Agenda of Lane Cove Local Planning Panel - Wednesday, 8 February 2023

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 08 February 2023

Section 4.55 Modification(1A), 60 Cliff Road, Northwood.

Subject: Section 4.55 Modification(1A), 60 Cliff Road, Northwood.

Record No: DA21/110-01 - 3001/23

Division: Environmental Services Division

Author(s): Andrew Bland

DA Number	Council Reference: DA110/2021 – Section 4.55 Modification(1A) Portal Reference: PAN-238478
Proposed Development	Modification to the amendments imposed by the Lane Cove Planning Panel through the deferred commencement requirements and the enclosing of a small window.
Street Address	60 Cliff Road, Northwood
Applicant/Owner	Applicant: Kathleen McDowell – Dickson Rothschild Owner: X Hong and O Chen
Date of DA Lodgment	8 December 2022
Development Cost	$4,831,827.00 (Same as original)
Public Notification Period	Notification Period: 7 December 2022 to 23 December 2022
Submissions Received	3 submissions received.
Recommendation	Council’s recommendation is that any changes relating to the deferred commencement conditions should be deliberated by the Lane Cove Planning Panel (LPP) as they imposed these conditions under their jurisdiction and were not recommendations from Council. Following a decision on these matters Council has recommended approval for enclosing the east facing window, if the prior matters under Part 1 of this report are supported by the LPP.
Local Planning Panel Referral Criteria (Schedule 1 of Planning Direction)	· Modification to the amendments imposed by the Lane Cove Planning Panel through the deferred commencement requirements.
List of relevant s4.15(1)(a) matters	· relevant environmental planning instruments - SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021; - SEPP(Resilience and hazards) 2021; - SEPP (Building Sustainability Index) 2004; - Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. · relevant development control plan - Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010
Clause 4.6 requests	Nil.
Summary of key submissions	· Concerns regarding the impacts of removing these conditions. · Request for same Panel. · Concerns relating to the matters assessed within the former development applications such as height, size, views etc.
Report prepared by	Andrew Bland
Report date	17 January 2023

Executive Summary

Recent Background

- The Lane Cove Planning Panel (LPP) at its meeting on 20 September 2022 granted a deferred commencement consent to Development Application 110/2021 for the part demolition and alterations to the dwelling house including a rear addition, a swimming pool and related landscaping, at 60 Cliff Road, Northwood, subject to Council’s satisfaction that the following amendments were made to the plans:

M1. Amendments to address privacy and amenity. The required amendments are as follows:

1. A 300mm reduction in height for the lower module from RL 29.94 to RL 29.64.

2. A 1.9m splayed edge to the southeast corner of the upper module (both the ground floor and lower ground floor).

3. A 4.5m setback for the first floor balcony of the upper module from the edge of the building adjacent to the shared boundary with 58 Cliff Road.

- These 3 amendments were requested from the owners of the neighbouring property and agreed to by a representative of the Applicant Nigel Dickson from Dickson Rothschild at the Lane Cove Planning Panel meeting dated 20 September 2022.

- Council received amended plans from the Applicant on 27 October 2022 which sought to address the deferred commencement requirements.

- Council was satisfied that these plans addresses those requirements and issued operative consent and stamped plans on 18 November 2022.

Subject Development Application

- Council received the subject Section 4.55 Modification(1A) application on 7 December 2022.

- The Application has been addressed in two parts for clarity.

- Part 1 addresses the amendments which relate to requirements imposed by the LPP. Council refers assessment of Part 1 entirely to the LPP as these conditions weren’t included in Council’s recommendation. The facts have been provided and a summarisation of the neighborhood submissions and justifications from the Applicant.

- Part 2 deals with a minor amendment to an east facing window which includes an assessment and a recommendation.

- Part 2 has been recommended for Approval, however, this relies on the LPP’s decision regarding matters under Part 1 being supported (existing wall including the east facing window being retained)

- 3 submission were received which related to the matters under Part 1 and have been summarised later in that section of the report.

Part 1 – Amendments relating to the Lane Cove Planning Panel Conditions

Reason for referral to Local Planning Panel

The development application is required to be determined by the LPP as the applicant is proposing amendments which directly relate to the requirements of the deferred commencement consent which the LPP had enforced. These requirements have since been satisfied by the Applicant and Council has issued the operative consent.

Proposed Development

The modification application proposes the following:

1. Remove the 1.9m splay requiring the demolition of the south east corner of the existing dwelling, and instead proposes to retain the corner of the existing dwelling. The chamfered corner area would be setback between 3.6m to 4.1m from the boundary.

2. Increase the width of the balcony on the First Floor Plan while maintaining a setback of at least 3.9m.

The proposed justifications have been provided:

1. Advice received from Palantir Consulting, Structural Engineers, which states that demolition of the corner of the building will compromise the structural integrity of the dwelling. The existing external walls are load bearing.

2. The corner of the building is an existing element on the site, and its retention does not give rise to any visual or amenity impacts in comparison to the existing site condition. The corner of the existing dwelling is well setback from the side boundary by approximately 3.8m. This south east corner of the existing dwelling is below the applicable height limit set out in the LEP and below the applicable wall height limit set out in the DCP. The upper part of the corner has no windows facing the side boundary and no privacy impact arises.

3. The side setback of the balcony at Level 1 to the eastern site boundary is at least 3.9m. The balcony is also setback 1.9m from the edge of the slab which limits overlooking to neighbouring sites.

Associated changes to the Condition 1. A1 being the approved plan:

1. A.1 - Approved plans and supporting documentation

Development must be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and supporting documentation (stamped by Council), except where the conditions of this consent expressly require otherwise.

Plan No	Revision	Plan Title	Drawn By	Dated
DA-0-001	H J	Cover Sheet	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-111	N P	Site Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-151	K L	Demolition Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-231	N P	Pool Level Floor Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-232	M N	Lower Ground Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-233	M N	Ground Floor Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-234	M N	First Floor Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-235	M N	Roof Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-301	J K	Elevation – Sheet 01	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-302	H J	Elevations – Sheet 02	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-303	B C	Elevations – Sheet 03	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-401	M N	Section – Sheet 01	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-402	F	Sections – Sheet 02	Dickson Rothschild	20/10/2022

Reason: To ensure all parties are aware of the approved plans and supporting documentation that applies to the development.

Provided Structural Adequacy Letter from Applicant

Palantir Consulting were engaged by a representative of the Applicant to determine the structural adequacy of the building if the eastern rear corner of the building is to be demolished. The letter considered the provided plans and a site inspection conducted on 2 November 2022. The letter concluded that:

“we are of the opinion that the demolition of the corner of the building at the rear eastern end will compromise the structural integrity of the dwelling. As this corner is supporting the lower and upper ground floor as well as the roof structure, any demolition of this section will cause structural inadequacy of the building. We recommend that this corner is maintained and not demolished because it can affect the structural performance of the house.”

Response to Notification

Council received 3 submission in response to the notification letter. The concerns have been summarised in the following table.

Summary of Submissions
Loss of view – Concerns that reverting back from the “chamfered corner” would result in detrimental impacts on the views obtained from 58 Cliff Road.	Refer to the view loss assessment against the Tenacity Principle in the prior application.
Setback of balcony – Concerns that reverting back to the upper module balcony being setback 3.9m as opposed to 8.4m from the boundary.	This was a condition imposed by the LPP and as such will be deliberated and determined by the Panel.
Credibility of the Local Planning Panel – Concerns that reverting back from the conditions imposed by the LPP undermines their credibility.	The LPP is a panel of appropriately qualified people independent of Council charged with determining a range of development applications on behalf of Council.
Landscaping Matter – Concerns in relation to the planting of bamboo within a view corridor and request that Council enforce a maximum height for the vegetation as to preserve the view shown in Figure 1 previously in this table.	Maintenance of landscaping is a matter to be resolved between neighbours as it is a civil matter.
Approved Development – Concern relating to the size of the approved development and that the proposed amendments would increase the bulk of the development.	The proposed amendments would maintain the existing wall of the dwelling house and extend the balustrade on the approved roof.
Floor Space Ratio - A request that the area separated by the Foreshore Building Line is excluded from the “Site Area” in regard to the FSR calculation as it can’t be constructed on. This would reduce the allowable Gross Floor Area.	The site area within the Foreshore building line is included with the “Site Area” for the purposes of FSR calculations.
Non-compliances – Concerns with the approved non-compliance in the prior Application.	The LPP have already assessed these impacts and determined the application.

