more exposed to view from the public domain.

Views of near Residential Flat Building Developments along the Longueville Road Frontage

Views of near Residential Flat Building Developments along the Mafeking Avenue Frontage

On the corner of Longueville Road there is residential development seven storeys in height. On the opposite side of Longueville Road, there are older style residential flat building developments present. On the opposite side of Kimberley Avenue, there is also an older residential flat building development and car wash development.

The adjoining sites to the east at Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road are a single storey semi detached dwelling development. The bulk and scale of this building presents differently in built form with the other higher density developments on the locality.

The adjoining sites to the east contain generous front landscaped setbacks areas which are consistent or have increased setbacks when compared with the existing 7m front building setback of the residential building on the subject site although setbacks are reduced for developments which are closer to the corner of the Longueville Road and Pacific Highway.

It is clear from the above Built Character Statement for the area that the proposed development has non-compliances with the existing building setback, landscaped, deep soil and tree canopy areas to Longueville Road when compared with adjoining developments immediately to the east. These developments also have adequate side setbacks which would provide for reasonable building separation. The proposed building would appear to be more akin to an office commercial building which would contrast the appearance of the surrounding residential flat buildings.

Clause 30A of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 requires the consent authority to consider whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. The NSW Land and Environment Court has established a planning principle on compatibility in Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 181. The judgement specifies the most apposite meaning of compatibility in an urban design context is capable of existing together in harmony. It then goes on to stipulate that compatibility is thus different from sameness. The principle establishes two tests as to whether the proposal is compatible within its context which are addressed as follows:

Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

The proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development have been assessed as being inadequate. A merit assessment has been undertaken against the part of Lane Cove Development Control Plan applying to residential flat buildings and there are numerous building setback variations involved and the minimum 1,500sqm development site not being met. The amenity afforded by the design to adjoining residents including in relation to privacy and visual impacts is not considered reasonable which is part due to the proposed setbacks and size of the development site. An assessment of site isolation of Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road is provided in this report proceeding the DCP merit assessment.

Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

The proposal’s appearance has been considered in relation to buildings around it and the character of the relevant streetscape. The appearance of the building appears to be more akin to a commercial office building rather than residential in nature. The proposed building height and FSR is out of character with the immediate locality and would not be satisfactory as detailed in the preceding Clause 4.6 justification. An assessment has been undertaken against LCLEP 2009 and LCDCP which establishes key building envelope controls for residential development on R4 High Density Residential zoned land. The proposal does not meet with the objectives of the DCP to the variations proposed to the DCP controls.

However, where objectives are not met, the SEPP excludes these matters as considerations (e.g. landscaped side setbacks) and takes precedent over the local controls.

In summary the proposal is not considered to meet both the physical impact and harmony test contained within Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 181. A summary of the merit assessment against the principal building envelope/design provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 Part C Residential, Part C3 – Residential Flat Buildings, has been undertaken as detailed in the following table of compliance:

Clause 3.2(a) Density requires that the minimum site area for residential flat developments is 1.500sqm and the development site is 851.4sqm. The undersized nature of the development site does not achieve a reasonable level of amenity for the immediate locality, does not enhance the current residential character of the area and does not contribute positively to the current streetscapes. The building façade appears more commercial than residential. As demonstrated below, Clause 3.1 General Objective 1 to achieve a reasonable level of amenity for the development, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area has not been achieved with this development.

PART C RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DCP Control	Proposed	Complies
C.3 Residential Flat Buildings
3.3 Building Depth
3.3 Building Depth
The maximum residential flat building depth is to be 18m.	The depth can be measured either from side/side or front/rear. In this case the width of the building is 26.4m	No – the bulk of the development is not in scale with the existing or desired context and no adequate amenity is provided for.
3.4 Building Width
The maximum overall width of the building fronting the street shall be 40m.	The maximum proposed width is 39m.	Yes
3.5 Setbacks
3.5.1 Front/Street
The front setback of the building shall be consistent with the prevailing setback along the street (refer Diagram No.1) or where there is no prevailing setback, 7.5m. For corner allotments, the secondary setback requirement is the same as the setback requirements: 6m up to 4 storeys 9m for 5-8 storeys	Min. 3m provided to Longueville Road Nil basement setback to Longueville Road Min. 3m provided to Kimberley Avenue Nil basement setback to Kimberley Avenue	No – the desired spatial proportions of the street and to allow for a street landscaped character not achieved.
3.5.2 Side and Rear and 3.6 Building Separation
To the boundary within the R4 zone, the minimum side and rear setback shall be: 6m up to 4 storeys 9m for 5-8 storeys	Min. 3m - Landscape Character: An objective of the control is to establish a landscaped character for the area including to side and rear setback areas. However, the SEPP specifically states for boarding houses the only consideration for landscaped area is the front setback area only. The front setback does not comply and the proposed landscaping and tree removal of this area would not be compatible with the character of the area in compliance with the SEPP. - Spatial Proportions of the Street: In relation to the objective relating to establishing spatial proportions of the street the proposal would not remain compatible, would result in the appearance of a taller building with more bulk and scale which would be overbearing on the street. Due the slope of the land and the development not stepped with an elevated basement extending beyond the natural ground level, the development would present as a 5 storey development with a large rooftop terrace area. - Visual Privacy: The building separation involved due to the proposed setbacks would adversely affect visual privacy between developments.	No, for reasons stated above the proposed setbacks are not satisfactory.
3.7 – Fences
Maximum 900mm solid fence.	Could be appropriately conditioned in any consent that would have been granted otherwise.	Yes
3.8 Excavation
Excavation for major development is to be contained as close as practicable to the footprint of the development.	Excavation for basement parking has been extended to the boundaries and the basement level is considered to adversely contribute to the SEPP ‘front landscape and character tests’ as it would remove all deep soil areas within the front setback areas and would be visible from Kimberley Avenue.	No – not acceptable to achieve reasonable landscaping within the development and to ensure the development relates to the street and the topography.