Summary of Submissions

Concern

Comment

Loss of view – Concerns that reverting back from the “chamfered corner” would result in detrimental impacts on the views obtained from 58 Cliff Road.

Refer to the view loss assessment against the Tenacity Principle in the prior application.

Setback of balcony – Concerns that reverting back to the upper module balcony being setback 3.9m as opposed to 8.4m from the boundary.

This was a condition imposed by the LPP and as such will be deliberated and determined by the Panel.

Credibility of the Local Planning Panel – Concerns that reverting back from the conditions imposed by the LPP undermines their credibility.

The LPP is a panel of appropriately qualified people independent of Council charged with determining a range of development applications on behalf of Council.

Landscaping Matter – Concerns in relation to the planting of bamboo within a view corridor and request that Council enforce a maximum height for the vegetation as to preserve the view shown in Figure 1 previously in this table.

Maintenance of landscaping is a matter to be resolved between neighbours as it is a civil matter.

Approved Development – Concern relating to the size of the approved development and that the proposed amendments would increase the bulk of the development.

The proposed amendments would maintain the existing wall of the dwelling house and extend the balustrade on the approved roof.

Floor Space Ratio - A request that the area separated by the Foreshore Building Line is excluded from the “Site Area” in regard to the FSR calculation as it can’t be constructed on. This would reduce the allowable Gross Floor Area.

The site area within the Foreshore building line is included with the “Site Area” for the purposes of FSR calculations.

Non-compliances – Concerns with the approved non-compliance in the prior Application.

The LPP have already assessed these impacts and determined the application.

Statutory Assessment

The proposed development application has been proposed under Section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). Council has accepted lodgment for the application. It may be noted that:

· The amendments if supported would be of minimal environmental impact;

· The amendments if supported would result in substantially the same development for which the consent was originally granted for;

· The application has been notified in accordance with Council’s policy and the 3 submissions received have been provided to the determining authority and summarised in the table above.

The applicant provided a statement for the proposed modification in respects of Section 4.55(1A) of the Act, a summarisation of this statement is as follows:

Section 4.55(1A)(a), the proposed modifications have a minimal environmental impact.

- View sharing is still achieved as the neighbouring site maintains significant water view irrespective of the chamfered wall.

- The proposed built form in this location complies with the LEP height standard, the DCP wall height control and the DCP side setback control, thus sitting comfortably within the permissible building envelope for the site. Environmental impacts arising from the chamfer modification are thus minimal.

- The balcony maintains a generous side setback to the eastern boundary of at least 3.8m. Additionally, the balcony is setback from the slab edge by at least 1.9m. This limits opportunities for overlooking of neighbouring sites.

Section 4.55(1A)(b), the proposed modifications result in ‘substantially the same’ development.

- The proposed modification relates to a limited area of the built form and changes to the gross floor area are limited to 3m².

- The development description remains unchanged by the proposed modification.

- The proposed increase of the balcony maintains a large setback from the side boundary and from the slab edge which limits potential privacy impacts.

In relation to Section 4.55(1A)(c) to (d), these are process requirements that can be satisfied during the course of the application’s assessment.

Section 4.55(3) required the determining authority to give full regard the matters referred to in section 4.15(1) as are relevant. The applicant provided a statement for the proposed modification in respects of Section 4.15(1) of the Act, a summarisation of this statement is as follows:

4.15(1) (a) Standard matters which are to be considered including LEP, DCP, SEPP’s and other legislation.

- (i) any environmental planning instruments - the proposed modifications do not affect compliance with any environmental planning instruments including the LEP maximum height, FSR standard and / or any of the relevant coastal related SEPP standards.

- (ii) not applicable

- (iii) any development control plan – the proposed modifications maintain compliance with the wall height and setback controls of Council’s DCP 2009.

- (iii) not applicable

- (iv) not applicable

4.15(1) (b) likely impacts of the development including both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts to the locality.

- The likely impacts of the proposed modifications are minimal.

- The works seek to retain more of the existing dwelling than what is currently approved.

- The area of the building subject to the proposed modification is wholly within the building envelope permissible under the LEP and DCP as established by the building height, wall height and side setback standards.

- No east facing windows or openings are proposed within the modified area, minimising potential privacy and amenity impacts.

- The chimney and pitched roof in this location at the southeast corner of the existing dwelling are still proposed to be removed which results in improved view sharing with neighbours when compared to the existing site condition.

- In comparison to the approved development, the extension of the dwelling to its existing profile does reduce a small area of water view from the neighbouring site. However, this water view is enjoyed across a side boundary making it a lower order consideration as per Tenacity.

- The extension of the First Floor Plan balcony towards the east does not give rise to unacceptable adverse impacts because a reasonable setback from the side boundary and from the slab limit overlooking opportunities.

4.15(1) (c) the suitability of the site for the development.

- The approved development has already established site suitability and the proposed modification has no impact on the suitability of the site for the development.

4.15(1) (d) any submissions received in response to the notification letter.

- Any submission received to be considered

4.15(1) (e) the public interest

- The proposal is within the public interest as it does not generate any unacceptable adverse impacts.

- The public interest is served by the modification in that it allows for the carrying out of a DA that is approved, and the proposed modifications do not substantially change this.

- The proposed development is substantially the same to that already approved.

Part 2 – Minor amendment to the south east corner of the existing dwelling

Executive Summary

· Part 2 relies upon the LPP decision regarding the matter under Part 1 of this report.

· The subject east facing window can only be enclosed if the existing south east corner of the dwelling is retained.

· If the matters under Part 1 of this report are supported by the LPP, Council recommends that Part 2 is supported as it would result in improved mutual privacy between the subject site and the adjoining neighbours.

· Condition 1B has been included to ensure an updated Basix Certificate is obtained.

Proposed Development

The modification Application proposes the following:

a) Enclosing the east facing window at the lower ground floor of the existing dwelling to minimise potential impacts and provide a level of privacy akin to the consented development. As shown in Figures 2 and 3 below.

The proposed justifications have been provided:

a) The east facing window on the lower ground floor balcony near existing ground level is proposed to be enclosed to avoiding potential privacy impacts that may arise from the existing opening.

Figures 2 & 3: East face window circled in blue and green. (Source: Lane Cove Council Planner and the architectural plans)

Proposal Compliance

Local Environmental Plan 2009

Zoning: R2 Low Density Site Area: 2694m²

	Proposed	Control	Complies
Floor Space Ratio	No changes to the floor space ratio.	0.5:1	Yes
Height of Buildings	No changes to the height of the building.	9.5m	Yes

Comprehensive DCP

	Proposed	Control	Complies
Side setback (min)	The enclosure of the east facing opening would maintain the existing setback.	1200mm single storey 1500mm two storey	Yes
Wall Height (max) (max parapet of 600mm)	No changes to the wall height.	7.0m	Yes
Foreshore Building Line (min)	All works located behind the Foreshore Building Line		Yes
Solar Access	No changes to the solar access.	3 hrs to north-facing windows	Yes
Provide for view sharing	Enclosure of the east facing window would have no impacts on views.		Yes
Heritage Conservation	Enclosure of the east facing window would have no impacts on heritage conservation.		Yes
Basix Certificate	A condition has been included to ensure a revised Basix Certificate to be obtained.	Required	Condition 1B recommended.

Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act)

The proposal has been assessed in relation to the relevant matters under Section 4.55 of the Act as discussed below.

Minimal environmental impact

S4.55(1A)(a) Proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact.

Yes, as there would be no environmental impacts as a result of the enclosure of the east facing window. It would improve the mutual privacy between the neighbours.

S4.55(1A)(b) The modified development is substantially the same?

Yes, because the application seeks to enclose an existing window.

S4.55(1A)(c) It is notified the application in accordance with the development control plan?

Notified in accordance with Council policy.

S4.55(1A)(d) Consideration of submissions.

Council received 3 submission in response to the notification. No concerns were raised regarding enclosure of the east facing window.

S4.55(3) Assessment of the proposed modifications.

An assessment of the proposal is required in relation to s4.15 of the Act. This assessment is as follows.

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 4.15(1)(a))

The proposal is permissible, complies with the development standards for Floor Space Ratio and height and does not raise any issues in regard to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 4.15(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))

No variations proposed.

Section 4.15(1)(b) The likely impacts of the development

Built and natural environment

There would be no adverse impacts to the natural or built environment as a result of the enclosure of the window.

Section 4.15(1)(c) The suitability of the site for the development

The site is suitable for the development.

Section 4.15(1)(d) Any submissions

Discussed previously under section S4.55(1A)(c) and S4.55(1A)(d).

Section 4.15(1)(e) The public interest

Approval of the proposal would not be contrary to the public interest as the proposed works would have no adverse impacts on either the neighbouring properties or the street scape.

CONCLUSION

All matters under Part 1 of this report have been referred to the Lane Cove Planning Panel for assessment and determination.

If the LPP support these changes, Part 2 of the report deals with the enclosure of an existing east facing window.

Regarding Part 2 - the matters in relation to Section 4.55 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been satisfied.

On balance the proposed development would be reasonable and therefore is recommended for approval subject to the changes required to existing conditions in the recommendation.

As the proposal does not raise any issues, the s.4.55 application is recommended for approval subject to following changes as shown in italics and ~~strikeout~~ under Parts A, B and C of the Recommendation to this report:

Part A

- The amendment of condition 1, being the list of approved plans.

Part B

- The addition of condition 1B.

Part C

- The retention of all other conditions of the original development consent as previously approved would remain relevant.

RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, if the Lane Cove Planning Panel at its meeting of 8 February 2023 support the matters under Part 1 of this report, then, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, grant consent to Development Application DA110/2021 for the part demolition and significant alterations to the dwelling house including a rear addition, a swimming pool and related landscaping at 60 Cliff Road, Northwood is amended in the following manner:

Part A

The amendment of condition 1 to read:

1. A.1 - Approved plans and supporting documentation

Plan No	Revision	Plan Title	Drawn By	Dated
DA-0-001	H J	Cover Sheet	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-111	N P	Site Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-151	K L	Demolition Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-231	N P	Pool Level Floor Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-232	M N	Lower Ground Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-233	M N	Ground Floor Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-234	M N	First Floor Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-235	M N	Roof Plan	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-301	J K	Elevation – Sheet 01	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-302	H J	Elevations – Sheet 02	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-303	B C	Elevations – Sheet 03	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-401	M N	Section – Sheet 01	Dickson Rothschild	~~20/10/2022~~ 10/11/2022
DA-0-402	F	Sections – Sheet 02	Dickson Rothschild	20/10/2022

Reason: To ensure all parties are aware of the approved plans and supporting documentation that applies to the development.

Part B

The addition of condition 1B to read:

1B. Updated Basix Certificate

An updated Basix Certificate is to be obtained and provided to the principle certifier prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

Reason: To ensure an updated Basix Certificate is relied upon.

Part C

The retention of all the other conditions of the development consent, being condition numbers 1A, 2 - 67, as previously approved

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 08 February 2023

33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

Subject: 33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

Record No: DA19/103-01 - 945/23

Division: Environmental Services Division

Author(s): Greg Samardzic

Property:	No. 33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich Lot 1 DP 1135033
DA No:	DA 103/2019 – Section 4.55(1A) Modification Application
Date Lodged:	19 October 2022
Cost of Work:	Unchanged from the original cost of works of $29,148,097.00
Owner:	Stamen Greenwich Property Pty Ltd
Applicant:	Jonathan Shteinman

Description of the proposal to appear on determination	Section 4.55(1A) modification to an approved Residential Care Facility development under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004
Zone	R2 Low Density Residential
Is the proposal permissible within the zone	Yes – original consent approved under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004
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, however on 14 November 2022 a request by Council for additional information occurred for the applicant to address the Floor Space Ratio (FSR), the proposed rooftop bar, hours of construction, cost of works and tree removal concerns raised by the lodged submissions. On 5 December 2022, a response to the concerns was submitted by the applicant.
Notification	The proposal was notified as per Council’s policy. A total of 13 unique submissions were received.

REASON FOR REFERRAL

The subject Modification Application is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel as 13 public submissions were received by way of objection due to the notification period.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal seeks to contains various design amendments to the approved residential care facility development under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. The proposal as amended would result in a minor technical FSR variation by 3% due to the conversion of excess storage rooms to other ancillary uses being counted as Gross Floor Area (GFA). Notwithstanding the additional GFA, there will be no change to the approved building footprint or external envelope and the proposal as amended would ensure that the bulk or scale of the development remains compatible with the character of the locality.

The proposal as amended was notified in accordance with Council policy and 13 submissions were received. The submissions relate to various matters including but not limited to FSR, the proposed rooftop bar and tree removal concerns. The submissions are summarised and addressed in the report. The bulk and scale of the development as amended remains substantially the same as previously approved. The proposed rooftop bar is to be located internally within an approved clubroom and a bar was originally approved under the original consent (which was subsequently removed under a previous Section 4.55 Modification consent). There are no concerns with its use as it is unlikely that it would not be used late at night.

The proposal as amended would continue to provide for a high-quality landscape setting to soften the built form to fit within its low-density residential setting. The subject Modification Application is recommended for approval subject to amending Condition No. 1 to reflect the updated architectural and landscaped plans. Also, it is recommended that a condition be added to restrict the operation of the rooftop bar to cease after dinner time, except on special occasions.

SITE

The site is legally described as Lot 1 DP 1135033 with a street address of No. 33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich and total site area of 4,290m². The site is a corner allotment with frontage to Greenwich Road and River Road West. The property is located on the southern side of River Road West and on the western side of Greenwich Road. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage to River Road of 49.525m, Greenwich Road of 74.665m, the southern boundary with No. 35 Greenwich Road of 67.81m and an irregular non-linear western boundary of approximately 86.14m.

The subject site was previously occupied by an existing four storey boarding house known as ‘Greenwich Village Accommodation’ however it has been demolished and construction of the approved works are underway. The property is bounded by existing vegetation and trees to the perimeter of the site and vehicular access to the property is provided from Greenwich Road. The subject site adjoins a heritage item of local significance to the south – No. 35 Greenwich Road, Greenwich. Directly to the west of the site are dwelling houses located on Stella Vista Place.

Figure 1: Subject Site

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

Date	Description
15/03/2007	Development Consent DA225/2005 was granted by the Land and Environment Court to a proposal for subdivision of the site into 7 allotments with associated demolition and tree removal. This subdivision created the properties adjoining the subject site known as 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 & 11 Stella Vista Place.
28/02/2018	Development Application DA130/2017 approved under Delegated Authority for a change of use from a boarding house to a 92-bed residential aged care facility including associated alterations and additions to, and refurbishment of the existing building.
30/11/2018	Development Application DA158/2018 withdrawn by the applicant for demolition of an existing boarding house and construction of a 92-bed residential age care facility.

APPROVED DEVELOPMENT

The approved development is for the demolition of the existing four storey boarding house known as ‘Greenwich Villa Accommodation’ and construction of a residential care facility pursuant to SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. The Development Application (DA103/2019) was reported to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (LCLPP) on 10 December 2019 and development consent was issued on 14 January 2020.

Figure 2: Approved Residential Care Facility

The approved residential care facility comprised of two basement levels including 25 car parking spaces and residential services, and three levels of residential suites comprising a total of 92 rooms. A description of each level is provided as follows:

Level	Description
Basement 2	· 25 car parking spaces including one accessible space; · Loading bay and garbage store; and · Residential and operational storage areas.
Basement 1	· Kitchen and laundry service areas and staff room/offices; · Residential health services (e.g. rehabilitation gym); and · Residential amenities (e.g. movie room, hairdresser, music lounge).
Ground	· Entry foyer; · 29 residential care suites; · Café · Storage rooms (e.g. linen store, mattress store); and · Access to central courtyard, terrace area and landscaping.
Level 1	· 36 residential care suites; · Common outdoor terrace area; and · Common lounge area.
Level 2	· 36 residential care suites; and · Common lounge area.
Roof Level	· Common open space area including ring walking track; · Residential amenities (club room, outdoor lounge/dining areas); · Clear 1.8m high glass wind break/balustrade; and · Increase height of parapet to street frontages.