The design of the roof top terrace/lounge area and the reduced side setbacks does not comply with Clause 3.9(b) Design of Roof Top Areas that the design of exterior open space such as roof top gardens is to address visual and acoustic privacy, safety, security etc; Clause 3.11(a) Visual Privacy to locate and orient new development to encourage visual privacy between building on site and adjacent buildings and relevant objectives to provide for reasonable levels of visual privacy externally and internally during the day and at night; and Clause 3.17 Communal Open Space objectives to provide residents with passive and active recreational opportunities, to provide an area on site with soft landscaping and deep soil planting and to ensure that communal open space is useable and attractive.

The design of the development with reduced building setbacks and increased excavation does not comply with Clause 3.18 Landscaped Area objectives to provide privacy amenity, to retain and provide for significant vegetation, particularly large and medium sized trees and to provide continuous vegetation corridors, to conserve significant natural features of the site, to assist with management of the water quality and water table and to conserve and create buildings in a landscaped setting. The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the minimum landscaping area requirements of Clause 3.18. Further, insufficient information has been submitted with the applicant to address Clause 3.19 Planting on Structures.

D. Site Isolation

An assessment has been made as to whether the subject proposal would isolate Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road which consists of semi-detached detached dwellings on approximately 374sqm and 372sqm of land respectively. It is the opinion of Council that the proposal would isolate the adjoining site at Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road and it is considered that the applicant has not submitted evidence in relation to reasonable record of offers to the affected properties. It is not considered that the applicant has made reasonable attempts to purchase the adjoining properties to meet their obligations to pursue site amalgamation under Lane Cove DCP.

The subject development site ought to amalgamate with the adjoining site for construction of this type of development.

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

A boarding house, even if in the form of a residential flat building (3 or more storeys), is specifically excluded from the application of SEPP 65 under Clause 4(4). In this instance the merit assessment against Council’s DCP is considered to provide suitable analysis of the building envelope and a merit assessment against SEPP 65 is not required in this instance. In relation to the amenity provisions of SEPP 65, the eye of the sun shadow diagrams which indicates that majority of boarding rooms would receive reasonable solar access and natural ventilation.

While the apartment size provisions do not apply, the rooms are generously sized for boarding house rooms and would provide reasonable amenity to future occupants (although see Clause 30A assessment for consideration of amenity impacts to adjoining properties earlier in this report).

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) have been considered in the assessment of the subject Development Application. The Development Application is satisfactory having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under SEPP55 with contamination restricted to the existing residential structure given the age of the structure, and contamination is unlikely to be on surrounding land given the historical use of the site used for residential purposes. The proposal complies with the provisions of SEPP 55 Remediation of Land.

SEPP (BASIX) 2004

The proposal was accompanied by a BASIX Certificate in accordance with the requirements of SEPP (BASIX) 2004. The Development Application is considered satisfactory with respect to the SEPP subject to a draft condition of consent requiring the implementation of the Certificate requirements should the application be approved. The proposal complies with the provisions of SEPP (BASIX) 2004.

(ii) Any proposed instrument (Draft LEP, Planning Proposal)

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

The Draft Remediation of Land SEPP was subject to public exhibition between 31 January and 13 April 2018. The Draft SEPP maintains the overarching objectives being to promote the remediation of land to reduce the risk of potential harm to human health or the environment. The new draft measures primarily relate to scenarios where more complex remediation/ongoing management is required, and where the certification of remediation works is undertaken as development not requiring consent. While the Draft does consider introducing planning guidelines for the assessment/preparation of preliminary site investigations, the subject Development Application and relevant reporting has been reviewed in detail and is satisfactory for its purpose in this instance.

The proposal complies with the Draft Remediation of Land SEPP.

(iii) Any development control plan

Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

The proposal complies with the relevant provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 as outlined in the following table of compliance:

Part C5 – Boarding Houses
Clause	Control	Proposal	Complies
5.2 – Social Impact	Social Impact Assessments must be provided for proposed boarding houses.	The proposal was accompanied by a SIA which demonstrates a reasonable level of substantive, objective evidence, for the establishment of a boarding house, with the social impact acceptable subject to appropriate management measures. A plan of management has also been submitted.	Yes
5.3 – Internal Amenity	The maximum kitchen area within a boarding house room is 2 square metres.	The maximum kitchen area does not exceed 2 square metres.	Yes

The following referrals were undertaken as part of the assessment of the Development Application of relevance to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 for the construction of a new building:

Referral	DCP	Comment
Waste Management	Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation	Not Satisfactory · As a residential apartment building with 5 storeys, the building should incorporate a waste chute, carousel and compactor system - not provided. · On site collection of waste and recycling is required, not on the kerb as described. Council would reject the presentation of 16 x 240L MGB’s on the kerb as this is contrary to Council’s waste management collection objectives and inconsistent with approvals/consents for other similar approvals since 2011. · Due to the itinerant nature of a boarding house, 30 square metres for the storage of bulky waste goods is required – note 9 square metres shown in architectural drawings. · On site collection is to be provided for an SRV and the applicant is to provide amended plans in accordance with Part Q of the LCC DCP.
Engineering	Part O – Stormwater Management	Satisfactory - The stormwater concept plan provided with this application generally complies with the DCP, but few amendments are required as detailed below and have been conditioned. A gross pollutant trap has been conditioned to be added to the proposed development.
Tree Preservation	Part J – Landscaping	Not Satisfactory - The proposal seeks to retain just one tree of the seventeen assessed in the Arborist report. The proposed retained tree is identified as tree 1 and is located on the neighbouring site to the east. The Arborists assessment of the tree states the Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) used to calculate the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) was measured at 590 millimetres. The measurements taken on site during Councils site inspection showed there to be two stems that would dictate the TPZ calculation measuring 480mm and 470mm creating a combined DBH of 670mm. The Arborist report states that the TPZ radius is 7 metres when Council calculated the TPZ to be 8 metres. This renders the impact on a neighbouring tree from the root severance to install the basement at 21% as opposed to the 19% stated in the report. Both are major encroachments. The Arborist report does recommend root mapping to be carried out to determine the trees viability, this appears not to have been carried out so the neighbour’s trees viability is still unknown at the point of DA submission. The Arborist report states clearly in Section 14.2 that the tree may not remain viable post construction irrespective of mitigation measures. There is also a comment stating requiring the removal of up to 5 metres of the canopy to allow sufficient setback from the development. It is highly likely that, irrespective of the root mapping carried out, the tree would decline as a result of the development process. Several higher value trees such as the Stenocarpus, Macrocarpa, Lagerstroemia and Magnolia have been recommended for removal along with all of the other trees on site. It is apparent that no attempt has been made to retain any of the trees on site particularly the higher value boundary trees noted above. All trees on site are considered to be retainable in situ for the medium to long term and are considered to be a material constraint to development. Councils DCP Part J Landscaping states in section 1.4 that the development should retain existing trees where reasonably possible and should not require unnecessary removal. Proposed development that does not comply may be refused or delayed. The development is also conflicting with section 2.2.2 Tree Preservation Objective to retain the maximum number of trees, particularly native trees, within the municipality in healthy condition and natural form and shape. The proposal makes no attempt at retaining any of the trees on site, particularly the trees on the boundary to Kimberly Street and Longueville Road. The one tree that has been proposed to be retained is highly questionable as to the validity of the proposed retention in the long term. The development is not supported.
Landscaping	Part J – Landscaping	The proposed landscape plans must be amended to demonstrate new and/or altered services. Site plan clearly showing percentage of landscaped area and deep soil planting as hatching/shading; and a table showing the percentage of each calculation as well as the overall site area clearly labelled on landscape plan by Registered Landscape Architect. The proposed development requires sections showing the extent of excavation and earthworks in accordance with Part J Landscaping and the Landscape checklist. The current drawings do not show enough information on RLS and wall height levels. The current drawings do not show any information on proposed constructed landscape elements and only show ‘Typical’ sections. The current drawings do not provide enough information on the planter box over the basement housing the Elaeocarpus reticulatus or the planter boxes on the roof top level. The drawings would need to be amended to provide more information on all raised planter boxes in the design. The Landscape Package does not include a plan outlining the communal open space. This must be revised and included in the next issue. The Landscape Package does not adhere to the desired communal open space requirements in the following respects. No detail has been given (other than plant species) on the nature of the roof top communal open space area. There is no evidence of provisions for group or individual recreation activities. The visual amenity, privacy and outlook for this space poor. The low planting on the Longueville Road side would not provide any privacy or visual relief for residents. There is no communal open space co-located with deep soil areas on this development proposal. Although it is noted that the parameters of this block may not allow for communal open space on ground level, more thorough design should be considered for the roof top area to ensure it is an effective and usable space. The submitted landscape documentation package does not include a communal open space calculation diagram. Further to that, the communal open space outlined on the rooftop is not currently defined or designed in a manner to make it an effective and useable space. A revised communal open space calculation plan and a revised communal open space must be completed by the Landscape Architect and sent back to Council prior for further assessment. The Landscape Package does not adhere to the desired deep soil requirements in the following respects. There is no landscape calculation plan to demonstrate that it reaches the intended 25% deep soil area. The Landscape Architect would have to resubmit the plans with a landscape calculation plan attached for Council’s Landscape Architect to properly assess whether the site achieves the above outlined deep soil requirement. The applicant must ensure that planting on structures provides for adequate soil depth, volume and a suitable soil profile to support the number of trees and shrubs indicated on the approved DA plans in accordance with the table provided in DCP Part J 1.10 – Planting on Structures. A detailed landscape plan showing the construction methods of the proposed planter boxes shall be submitted and should include the following: o Type of wall o Dimensions of wall o Levels for both top of wall and bottom of wall o Materials used for the wall o Drainage information o Waterproofing information o Soil profile and depth for each plant type o Proposed soil volume o Sections and elevations clearly illustrating the design intent and how it pertains to the human scale o Plant materials specified for each of the planter boxes o Certification from a practicing Structural Engineer. It is noted that the existing trees onsite are worthy of retention. However, replacement trees are required for each tree that is removed. 16 endemic species of trees are required to be planted onsite to compensate this. These trees should be varied in species to encourage biodiversity. The Communal Open Space area located on the rooftop shows planter boxes with insufficient details to ascertain the design intention. This area is to be fully documented in the revised landscape plan. The following are recommended as minimum standards for a range of plant sizes: a) Large trees (canopy diameter of up to 16m at maturity) I. minimum soil volume 150m³ II. minimum soil depth 1.3m minimum soil III. area 10m x 10m area or equivalent b) Medium trees (8m canopy diameter at maturity) I. minimum soil volume 35m³ II. minimum soil depth 1m III. approximate soil area 6m x 6m or equivalent c) Small trees (4m canopy diameter at maturity) I. minimum soil volume 9m³ II. minimum soil depth 800mm III. approximate soil area 3.5m x 3.5m or equivalent d) Shrubs I. minimum soil depths 500-600mm e) Ground cover I. minimum soil depths 300-450mm f) Turf I. minimum soil depths 100-300mm o Any subsurface drainage requirements are in addition to the minimum soil depths mentioned above.
Traffic, Transport and Parking	Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking	Not Satisfactory 1. In accordance with the SEPP for affordable housing, the development is required to provide parking at a rate of 0.5 per room. This equates to 22 car spaces. The proposed development provides 12 spaces (including 2 car share spaces) which is a short fall of 10 car spaces. This is not supported. 2. The waste collection vehicle does not have a designated waiting bay. Turnaround of the waste vehicle to allow SRVs to enter/exit in a forward direction must be demonstrated through swept paths. 3. A scraping test for an SRV and B99 vehicle is to be provided from the driveway to the basement car park. The sections are to also outline the vertical clearance for the path of travel. The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has stated that the design of the development has not demonstrated that it would not compromise the integrity of the Lane Cove Tunnel. No information has been provided in relation to anticipated maximum depth of excavation and pile depth for the proposed development. The RMS has requested submission of a geotechnical report.
Environmental Health	N/A	Not Satisfactory · A construction noise management plan is to be provided at DA stage · Contamination issues have been addressed via a Stage 1 Report – conditions of consent would be provided should the application progress or be amended. · An environmental plan addressing dust and deep excavation water management is to be submitted for assessment. Deep excavations fill up with ground water and rain water and need to be treated prior to disposal. Due to the proximity of the development to adjoining homes, a detailed dust management plan is to be provided, to ensure the amenity of the area is maintained and managed.
Community Services	Part F – Access and Mobility	Not Satisfactory - The roof top Communal Lounge doesn’t appear to have any covering from the lift well or staircase. A detailed plan of the fit out would be required. The entry doorways and common use doorway are required to comply with the AS 1428.2 including turning circles in front of the doorways. One of the accessible rooms would require a LH transfer toilet. Currently they are all RH. The gradient of the ramp from the street to the accessible entrance would need to be confirmed with attention to the gradient as it turns to the right.