Vehicle access is maintained from Greenwich Road with excavation for the purpose of providing driveway ramp access to Basement Level 2. The approval retained 31 trees including majority of existing perimeter planting. The approval included a detailed landscape plan providing a combination of on-structure and deep soil plantings.

On 16 August 2021, a Section 4.55 modification development consent was issued subject to amending conditions including relevant tree/landscaping conditions for amended built form works to the approved facility which included reducing the number of rooms to 90. The proposed modification sought to amend the approved design as follows:

Level	Proposed Change
Basement Level 2	· Level reduced from RL63.03 to RL62.73
Basement Level 1	· Level reduced from RL66.13 to 65.80 and hydrotherapy pool introduced
Ground	· Room configuration alterations within existing envelope (west) · Extension of wing to shoring line of basement below (east) · Extension of path from Basement to Greenwich Road along boundary adjoining no. 35 Greenwich Road
First Floor Plan	· Level increased from RL 73.13 to 73.48 for NCC Part J services · Room configuration alterations within existing envelope (west) · Extension of terraces (east) · Reduction of 1 room
Second Floor Plan	· Level increased from RL76.33 to 76.98 for NCC Part J services · Room configuration alterations within existing envelope (west and inner face of eastern wing) · Reduction of 1 room
Roof Plan	· Level increased from RL80.03 to 80.98 · Minor reconfiguration of rooftop layout · Installation of colonnade roof central to the roof space

On 16 June 2022, a further Section 4.55 modification development consent was issued subject to amending and adding conditions for certain tree removal works and replacement tree planting. Specifically, the proposal as amended requested the removal of a total of eight additional trees on site as they had been mistakenly removed during the demolition process, died in the time before the demolition phase or damaged during a storm. A total of eight trees would be required to be replaced prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, with a compliance certificate issued by the project arborist.

PROPOSAL

The proposal as amended are primarily for internal design refinements and would retain the approved external building envelope. The refinements would suit the future operational requirements of the facility and will enhance its functionality, safety and occupant amenity. Various minor internal and external changes are proposed to ensure compliance with Building Code of Australia (BCA), fire safety, access and engineering requirements. A floor by floor description is provided below.

Basement Floor Level 2

• Miscellaneous internal changes to structural column and walls;

• FHR and fire extinguishers moved closer to the stairwell for compliance with Australian Standards;

• Garage chute landing area enclosed into a room for compliance with the BCA; and

• Sprinkler and hydrant pump room enlarged to accommodate plant equipment from the sprinkler alarm valve room, which has been relocated from the ground floor level (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: Approved & Proposed Basement 2 Floor Plan (Modifications in Blue)

Basement Floor Level 1

• Miscellaneous internal changes to structural column and walls (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 4: Approved & Proposed Basement 1 Floor Plan (Modifications in Blue)

Ground Floor Level

• Modifications to internal planning to include rest stops along the corridors to assist residents;

• Internal rearrangement and conversion of approved storage and utility rooms to suit operational requirements and improve the functionality of the facility. This includes the conversion of the lifter and wheelchair stores to a servery and scullery, the equipment store to a meeting room, a record store to an administration room, a general store into a resident water closet, and minor room adjustments;

• Minor modification to north-western external walkway width to achieve access and BCA compliance, which has no effect on overall landscaping;

• Amendment to external accessible pedestrian ramp configuration for compliance with AS 1428 for disabled access;

• Minor modification to ambulance access configuration to achieve compliance with AS 2890 for traffic access;

• Minor adjustments to the location of the gas regulator and meter, fire hydrant booster assembly, water meter assembly and fire sprinkler assembly;

• Generator added;

• Changes to the alignment of the external columns to suit the size of moulding; and

• Permeable paving for the driveway surface changed to concrete slab based on the civil engineering consultant’s advice (see Figure 5 below).

Figure 5: Approved & Proposed Ground Floor Plan (Modifications in Blue)

First Floor Level

• Modifications to internal planning to include rest stops along the corridors to assist residents;

• Equipment store removed and replaced with a secondary communal sitting area for residents;

• Record store converted to a nurses station, which improves visibility of visitor movements and residents in the common area;

• Changes to the alignment of the external columns to suit the size of moulding; and

• Modifications to the external stair to meet footpath level (see Figure 6 below).

Figure 6: Approved & Proposed First Floor Plan (Modifications in Blue)

Second Floor Level

• Modifications to internal planning to include rest stops along the corridors to assist residents;

• Record store converted to a nurses station, which improves visibility of visitor movements and residents in the common area; and

• Equipment store reduced in size and Suite 2.11 enlarged (see Figure 7 below).

Figure 7: Approved & Proposed Second Floor Plan (Modifications in Blue)

Roof

• Planter box locations amended to accommodate anchor points for building maintenance;

• Store room door relocated closer to the main activity areas of the roof terrace; and

• Store adjacent to club room replaced with a bar for residents (see Figure 8 below).

Figure 8: Approved & Proposed Roof Plan (Modifications in Blue)

External Façade Modifications

Minor adjustments are proposed to the external facades, which will remain within the approved building envelope. These include:

• Adjustment to underside of parapet entablatures;

• Mechanical louvres relocated, re-sized or added to elevations, where required;

• Staff terrace concrete hob partially raised to allow for curb at curved ramp; and

• Minor reduction to ground and first floor pier size.

Amended landscape plans have been prepared and submitted to address the above amendments and to implement a new tree replanting scheme.

SECTION 4.55 ASSESSMENT

1. Compliance with Section 4.55(1A) & (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979

Under the provisions of Section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Council may, in response to an application, modify a consent granted if the development, as modified, is substantially the same development as originally approved and involves a minor environmental impact.

To be discussed in more detail later in this report, it is considered that the proposed modification as submitted is ‘substantially the same development’ and would involve minor environmental impacts where the proposed modifications have demonstrated that it would improve the overall functionality or internal amenity of the development for future occupants while maintaining the objectives to complying amenity and visual privacy levels to surrounding developments.

The proposal as amended would retain the approved building envelope. As indicated, the proposed modifications relate to internal and external design refinements, which w suit the future operational requirements of the facility, as well as achieve compliance with various access, fire safety, engineering and BCA standards. The modifications are minor in nature and would improve the overall functionality, occupant amenity, accessibility and safety of the facility. Accordingly, the modifications will provide a better outcome for the development.

The proposed modifications will continue to provide a three storey residential aged care facility with a roof terrace and two basement levels. The modifications are entirely within the approved building envelope and footprint. This application simply proposes internal and external design refinements, which will improve compliance with various building requirements and would enhance the future operation, functionality and amenity of the development once occupied. There would be no change to the overall bulk, scale or character of the approved development. Approved levels of amenity for surrounding properties will be retained. Therefore, the proposal is the same as the approved development and will not change the approved design materially.

Section 4.55(3) requires Council to consider any reasons given by the consent authority for the granting of the original consent. The reasons provided within the resolution of the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel were as follows:

1. The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing bland and undistinguished 4/5 storey boarding house on a prominent site.

Comment: The proposal maintains the demolition of the existing structure and has been recently demolished in accordance with the original consent.

2. The proposed building will present as a 2-storey development to both street frontages, with large setbacks and other measures to fit in with the low-density residential area and representing a considerable improvement to the existing situation.

Comment: The proposal as amended maintains a 2-storey presentation and does not reduce setbacks to the adjoining residential properties.

3. The replacement of a somewhat dilapidated boarding house with a building of high visual quality is in the public interest,

Comment: The proposal as amended maintains a high visual quality.

4. The Panel supports the findings contained in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for the approval contained in that report.

Comment: See consideration of assessment report in Section 4.15(1) Matters below.

The proposed modifications which are now proposed under the subject Section 4.55 Modification Application are supported based on the reasons provided for within the original agenda report and resolution provided for by the panel. The proposed modifications would achieve a better planning outcome by improving the overall functionality or internal amenity of the development whilst maintaining relevant amenity and privacy objectives to surrounding developments.

2. Compliance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions of

(i) Any environmental planning instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

On 1 March 20222, the provisions of SEPP (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 had consolidated three state policies including SEPP 55 – Remediation into one policy which still requires Council to consider the potential for a site to be contaminated. The subject development site has a history of being used primarily for residential purposes and no concerns in relation to site contamination are raised. Further, the original consent included a condition that any asbestos removal would be removed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

The proposal as amended has been reviewed in relation to Chapter 10 – Sydney Harbour Catchment and is considered satisfactory. The original proposal was considered that it would improve water quality with provision of an OSD system and a Gross Pollutant Trap (GPT).

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability 2004 (SEPP Seniors)

While the new State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Housing 2021 (Housing SEPP) commenced operation on 26 November 2021 and replaces SEPP Seniors, savings provisions in Schedule 7A of the Housing SEPP apply. As this application relates to modifying an existing development consent which was granted before the commencement date of the Housing SEPP, SEPP Seniors remains the relevant environmental planning instrument. SEPP Seniors takes precedence over the Council’s LEP and DCP.

a. Permissibility

With respect to SEPP Seniors the following clauses are considered in respect to permissibility:

“Clause 4 Land to which Policy applies

(1) General
This Policy applies to land within New South Wales that is land zoned primarily for urban purposes or land that adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes, but only if:

(a) development for the purpose of any of the following is permitted on the land:

(i) dwelling-houses,

(ii) residential flat buildings,

(iii) hospitals,

(iv) development of a kind identified in respect of land zoned as special uses, including (but not limited to) churches, convents, educational establishments, schools and seminaries, or

(b) the land is being used for the purposes of an existing registered club.”

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. Dwelling-houses are permitted within the R2 zone with development consent and therefore the Policy applied. A residential care facility is a form of development permitted under the Policy and is defined as follows in Clause 11:

11 Residential care facilities

In this Policy, a residential care facility is residential accommodation for seniors or people with a disability that includes:

(a) meals and cleaning services, and

(b) personal care or nursing care, or both, and

(c) appropriate staffing, furniture, furnishings and equipment for the provision of that accommodation and care, not being a dwelling, hostel, hospital or psychiatric facility.

Note.

The Aged Care Act 1997 of the Commonwealth requires residential care facilities to which that Act applies to meet certain requirements.

The approved development is for a residential care facility which provides meals, cleaning and personal and nursing care services for residents. Staff are available 24 hours a day on site to attend to residents’ personal and medical needs. Suites are appropriately furnished, and residents also have access to on-site facilities including a library, hairdresser, theatre/gym/chapel, lounge and dining areas and communal terraces and courtyards.

The proposal as amended continues to meet the definition of a residential care facility and is permissible pursuant to SEPP Seniors in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

b. General

A restriction as to user would be required to be registered against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, limiting the use of any accommodation to which the application relates to the kinds of people referred to in Clause 18(1) of SEPP Seniors. A relevant condition was imposed under the original consent.

c. Site Compatibility Certificate

A site compatibility certificate was not required under Clause 24 as the subject site is land zoned primarily for urban purposes and is still not required.

d. Location and Access Requirements

The table below provides an assessment of the location and access requirements to facilities for the proposed development.

Requirement	Proposal	Compliance
Clause 26 – Location and access to facilities Residents to have access to identified services (banks, shops, service providers, etc) within 400 metres of the site or be within 400 metres from a public transport service. The average gradient pathway is no more than 1:14, although the following gradients are also acceptable: (i) A gradient no more than 1:12 (8.3%) for slopes for a max. of 15m at a time; (ii) A gradient no more than 1:10 for a max. of 5m at a time; (iii) A gradient no more than 1:8 for distances no more than 1.5m at a time.	Compliance with Clause 26 was established under a previous approval for the site (DA130/2017). The site is located within a 200m radius of public transport/bus stops located on River Road and Greenwich Road. The bus stop in front of the site on Greenwich Road provides access to local shops and the St Leonard’s Centre. Suitable pathways for access by means of an electric wheelchair, motorised cart or the like, are provided to the bus stops from the subject site. A sealed pathway is provided along the frontage of the site on both Greenwich Road and River Road. These pathways do not exceed a gradient greater than 8.3% when calculated at 15m intervals. The average gradients from the pedestrian entry of the proposal to the bus stop fronting the site on Greenwich Road is 1:25. The average gradients from the pedestrian entry of the proposal to the bus stop on the northern side of Greenwich Road fronting the site is 1:34. In this regard, the original application satisfied the location and access to facilities requirements under the SEPP. It is noted access to shops is not required as the public transport provision is satisfied. Notwithstanding, the subject site is also located 500m away from the local shops on Greenwich Road further south of the site which included an IGA supermarket, Greenwich Village Medical Practice, Greenwich Village Pharmacy and Australia Post at the time of the original consent was granted.	Complied under the original approval and is unchanged under the subject application
Clause 27- Bush fire prone land Consent must not be granted on bush fire prone land unless	The site is not bush fire prone land.	Complied under the original approval and is unchanged under the subject application
Clause 28 – Water and sewer Consent not to be granted unless the housing will be connected to a reticulated water system and have adequate facilities for the removal or disposal of sewage.	The site is located within the Sydney Water service area and would be required to be connected to the required services.	Complied under the original approval and is unchanged under the subject application
Clause 29 – Compatibility criteria Clause 29(2) requires certain criteria to be considered including compatibility with surrounding land uses having regard to: · The natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards) and the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the proposed development. · The services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposed development (particularly, retail, community, medical and transport services having regard to the location and access requirements set out in clause 26) and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision. · The impact that the bulk, scale, built form and character of the proposed development is likely to have on the existing uses, approved uses and future uses of land in the vicinity of the development.	The proposal retains site trees where possible and provides substantial boundary setbacks that are used for screen and tree plantings that would enhance the treed low-density environment within which the proposed residential aged care facility would be situated. The site is located within an established low-density residential area that is provided with services and suitable infrastructure. Council’s Development Engineer provided conditions under the original consent which would require the reconstruction of pedestrian footpaths fronting both River Road and Greenwich Road, as well as kerb and gutter on Greenwich Road. The proposal will replace a previous boarding house which had similar occupancy rate being a 90 rooms facility. The impact of the proposed bulk, scale and built form has been considered. The proposal as amended still presents principally as two-storeys to Greenwich Road and River Road and has provided for greater setbacks where greater than two-storeys to reasonably mitigate impacts on adjoining properties. The design, siting and massing of the development has had regard to the low density nature of the area and is considered compatible with, not necessarily the same as (given a residential aged care facility is by nature not the same as other developments in the locality), surrounding land uses.	Complies Complied under the original approval and is unchanged under the subject application Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Clause 26 – Location and access to facilities

Residents to have access to identified services (banks, shops, service providers, etc) within 400 metres of the site or be within 400 metres from a public transport service.

The average gradient pathway is no more than 1:14, although the following gradients are also acceptable:

(i) A gradient no more than 1:12 (8.3%) for slopes for a max. of 15m at a time;

(ii) A gradient no more than 1:10 for a max. of 5m at a time;

(iii) A gradient no more than 1:8 for distances no more than 1.5m at a time.

Compliance with Clause 26 was established under a previous approval for the site (DA130/2017).

The site is located within a 200m radius of public transport/bus stops located on River Road and Greenwich Road. The bus stop in front of the site on Greenwich Road provides access to local shops and the St Leonard’s Centre.

Suitable pathways for access by means of an electric wheelchair, motorised cart or the like, are provided to the bus stops from the subject site.

A sealed pathway is provided along the frontage of the site on both Greenwich Road and River Road. These pathways do not exceed a gradient greater than 8.3% when calculated at 15m intervals.

The average gradients from the pedestrian entry of the proposal to the bus stop fronting the site on Greenwich Road is 1:25.

The average gradients from the pedestrian entry of the proposal to the bus stop on the northern side of Greenwich Road fronting the site is 1:34.

In this regard, the original application satisfied the location and access to facilities requirements under the SEPP. It is noted access to shops is not required as the public transport provision is satisfied. Notwithstanding, the subject site is also located 500m away from the local shops on Greenwich Road further south of the site which included an IGA supermarket, Greenwich Village Medical Practice, Greenwich Village Pharmacy and Australia Post at the time of the original consent was granted.