(b) The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

The impacts of the development have been considered and it is considered that it would adversely impact the locality. It is noted Council has declared a Climate Emergency in which tree canopy is sought to be protected to improve the resilience of communities in the face of increasing temperatures. It is proposed to remove most of the site’s established tree canopy cover. Ideally the proposal would provide for a high-quality canopy across site however this has not occurred. Unfortunately, the SEPP limits landscaping considerations only to the front setback area. Within the front setback area there would be unreasonable tree and landscaping impacts.

A total of 16 of the existing 17 trees are proposed to be removed due to the inappropriate design of the proposed built form of the development as discussed in further detail above in this report.

The site suitability is not acceptable having regard to the large numbers of variations involved and with the character compatibility provisions under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and 31 submissions were received. The submissions are summarised and addressed within the following table:

Concern	Comment
The boarding house development would bring in people in to the area that are not socially cohesive and would drastically change the area.	The proposed development is permissible under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) and it would operate on the open rental market. A SIA has been submitted with the application. However, there are concerns with the design of the proposal which would adversely affect the character of the area.
Traffic generation and insufficient parking.	The proposal does not provide for parking in accordance with the SEPP and is not supported in this instance and refusal of the application is recommended.
When construction starts residents won’t be able to get in and out of Kimberley Avenue and the big trucks would have nowhere to stop and load up. The site is not large to accommodate construction vehicles on-site	In any approval granted, a construction traffic management plan would be conditioned.
The building is not aesthetically pleasing and looks more commercial or a hotel/motel in nature.	Agreed the design and appearance of the building does not enhance the current neighbourhood.
The overdevelopment of Lane Cove and from this development would impact upon housing prices.	There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the development would adversely affect housing prices.
The building height is excessive and would cause view loss.	The building height variation is excessive in nature and has been assessed not to satisfy Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 and relevant planning controls.
The side and rear boundary setbacks of 3m instead of 6m is not supported and the basement setbacks are not suitable.	A 3m setback is considered suitable in this instance for reasons outlined within the report.
The communal living space is not suitably sized for the number of occupants.	The communal living room size of a minimum of 20sqm is specified by the SEPP. The communal living room is 214sqm, is well connected to the communal open space and is in addition to private living rooms provided to each boarding room.
The FSR is out of keeping with the character of the area.	The FSR is well over the LCLEP 2009 development standard and even varies the SEPP which allows for additional FSR on sites zoned R4 High Density Residential.
Fails to incorporate any of the Planning Priorities from the Local Strategic Planning Statement.	It is considered that the proposed development would be inconsistent with the long-term planning objectives of Lane Cane Council.
The development at Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road would be dwarfed by two large building at each end. Also, the development may be to force the adjoining owners to sell at a lower price where one initial inadequate offer had been made so far which did not involve any negotiations.	Site isolation is already addressed in this report. Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road would be isolated and the applicant has not provided adequate evidence to support their case that they had reasonably approached the adjoining owners for purchase.
Acoustic, visual and privacy impacts for neighbours given proximity to side boundary from balconies and the design of the roof top lounge/common area.	The impacts from the proposal would be unreasonable given its in appropriate design.
No information on acoustic impacts from mechanical plants has been submitted.	Any approval granted would have contained relevant conditions of consent.
Residents would be impacted by construction noise.	A construction noise management plans has not been submitted by the applicant and would form part of the recommended refusal.
If this development is approved, it would have a negative impact on the locality and residents.	It is considered that the proposed development does not satisfy the character test of the SEPP which would adversely affect the current amenity of the immediate locality.
There is already a high number of short-term accommodation available in the area.	The proposal is permissible form of development and a SIA has been submitted with the application. It is not considered that this issue should form part of the recommended refusal of the application.
In relation to compatibility of the proposed development with the character of the local area, the applicant fails to provide a detailed visual analysis to demonstrate compatibility.	Agreed and it is recommended that the application be refused.
There would be excessive overshadowing onto adjoining properties especially No. 26A Longueville Road.	Shadow diagrams have been submitted and all adjoining properties would receive satisfactory amount of sunlight on June 21.
There are structural concerns with the development on the road tunnel and water tables.	Insufficient information has been submitted by the applicant to address this concern.
The proposal would adversely affect the current streetscape.	The proposed reduced setbacks of the development and the removal of the trees would adversely impact on the current Longueville Road and Kimberley Avenue streetscape character.
The size of this site is too small to accommodate such a crowded boarding house due to the number of trees removed. The proposed building is maximising the footprint allowed for.	The proposal represents an overdevelopment and the subject site is not suitable for the proposed development. The number of trees to be removed to accommodate the development is not supported. Refusal is recommended.
Impacts from parties and damage to property would occur.	The applicant has submitted a boarding house management plan and would have been conditioned in any consent granted. The application has been referred to the NSW Police who have raised no concerns with safety and security subject to conditions.
The impact on the existing Jacaranda tree is not satisfactory.	Inadequate information has been submitted by the applicant in relation to this tree.