Complied under the original approval and is unchanged under the subject application

Clause 27- Bush fire prone land

Consent must not be granted on bush fire prone land unless

The site is not bush fire prone land.

Complied under the original approval and is unchanged under the subject application

Clause 28 – Water and sewer

Consent not to be granted unless the housing will be connected to a reticulated water system and have adequate facilities for the removal or disposal of sewage.

The site is located within the Sydney Water service area and would be required to be connected to the required services.

Complied under the original approval and is unchanged under the subject application

Clause 29 – Compatibility criteria

Clause 29(2) requires certain criteria to be considered including compatibility with surrounding land uses having regard to:

· The natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards) and the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the proposed development.

· The services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposed development (particularly, retail, community, medical and transport services having regard to the location and access requirements set out in clause 26) and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision.

· The impact that the bulk, scale, built form and character of the proposed development is likely to have on the existing uses, approved uses and future uses of land in the vicinity of the development.

The proposal retains site trees where possible and provides substantial boundary setbacks that are used for screen and tree plantings that would enhance the treed low-density environment within which the proposed residential aged care facility would be situated.

The site is located within an established low-density residential area that is provided with services and suitable infrastructure. Council’s Development Engineer provided conditions under the original consent which would require the reconstruction of pedestrian footpaths fronting both River Road and Greenwich Road, as well as kerb and gutter on Greenwich Road. The proposal will replace a previous boarding house which had similar occupancy rate being a 90 rooms facility.

The impact of the proposed bulk, scale and built form has been considered. The proposal as amended still presents principally as two-storeys to Greenwich Road and River Road and has provided for greater setbacks where greater than two-storeys to reasonably mitigate impacts on adjoining properties. The design, siting and massing of the development has had regard to the low density nature of the area and is considered compatible with, not necessarily the same as (given a residential aged care facility is by nature not the same as other developments in the locality), surrounding land uses.

Complies

Complied under the original approval and is unchanged under the subject application

Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

e. Design Requirements

The table below provides an assessment of the proposal against the SEPP design requirements:

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Clause 30 – Site Analysis

Consent not to be granted unless site analysis prepared by the applicant has been submitted and has formed part of the assessment.

A detailed site analysis had been prepared in accordance with Clause 30. The site analysis had formed part of the assessment of the original proposal. The site constraints are principally existing vegetation and the interface with single detached dwellings. The opportunities relate to it being in a well-serviced location and it being a corner site which can minimise impacts through massing towards the two street frontages. The proposed design as amended is still responsive to the opportunities and constraints of the site.

Complied under the original approval and is unchanged under the subject application

Clause 32 – Design of residential development

Consent not to be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development demonstrates that adequate regard has been given to the principles set out in Division 2.

Division 2 – Design Principles

An assessment of Division 2 – Design Principles is provided below:

Clause 33 – Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

Recognise the desirable elements of the location’s current character (or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, where described in local planning controls, the desired future character) so that new buildings contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and there is no transition in character anticipated. The development recognises the desirable elements by providing for two storey presentation to streets, single storey transition to the adjoining property No. 35 Greenwich Road, and a two storey transition to the adjoining properties at Stella Vista Place. The design as amended would still provide for a high-quality visual appearance and would add to the quality or identity of the area.

Complies

Retain, complement and sensitively harmonise with any heritage conservation areas in the vicinity and any relevant heritage items that are identified in a Local Environmental Plan

The site is not a heritage item or located within a heritage conservation area. The site adjoins heritage item No. I67 at No. 35 Greenwich Road. Council’s Heritage advisor raised no objection on heritage grounds under the original proposal noting that the setback to No. 35 Greenwich Road had increased with respect to the previously approved residential aged care facility and that the design provided a rear setback to the heritage boundary which restricted the built-form to single storey within the rear 25% of the site. This provided for additional building separation and protection of the curtilage of the heritage item. The proximity to other heritage items in the vicinity of the development had also been considered by Council’s Heritage Advisor and is was considered satisfactory as detailed in the assessment against Clause 5.10 of LCLEP 2009 under the report application.

Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

Maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character by:

(i) providing building setbacks to reduce bulk and overshadowing,

(ii) using building form and siting that relates to the site’s landform, and

(iii) adopting building heights at the street frontage that are compatible in scale with adjacent development, and

(iv) considering, where buildings are located on the boundary, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbours

Elevation / Orientation	Existing/Approved Building Setback
Eastern Boundary Greenwich Road	5.6m/7.5m
Northern Boundary River Road	5.35m/7.5m
Southern Boundary (Adj. 35 Greenwich Rd)	5.927m/Min. 9m
Western Boundary (Adjacent to Dwellings on Stella Vista Place)	11.483m (4 storey)/ Average 8m (2 storey)

Approved setbacks are unchanged or unaltered under the subject application.

The proposal has provided a 7.5m setback to both street frontages.

Adjacent to the southern boundary the proposal provides a 9m setback to the single storey element and 18m setback to the remainder of the building. This treatment of the southern boundary provides for reduced overshadowing when compared to the existing building and approved building.

Adjacent to the western boundary, which is non-linear, an average setback of 8m to a two storey component and a minimum 13m to the remainder of the building is provided. This provides for reduced overshadowing between 12:00pm and 3:00pm mid-winter.

The proposal provides for a suitable transition to the southern and western interfaces by stepping down the building with the topography of the site. It is noted that the applicant increased the setback at the upper level of the western interface to improve the depth/quality of the two storey interface under the original application.

The proposal adopts a two storey presentation to Greenwich Road which is compatible in scale with adjacent developments. The three storey portion to River Road is considered satisfactory given the additional rear setback to Stella Vista Place dwellings and the presentation to River Road being within the vicinity of a residential flat building of similar scale across River Road.

No on-boundary development proposed (minimum setback of 6m to western boundary to two storey element).

Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

Be designed so that the front building of the development is set back in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, the existing building line.

The approved building setbacks generally align with the setback pattern along both River Road (being the rear setback of Stella Vista Place) and Greenwich Road (given the siting of No. 37 Greenwich Road). The provision of two x 7.5m building setbacks on a corner allotment is considered a generous front setback as typically a corner allotment would provide for a reduced setback on one of the frontages.

Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

Embody planting that is in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, other planting in the streetscape

The proposed landscaping design as amended retains a significant proportion of perimeter planting which contributes to the streetscape planting. New plantings seek to offset the loss of trees as a result of the building platform and excavation, and would contribute to the streetscape by providing for well-spaced landscaping that would provide for a canopy and shrub level when viewed from the street.

Complies

Retain, wherever reasonable, major existing trees.

The proposal as amended retains trees where possible and no further trees are to be removed under the subject application. The approved proposal has provided building setbacks which provide ample opportunity to retain boundary planting.

Complies

Be designed so that no building is constructed in a riparian zone.

The development is not within a riparian zone.

N/A

Clause 34 – Visual and acoustic privacy

The proposed development should consider the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours in the vicinity and residents by:

(a) appropriate site planning, the location and design of windows and balconies, the use of screening devices and landscaping, and

(b) ensuring acceptable noise levels in bedrooms of new dwellings by locating them away from driveways, parking areas and paths.

The proposal has had significant consideration of neighbours in the vicinity through design elements. In particular, the applicant amended the plans under the original application to provide for additional landscape screening at Level 2 to the terrace areas facing Stella Vista Place. The design minimised window openings to Stella Vista Place, and had provided a substantial setback to No. 35 Greenwich Road (9m to single storey, 18m to additional storeys).

Appropriate conditions were imposed under the original consent to ensure that all works be completed in accordance with the recommendations of the Acoustic Report to ensure that noise levels are acceptable for residents within the suites at completion of the development.

Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

Clause 35 - Solar access and design for climate

The proposed development should:

(a) ensure adequate daylight to the main living areas of neighbours in the vicinity and residents and adequate sunlight to substantial areas of private open space, and

(b) involve site planning, dwelling design and landscaping that reduces energy use and makes the best practicable use of natural ventilation solar heating and lighting by locating the windows of living and dining areas in a northerly direction.