(e) Public Interest

The proposal would not in the public interest based on the reasons provided above in this report and 31 objections have been received as part of the subject Development Application.

SECTION 7.11 ASSESSMENT

The proposal is subject to the Lane Cove Council Section 94 Contributions Plan (now referred to as Section 7.11 in the Act). The Section 7.11 contribution for the proposed boarding house development is calculated in accordance with the Plan as follows:

Number of Rooms	Occupancy Rate	Per Room/Dwelling Rate	Contribution
44 lodger rooms	1 person per room	$10,942.00	$481,448.00
1 manager room	1.2 persons per dwelling	$12,770.40	$12,770.40
		Total	$494,218.40

A credit is applied under the Plan for the existing dwelling house is $20,000 (capped). The required amount to be paid is $474,218.40, being the contribution less the credit.

CONCLUSION

The matters in relation to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have not been satisfied. The proposed boarding house is not compliant with the numerical standards within SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The submitted Clause 4.6 written request for breaches to Building Height and FSR is not considered satisfactory and not well-founded as detailed in this report.

The proposed development has non-compliances with the area with the existing building setback, landscaped, deep soil and tree canopy areas to Longueville Road when compared with adjoining developments immediately to the east. These developments also have adequate side setbacks which would provide for reasonable building separation. The proposed building would appear to more akin to an office commercial building which would in contrast the appearance of the surrounding residential flat buildings. The proposed boarding house is not considered compatible with the character of the local area provisions contained in Clause 30A of the SEPP including a merit assessment against the relevant provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

The proposal is considered to isolate Nos. 26/26A Longueville Road, Lane Cove North and the applicant has not submitted a record of offers to the affected property which are reasonable. The proposed development does not meet the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, is not adequate on merit and is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Lane Cove Planning Panel refuse the proposed variations to the Building Height and FSR development standards in Clause 4.3(2) & 4.4(a) in Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and Clauses 29(1)(c) & (2)(a) in State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, as the applicant’s written request does not adequately address the matters required to be demonstrated. The proposed development would not be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objectives of the particular standards, the objectives for development in the zone and there are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation.

The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, in exercising its duties as the consent authority, pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, refuse the subject Development Application DA91/2020 for the demolition of existing structures and constructing of a boarding house development containing 44 boarding rooms housing on land at 28 Longueville Road Lane Cove for the following reasons:-

Building Height

1. The Development Application should be refused because the height of the proposed development is excessive, does not comply with the development standard or objectives of Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 and the written request submitted pursuant to Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 and Clause 29(2)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 is inadequate.

(a) Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 provides as follows:

“4.3 Height of buildings

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows—

(a) to ensure development allows for reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas,

(b) to ensure that privacy and visual impacts of development on neighbouring properties, particularly where zones meet, are reasonable,

(c) to seek alternative design solutions in order to maximise the potential sunlight for the public domain,

(d) to relate development to topography.

(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.”

(b) Clause 29(2)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provides as follows:

“29 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(2) A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this

Division applies on any of the following grounds—

(a) building height

if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum

building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument for

any building on the land,”

(c) Pursuant to the Height of Buildings Map referred to in Clause 4.3(2) of LCLEP 2009, the site is subject to a maximum building height of 12 metres.

(d) The maximum height of the proposed development is 15.8 metres which represents an exceedance of the development standard in Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 of 3.8 metres or 31.6%.

(e) The applicant has submitted a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 seeking to justify the contravention of the height of buildings development standard in Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009.

(f) The Court, having the functions of the consent authority for the purposes of hearing and disposing of this appeal, would not be satisfied that:

(i) The Applicant’s written request under Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 has adequately addressed the following matters required to be demonstrated:

(A) That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(B) That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard in Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009.

(ii) The proposed development is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 and the objectives for development in Zone R4 High Density Residential in LCLEP 2009.

Floor Space Ratio

2. The Development Application should be refused because the floor space ratio (FSR) of the proposed development is excessive, does not comply with the development standard or objectives of Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 and Clause 29(1)(c) in SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and the written request submitted pursuant to Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 is inadequate.

(a) Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 provides as follows:

“4.4 Floor space ratio

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows—

(a) to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.

(2) The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.”

(b) Clause 29(1)(c) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provides as follows:

“29 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1) A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this
Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if the density and scale of

the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than—

(c) if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat

buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that

is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage

order or on the State Heritage Register—the existing maximum floor space

ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land,

plus—

(i) (i) 0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less, or

(ii) (ii) 20% of the existing maximum floor space ratio, if the existing maximum

Fl floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1.

(d) Pursuant to Clause 29(1)(c) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, a maximum FSR of 1.3:1 is permitted on the subject development site.

(e) The maximum FSR of the proposed development is 1.41:1 which represents an exceedance of the development standard in Clause 29(1)(c) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 of 0.11:1 or 8.5%.

(f) The applicant has submitted a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 seeking to justify the contravention of the FSR development standards in Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 and Clause 29(1)(c) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) (ARH) 2009.

(g) The Court, having the functions of the consent authority for the purposes of hearing and disposing of this appeal, would not be satisfied that:

(i) The Applicant’s written request under Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 has adequately addressed the following matters required to be demonstrated:

(A) That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(B) That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standards in Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009.

(ii) The proposed development is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 and the objectives for development in Zone R4 High Density Residential in LCLEP 2009.

Character of the Local Area

3. The Development Application should be refused because the design of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing or desired future character of the local area.

(a) Clause 30A of SEPP ARH provides as follows:

“30A Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.”

(b) The local area is currently characterised by a mix of residential developments however the existing developments to the east contain substantial building setbacks, landscaped/deep soil and tree canopy areas to Longueville Road.

(c) The desired future character of the local area is established by the applicable planning controls which, pursuant to LCLEP 2009 and LCDCP, anticipates residential flat buildings on the subject site and the adjoining developments to the east, west and north. The proposed development would be contrary to the relevant zoning objectives.

(d) Notwithstanding that the development is not a residential flat building, it takes on the form of a commercial in appearance boarding house development in a precinct that is to contain residential flat building developments. Approval of the proposed development would be inconsistent with desired future character of the area sought to be achieved in LCLEP 2009 and LCDCP because it does not comply with the controls applicable to a comparable residential flat building development that would be carried out in the zone.

Setbacks

(e) The objectives of Clause 3.5 in Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP are as follows:

“3.5 Setbacks

Objectives

The objectives for setbacks are:

1. To establish the desired spatial proportions of the street and define the street edge and provide a transition between public and private space.

2. To assist in achieving visual privacy to dwellings from the street.

3. To allow for street landscape character.”

(f) The proposed development does not provide front and side setbacks that are in keeping with Clause 3.5.2 of Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP. A comparable and compliant residential flat building on the site would be required to provide 7.5m front setbacks and 6-9m side/rear setbacks, being a building of between 4 and 5 storeys.

(g) The proposed development provides a nil setback at basement level and 3m at ground floor and above which is inconsistent with the minimum setbacks required of surrounding residential flat buildings by Clause 3.5 in Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP. The inadequate setbacks contribute to a site coverage which:

i. is disproportionate to the size of the subject site, and

ii. prevents adequate landscape planting, contributes to excessive excavation and adverse privacy impacts from the northeastern elevation and rooftop terrace/lounge room and is therefore inconsistent with Clauses 3.1 Objective 1, 3.2(a), 3.3, 3.5, 3.8, 3.9(b), 3.11(a), 3.17 Objectives, 3.18 and 3.19 of Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP.

(h) Clause 3.5.3 of the LCDCP 2010 states:

a) In general, no part of a building or above ground structure may encroach into a setback zone. Exceptions are:

i. Encroachments in the setback zone of up to 2m may be permitted for underground parking structures no more than 1.2m above ground level (existing), where there is no unreasonable effect om the streetscape. Refer to diagram 10.

(i) The basement parking structure for the proposed development extends to the front and secondary street boundary line and as a result reduces the area available for landscaping and adversely impacts on the streetscape.

Separation Distances

(j) Pursuant to Clause 3.6 in Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP, a comparable and compliant residential flat building of 4 storeys would be required to achieve separation distances of 12m between habitable rooms/balconies; 9m between habitable rooms/balconies and non-habitable room; and 6m between non-habitable rooms and blank walls to any wall to another window, light or balcony. 5 storeys would require 18 metres between habitable rooms/balconies, 13 metres between habitable rooms/balconies and non-habitable rooms and 9 metres between non-habitable rooms and blank walls to any other window, well and balcony.

(k) The objectives of Clause 3.6 in Part C are as follows:

“3.6 Building Separation (within developments)

Objectives

The objectives for building separation are:

1 To provide visual and acoustic privacy for existing and new residents.

2 To allow for the provision of appropriately sized open space for recreational activities. 3 To provide deep soil zones for stormwater management and tree planting, where contextual and site conditions allow.”

(l) The proposed development provides side or rear boundary setbacks of 3m which does not allow for the required separation distances in clause 3.6 in Part C of LCDCP to be achieved.

(m) The reduced separation results in impacts to visual and acoustic privacy between the proposed development and existing and future adjoining development and is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 3.6 in Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP.

Density and Building Depth

(n) The objectives of Clause 3.1 in Part C of LCDCP are as follows:

“3.1 General Objectives

Objectives

The objectives for residential flat buildings are:

1. To achieve a reasonable level of amenity for the residential flat buildings, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

2. To achieve sustainable development whilst providing a concentration of residents close to public transport and facilities.

3. To create entrances which provide a desirable residential identity for the development, orient visitors and contribute positively to the streetscape and building facade design.

4. To provide opportunities for lifestyle choice and dwelling mix.”

(o) Pursuant to Clause 3.2 in Part C of LCDCP, a comparable and compliant residential flat building can only be carried out on a site with a minimum area of 1,500m².

(p) Pursuant to Clause 3.3 in Part C of LCDCP, a comparable and compliant residential flat building would be limited to a building depth of 18 metres.

(q) A relevant objective of Clause 3.3 in Part C of LCDCP 2010 is to “ensure that the bulk of the development is in scale with the existing or desired future context.”

(r) The proposed development has a building depth of approximately 26.4 metres on a site of approximately 851.4m² in area, resulting in a building that is out of proportion with the spatial characteristics of the site and is not in keeping with the existing or desired future context of the precinct.

Landscaped Area

(s) The objectives of Clause 3.18 in Part C – LCDCP 2010 are as follows:

“3.18 Landscaped Area

Objectives

The objectives for landscaping and deep soil zones are:

1. To provide privacy and amenity.

2. To retain and provide for significant vegetation, particularly large and medium sized trees and to provide continuous vegetation corridors.