The proposal as approved ensured that adequate daylight is maintained through the provision of building setback and massing design decisions (see clause 33 assessment). The two principally impacted properties being Nos. 11 Stella Vista Place and 35 Greenwich Road are provided with adequate daylight to main living areas and substantial areas of private open space mid-winter (minimum 3 hours from 12pm).

The proposal approved has reduced energy use through careful site planning, dwelling design, and landscaping. The ground floor living areas and dining areas face a northerly direction, a central void provides for natural ventilation through the building, and landscaping both surrounding the building and on-structure will assist in reducing energy usage. It is noted in any event the proposal will be required to comply with Section J of the NCC which also promotes energy efficiency in design.

Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

Clause 36 – Stormwater

The proposed development should:

(a) control and minimise the disturbance and impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties and receiving waters by, for example, finishing driveway surfaces with semi-pervious material, minimising the width of paths and minimising paved areas, and

(b) include, where practical, on-site stormwater detention or re-use for second quality water uses.

No objections were raised on the grounds of stormwater under the original application. The approved landscaping remains unchanged and has minimised hard surfaces where possible through the provision of basement carparking.

The proposal as approved provided for OSD and a 10,000 litre rainwater reuse tank subject to a condition of consent.

Unchanged under the subject application

Clause 37 – Crime prevention

The proposed development should provide personal property security for residents and visitors and encourage crime prevention by:

(a) site planning that allows observation of the approaches to a dwelling entry from inside each dwelling and general observation of public areas, driveways and streets from a dwelling that adjoins any such area, driveway or street, and

(b) where shared entries are required, providing shared entries that serve a small number of dwellings and that are able to be locked, and

(c) providing dwellings designed to allow residents to see who approaches their dwellings without the need to open the front door.

The proposal under the original application was referred to North Shore Police Command for an assessment of CPTED. Their recommendations formed part of a condition of consent under the original consent.

Suites had been designed with bedrooms facing the common walkways of the development and entry areas of dwellings and to provide passive surveillance to the street. Windows are provided to allow residents to encourage observation of public areas and landscape outlook.

Gates are provided to the entry points to the proposal from Greenwich Road and River Road West to control access and define the private and public domain.

The proposal allows for satisfactory passive surveillance to public areas onsite and towards the footpath and street.

Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

Clause 38 – Accessibility

The proposed development should:

(a) have obvious and safe pedestrian links from the site that provide access to public transport services or local facilities, and

(b) provide attractive, yet safe, environments for pedestrians and motorists with convenient access and parking for residents and visitors.

The development provides for adequate accessible footpaths to public transport and services. Common areas and pathways within the development achieve DDA compliance.

Pedestrians would be able to access the site via pedestrian pathways, and vehicles have a separate access to and from Greenwich Road. Two lifts (one residential/one service) are provided to travel between the floors of the building, and all common areas are wheelchair accessible.

Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

Clause 39 – Waste management

The proposed development should be provided with waste facilities that maximise recycling by the provision of appropriate facilities.

As the proposal is for a residential aged facility, waste collection would be carried out by a private commercial contractor. There is adequate room within the basement level 2 for on-site waste collection including the provision of recycling services. Council’s Environmental Health Section had reviewed the proposal and raises no objections subject to conditions under the original application.

Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

f. Development Standards to be Complied with

The table below provides an assessment of the development standards to be complied with:

Requirement	Proposal	Compliance
Division 1 General 40 Development standards—minimum sizes and building height
(2) Site size The size of the site must be at least 1,000 square metres.	The subject property has a total site area of 4,290m².	Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application
(3) Site frontage The site frontage must be at least 20 metres wide measured at the building line.	The site has a frontage of: River Road – 49.525m Greenwich Road – 74.665m	Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application
(4) Height in zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted (a) the height of all buildings in the proposed development must be 8 metres or less, and	Max. 13.95m Approved under the SEPP Height definition	Height is unchanged under the subject application
(b) a building that is adjacent to a boundary of the site (being the site, not only of that particular development, but also of any other associated development to which this Policy applies) must be not more than 2 storeys in height, and	The proposal is a maximum 2 storeys adjacent to the western side boundary (Stella Vista Place) and single storey (above existing natural ground level) to the southern boundary (Greenwich Road).	Approved and unchanged under the subject application
(c) a building located in the rear 25% area of the site must not exceed 1 storey in height.	River Road frontage is the primary frontage. The rear 25% of the site adjacent to No. 35 Greenwich Road can be characterised as single storey only. It is noted that designating River Road as the primary frontage is considered to provide for the best planning outcome as it minimizes building massing in the southern-most part of the site which would have a greater overshadowing impact.	Approved and unchanged under the subject application
(5) Development applications to which clause does not apply Sub clauses (2), (3) and (4) (c) do not apply to a development application made by any of the following: (a) the Department of Housing, (b) any other social housing provider.	The subject development is not made by the Department of Housing or any other social housing provider.	N/A
Division 2 Residential care facilities – standards concerning accessibility and useability	The SEPP does not have access standards for residential aged care facilities and relies on the access standards in the BCA and federal legislation requirements which was conditioned under the original consent.	Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

g. Development Standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse consent (Part 7 – Division 2 – Residential Care Facilities)

The table below provides an assessment of the development standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse consent for a residential care facility if compliance is achieved, noting the clause do not impose any limitations on the grounds on which a consent authority may grant development consent:

Development Standard	Proposal	Complies / Comment
(a) building height: if all proposed buildings are 8 metres or less in height (and regardless of any other standard specified by another environmental planning instrument limiting development to 2 storeys)	Maximum 13.95m Approved	Height is unchanged under the subject application
(b) density and scale: if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio is 1:1 or less.	The maximum FSR allowable is 4,290m² or 1:1. The approved FSR had been calculated to be 4,289m² or 0.999:1 The proposed FSR has been calculated to be 4,289m² or 1.03:1	No, however the proposed variation is minor and there would be no change to the approved building footprint or external envelope
(a) landscaped area: if a minimum of 25m² of landscaped area per residential care facility bed is provided	19.4m²Approved	Landscaped area is unchanged under the subject application
(b) parking for residents and visitors: if at least the following is provided: (ii) (i) 1 car space for each 10 beds in the residential aged care facility (or 1 parking space for each 15 beds if the facility provides for care only for persons with dementia), and (ii) 1 parking space for each 2 persons to be employed in connection with the development on duty at any one time, and (iii) 1 parking space suitable for an ambulance.	25 car parking spaces + 1 ambulance bay Approved No operational, bed and staffing changes are proposed under the subject application	Complied under the original approval and unchanged under the subject application

h. Discussion of SEPP Seniors FSR Departure

The following provides an assessment of the SEPP Seniors departure to FSR as follows:

i. FSR

The approved development has a GFA of 4,288.71sqm and an FSR of 0.9997:1. The proposed modifications will increase the GFA by 148.82sqm, to a total GFA of 4,437.53sqm and FSR of 1.03:1 being a maximum departure of 3%. The consent authority cannot refuse an application on the grounds of FSR if the building has a FSR of 1:1 or less. The numerical increase in FSR is technical due to measuring GFA in accordance with the definition in SEPP Seniors. Under the SEPP definition, all ancillary storage spaces within a seniors housing development are excluded from GFA.

Whilst a formal application of Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards is not required under a Section 4.55 Modification Application, the applicant has provided a detailed written justification to provide evidence how the breach achieves a better planning outcome. Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 allows exceptions to development standards under any environmental planning instrument. 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.

Written request provided by the applicant

The applicant has provided a written request seeking a variation to the development standard with the lodged application however it has not been written as a formal Clause 4.6 written justification. Nevertheless, 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. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

The applicant’s justification states that the proposal as amended satisfies the objectives of the FSR development standard (taken to be the Design Principles in Clause 33-35 of the SEPP in lieu of the SEPP specifying specific objectives for FSR) for the following reasons:

Division 2 of SEPP Seniors contains design quality principles including consideration of neighbourhood amenity and streetscape, visual and acoustic privacy, solar access and design for climate, storm water, crime prevention, accessibility and waste management.