3. To conserve significant natural features of the site.

4. To assist with management of the water quality and water table.

5. To conserve and create buildings in a landscaped setting.”

(t) Pursuant to Clause 3.18 in Part C of LCDCP, a comparable and compliant residential flat building would be required to provide a minimum of 40% of the site area as planted area, comprising of a minimum of 25% landscaped area and 15% planting on structures.

(u) The proposed development has not demonstrated compliance with the above requirements.

(v) The proposed development does not provide the amount of planted and landscaped area envisaged to maintain the character of the locality as a result of its insufficient setbacks and particularly the extension of the basement slab to the side boundaries and is therefore inconsistent with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

Site Amalgamation and Isolation

4. The Development Application should be refused as it has not been supported by information to demonstrate that sufficient efforts have been made to purchase the adjoining land at Nos.26/26A Longueville Road.

(a) While early attempts were made to purchase Nos.26/26A Longueville Road, there is no evidence to demonstrate that independent valuation was obtained and presented to the adjoining owners of that land.

(b) The application has not been supported with information to demonstrate that Nos.26/26A Longueville Road can be developed on its own for a development.

(c) A viable development of 26/26A Longueville Road would likely take a similar form to that as proposed by the subject development site. Noting the inconsistencies with the provisions of the LCDCP as contended above, this would result in a number of developments that are inconsistent with the desired character of the locality.

Tree Retention, Replacement and Landscaping

5. The Development Application should be refused as the proposed development makes insufficient provision for the retention and replacement of trees. The proposed development fails to retain any existing planting on the land. The proposed plantings are not satisfactory for the proposed landscaping areas given the lack of soil depth available as a planting medium. Insufficient arborist and landscaping information has been submitted to address Part J – Landscaping section of LCDCP as follows:

Tree Management

· The proposal seeks to retain just one tree of the seventeen assessed in the Arborist report. The proposed retained tree is identified as tree 1 and is located on the neighbouring site to the east. The Arborists assessment of the tree states the Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) used to calculate the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) was measured at 590 millimetres. The measurements taken on site during Councils site inspection showed there to be two stems that would dictate the TPZ calculation measuring 480mm and 470mm creating a combined DBH of 670mm.

· The Arborist report states that the TPZ radius is 7 metres when Council calculated the TPZ to be 8 metres. This renders the impact on a neighbouring tree from the root severance to install the basement at 21% as opposed to the 19% stated in the report. Both are major encroachments.

· The Arborist report does recommend root mapping to be carried out to determine the trees viability, this appears not to have been carried out so the neighbour’s trees viability is still unknown at the point of DA submission.

· The Arborist report states clearly in Clause 14.2 of LCDCP Part J that the tree may not remain viable post construction irrespective of mitigation measures. There is also a comment stating requiring the removal of up to 5 metres of the canopy to allow sufficient setback from the development. It is highly likely that, irrespective of the root mapping carried out, the tree will decline as a result of the development process.

· Several higher value trees such as the Stenocarpus, Macrocarpa, Lagerstroemia and Magnolia have been recommended for removal along with all of the other trees on site. It is apparent that no attempt has been made to retain any of the trees on site particularly the higher value boundary trees noted above. All trees on site are considered to be retainable in situ for the medium to long term and are considered to be a material constraint to development.

· LCDCP Part J Landscaping states in Clause 1.4 that the development should retain existing trees where reasonably possible and should not require unnecessary removal. Proposed development that does not comply may be refused or delayed.

· The development is also conflicting with Clause 2.2.2 Tree Preservation Objective to retain the maximum number of trees, particularly native trees, within the municipality in healthy condition and natural form and shape.

· The proposal makes no attempt at retaining any of the trees on site, particularly the trees on the boundary to Kimberly Street and Longueville Road. The one tree that has been proposed to be retained is highly questionable as to the validity of the of the proposed retention in the long term. The development is not supported.

Landscaping

· The proposed landscape plans must be amended to demonstrate new and/or altered services. Site plan clearly showing percentage of landscaped area and deep soil planting as hatching/shading; and a table showing the % of each calculation as well as the overall site area clearly labelled on landscape plan by Registered Landscape Architect. The proposed development requires sections showing the extent of excavation and earthworks in accordance with Part J Landscaping and the Landscape checklist. The current drawings do not show enough information on RLS and wall height levels. The current drawings do not show any information on proposed constructed landscape elements and only show ‘Typical’ sections. The current drawings do not provide enough information on the planter box over the basement housing the Elaeocarpus reticulatus or the planter boxes on the roof top level. The drawings will need to be amended to provide more information on all raised planter boxes in the design. The Landscape Package does not include a plan outlining the communal open space. This must be revised and included in the next issue.

· The Landscape Package does not adhere to the desired communal open space requirements in the following respects. No detail has been given (other than plant species) on the nature of the roof top communal open space area. There is no evidence of provisions for group or individual recreation activities. The visual amenity, privacy and outlook for this space poor. The low planting on the Longueville Road side will not provide any privacy or visual relief for residents. There is no communal open space co-located with deep soil areas on this development proposal. Although it is noted that the parameters of this block may not allow for communal open space on ground level, more thorough design should be considered for the roof top area to ensure it is an effective and usable space. The submitted landscape documentation package does not include a communal open space calculation diagram.

· The communal open space outlined on the rooftop is not currently defined or designed in a manner to make it an effective and useable space. A revised communal open space calculation plan and a revised communal open space must be completed by the Landscape Architect and sent back to Council prior for further assessment.

· The Landscape Package does not adhere to the desired deep soil requirements in the following respects. There is no landscape calculation plan to prove that it reaches the intended 25% deep soil area. The Landscape Architect would have to resubmit the plans with a landscape calculation plan attached for Council’s Landscape Architect to properly assess whether the site achieves the above outlined deep soil requirement.

· The Applicant must ensure that planting on structures provides for adequate soil depth, volume and a suitable soil profile to support the number of trees and shrubs indicated on the approved DA plans in accordance with the table provided in LCDCP Part J 1.10 – Planting on Structures. A detailed landscape plan showing the construction methods of the proposed planter boxes shall be submitted and should include the following:

Type of wall

Dimensions of wall

Levels for both top of wall and bottom of wall

Material used for the wall

Drainage of information

Waterproofing information

Soil profile and depth for each plant type

Proposed soil volume

Sections and elevations clearly illustrating the design intent and how it pertains to the human scale

Plant materials specified foe each of the planter boxes

Certification from a practicing Structural Engineer

It is noted that the existing trees onsite are worthy of retention. However, replacement trees

are required for each tree that is removed. 16 endemic species of trees are required to be

planted onsite to compensate this. These trees should be varied in species to encourage

biodiversity.

The Communal Open Space area located on the rooftop shows planter boxes with

insufficient details to ascertain the design intention. This area is to be fully documented in

the revised landscape plan. The following are recommended as minimum standards for a

range of plant sizes:

(a) Large trees (canopy diameter of up to 16m at maturity)

I. minimum soil volume 150m³

II. minimum soil depth 1.3m

III. area 10m x 10m area or equivalent

(b) Medium trees (8m canopy diameter at maturity)

I. minimum soil volume 35m³

II. minimum soil depth 1m

III. approximate soil area 6m x 6m or equivalent

I. minimum soil volume 9m³

II. minimum soil depth 800mm

III.approximate soil area 3.5m x 3.5m or equivalent

(d) Shrubs

I.minimum soil depths 500-600mm

(e) Ground cover

I.minimum soil depths 300-450mm

(f)Turf

I. minimum soil depths 100-300mm

Any subsurface drainage requirements are in addition to the minimum soil depths

mentioned above.

Waste Collection

6. The Development Application should be refused as:

· As a residential apartment or commercial style building with 4 and 5 storeys, the building should incorporate a waste chute, carousel and compactor system which has not been provided.

· On site collection of waste and recycling is required, not on the kerb as described. Council would reject the presentation of 16 x 240L MGB’s on the kerb as this is contrary to Council’s waste management collection objectives and inconsistent with approvals/consents for other similar approvals since 2011.

· Due to the itinerant nature of a boarding house, 30 square metres for the storage of bulky waste goods is required – note 9 square metres shown in architectural drawings.

· On site collection is to be provided for an SRV and the applicant is to provide amended plans in accordance with Part Q of the LCDCP.

Traffic, Transport and Parking

7. The Development Application should be refused for the following traffic, transport and car parking reasons:

o In accordance with Clause SEPP ARH, the development is required to provide parking at a rate of 0.5 per room. This equates to 22 car spaces. The proposed development provides 12 spaces (including 2 car share spaces) which is a short fall of 10 car spaces. This is not supported.

o The waste collection vehicle does not have a designated waiting bay. Turnaround of the waste vehicle to allow SRVs to enter/exit in a forward direction must be demonstrated through swept paths.

o A scraping test for an SRV and B99 vehicle is to be provided from the driveway to the basement car park. The section plans are to also outline the vertical clearance for the path.

o The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has stated that the design of the development has not demonstrated that it would not compromise the integrity of the Lane Cove Tunnel. No information has been provided in relation to anticipated maximum depth of excavation and pile depth for the proposed development. The RMS has requested submission of a geotechnical report.

Environment and Health

8. The Development Application should be refused as:

· A construction noise management plan is to be provided at DA stage.

· Contamination issues have been addressed via a Stage 1 Report.

· An environmental plan addressing dust and deep excavation water management is to be submitted for assessment. Deep excavations fill up with ground water and rain water and need to be treated prior to disposal. Due to the proximity of the development to adjoining homes, a detailed dust management plan is to be provided, to ensure the amenity of the area is maintained and managed.

Accessibility

9. The Development Application should be refused as the roof top Communal Lounge doesn’t appear to have any covering from the lift well or staircase. A detailed plan of the fit out would be required. The entry doorways and common use doorway are required to comply with the AS 1428.2 including turning circles in front of the doorways. One of the accessible rooms would require a LH transfer toilet. Currently they are all RH. The gradient of the ramp from the street to the accessible entrance would need to be confirmed with attention to the gradient as it turns to the right.

Precedent

10. The Development Application should be refused because approval of the proposed development would create an unacceptable and undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate developments that are inconsistent with the existing and desired future character of the local area.

Overdevelopment

11. The Development Application should be refused pursuant to Section 4.15(b) of the EP & A Act 1979 because approval of the proposed development would represent as an overdevelopment due to the proposed bulk, scale and setbacks of the development located on a 851.4sqm lot. The Development Application should be refused pursuant to Section 4.15(b) of the EP & A Act 1979 because approval of the proposed development would represent as an overdevelopment due to the proposed bulk, scale and setbacks of the development located on a 851.4sqm lot.

The Site

12. The site in considered to be unsuitable for the development as proposed. Pursuant to

Section 4.15(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act

1979), the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development as amended in its

current built form, having regard to the above matters. The height, bulk and scale, building

separation, rooftop common open space/lounge room and associated landscaped areas

with parking/traffic conflicts issues have not been adequately resolved before the proposed

development can be recommended for approval.

The site suitability is not acceptable having regard to the large numbers of variations

involved and with the character compatibility provisions under SEPP ARH 2009.

Public Interest

13. The Development Application should be refused because approval of the proposed development is not in the public interest pursuant to Section 4.15(d) and (e) of the EP & A Act 1979 having regard to the contentions raised above and 31 submissions received from surrounding residents raising concerns with the proposed development.

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View	Neighbour Notification Plan	2 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2View	Notification Plan	2 Pages
AT‑3View	Clause 4.6 Written Variation	9 Pages

General Manager