The proposed modifications overall would enhance the approved development and its consistency with the design principles in SEPP Seniors. The proposed reconfigurations to the internal layout of various suites and common areas, addition of nurses stations for improved visibility of common areas, and adjustments to the pedestrian and vehicle access arrangements will improve crime prevention and accessibility in accordance with Clauses 37 and 38.

Based on the planned operation of the residential care facility, some approved storage rooms will not be required due to a change in its equipment policy and implications for storage requirements. As such, this application seeks to convert excess storage rooms to other ancillary uses, such as meeting rooms, administration area and communal sitting areas etc.

These areas will improve the amenity, functionality and operation of the development. As these areas will no longer be used for storage, they are technically included in GFA under the SEPP definition. Importantly, the additional GFA is situated entirely within the approved building envelope and footprint and will not alter the net approved floor area.

Figure 9: Areas Added to Proposed GFA Calculation in Blue to the Areas Included in Approved GFA Calculation in Peach

Comment:

The applicant has sought to establish that the proposed design as amended continues to comply with the relevant Design Principles and by extension, the proposed FSR is considered reasonable. This approach is considered satisfactory. The proposed built form, building envelope and landscaped area which is a key characteristic of the building design of the development has remained largely unchanged which continues to respond to the character and constraints of the locality and site respectively.

An alternate objective for FSR is given under LCLEP 2009 as follows:

To ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.

The applicant has argued that:

As indicated, the approved development (DA No. 103/2019) has an FSR of 0.9997:1. The proposed modification will increase the FSR to 1.03:1. It should be noted that these calculations are based on the definition of GFA in SEPP Seniors, which excludes all ancillary storage areas (both above and below ground level). The additional GFA is simply a result of converting excess storage rooms to other ancillary uses, which results in these areas technically being counted in GFA. Notwithstanding the additional GFA, there will be no change to the approved building footprint or external envelope.

It is worth noting that under the LEP definition of GFA, all above-ground storage is included in GFA. Therefore, when considering the FSR according to the LEP, the proposed modifications will not result in any change to the approved FSR, as the excess storage rooms are all above-ground.

The proposal will continue to achieve the objective of the FSR standard. The additional GFA will be located entirely within the approved external envelope and building footprint. Therefore, the bulk and scale of the development will be the same as the approval, and Council has already been satisfied it is compatible with the character of the locality. Accordingly, the additional FSR is considered appropriate.

The proposal as amended meets this objective as the bulk and scale would remain the same to continue to allow for continued reasonable solar access and privacy levels. Therefore, compliance with the development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the subject proposal. Clause 4.6(3)(a) is considered to be satisfied.

2. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

The requirement in Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the LEP is to justify that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds for the variation, which 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 additional GFA will not intensify the approved use, number of residential suites or staffing numbers of the approved residential aged care facility. The additional GFA will simply support the planned operational requirements of the facility, by replacing excess storage rooms with other ancillary uses. Such uses include added nurses’ stations, meeting rooms, an administration area, communal sitting area, ensuite and resident bar, which will enhance the residential amenity, functionality and operation of the development.

The additional GFA will be located entirely within the approved building envelope and footprint. Therefore, there will be no change to the overall bulk and scale of the development, in comparison to the approval. The additional GFA will not be visible from surrounding properties or the public domain. The development, as modified, will thus remain consistent with the existing and desired future character of the area.

The additional GFA will not result in any additional environmental impacts. The approved external envelope will be retained. Therefore, approved levels of solar access for neighbouring properties will be maintained and unaffected. There will be no change to the approved building separation and fenestration. The rooms contributing to additional GFA will not have any external openings, as they are primarily situated below ground or centrally within each level. This will ensure there are no aural or visual privacy impacts from the increased FSR.

For all the above reasons, the additional FSR to accommodate the conversion of excess storage rooms to other ancillary uses is in our opinion, acceptable in this instance.

Comment:

The environmental planning grounds are considered well established. It is also considered the reasons provided to Clause 4.6(3)(a) can translate to apply also in Clause 4.6(3)(b) including matter such as landscaping, building bulk or scale and appearance, visual and acoustic privacy etc. It is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard in the circumstance of the subject proposal. Clause 4.6(3)(a) is 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. It has already been established that the building height meets the objectives of the standard however an assessment against the zone objectives is provided as follows:

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone are as follows:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low-density residential environment.

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

· To retain, and where appropriate improve, the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area.

· To encourage new dwelling houses or extensions of existing dwelling houses that are not highly visible when viewed from the Lane Cove River or Parramatta River.

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

The proposal as amended would still provide for a higher-care facility that augments the existing independent housing availability in Greenwich. The proposed development as amended would retain the existing residential amenity of adjoining detached single-family dwellings. Landscaping would still be maintained through the retention of existing trees where possible and enhanced through a revised high-quality landscape scheme. The appropriateness of the built form within the low-density character of the locality has been established in addressing the objective of the FSR standard. The proposal as amended would continue to comply with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

4. 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 SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 is considered justified and supported in the circumstances of this case. The development as amended satisfies the objectives and the criteria outlined in clause 4.6. As such, the variation is considered well founded, results in a better planning outcome and is in the public interest.

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan (LCLEO) 2009

a. Part 4 - Development Standards

The Development Application is made pursuant to SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. Clause 5 of the SEPP entitled ‘Relationship to other environmental planning instruments’ states the following in Clause 5(3):

If this Policy is inconsistent with any other environmental planning instrument made before or after this Policy, this Policy prevails to the extent of that inconsistency.

In this regard, the SEPP Seniors contains both a development standard for building height and a development standard for floor space ratio. Both standards are inconsistent with the development standards contained within LCLEP 2009. LCLEP 2009 specifies a maximum FSR of 0.5:1, where the SEPP specifies 1:1. LCLEP 2009 specifies a maximum building height of 9.5m, where the SEPP specifies 8m. Further, both the definition of building height and floor space ratio differ between LCLEP 2009 and the SEPP. In this way, LCLEP 2009 can be deemed to be inconsistent with the SEPP and under the specified clause above, the provisions of the SEPP prevail. Accordingly, a detailed assessment against LCLEP 2009 is not required.

It is noted for abundant caution the applicant had submitted a Clause 4.6 request to vary the building height standard under LCLEP 2009 in addition to the SEPP to highlight the principled justification and design approach adopted under the original application. No change to the approved maximum building height is proposed under the subject application. The applicant in varying the FSR standard under LCLEP 2009 under the subject application has adopted a similar approach to justify the proposed variation with a detailed written submission as discussed above in this report. In any event, the proposed FSR is supported where the proposal as amended is satisfactory in relation to consideration of the relevant LEP objectives.

b. Clause 5.10 - Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10(5)(b) states that the consent authority may, before granting development consent to any development on land that is within the vicinity of a heritage item, require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item concerned. There are four heritage items within the vicinity of the development as follows:

LCLEP 2009 Item No.	Address	Description
I67	No. 35 Greenwich Road (Adjacent)	A single storey early 20^th century residence located adjacent to the subject site at the southern side.
I70	Nos. 34-40 Greenwich Road	Glenwood Nursing Home, a former two storey Federation Villa located opposite in Greenwich Road.
I116	No. 90 River Road	A two storey Arts and Crafts residence located opposite in River Road.
I117	No. 92 River Road	A single storey residence located further north from 90 River Road.

The location of the items in relation to the development site is shown in Figure 10 below using an extract of the LCLEP 2009 Heritage Map with the adjacent 35 Greenwich Road identified in closest proximity.

Figure 10: Development Site and Heritage Items Adjacent and in Proximity

Council has assessed the proposed modifications and raises no objections on heritage grounds. The original approval was supported for the following reasons:

· The demolition of the previous bland brick boarding house structure would have a positive impact on heritage items in the vicinity. The development is considerably lower in overall height, one floor level lower than the previous development. Devices such greater articulation of the elevation, ground floor podium level, roof garden and central courtyard all achieved a development with less impact on the streetscape and neighbouring heritage items than the previous development.

· There would be no additional impact on No. 35 Greenwich Road adjacent, or No. 34 Greenwich Road opposite, as the development is not located at a greater distance from the heritage items than the previous development. It is lower in terms of height and bulk and screened by landscaping and driveways at the south eastern corner. The landscaping includes substantial new planting to the surrounding site, the podium level and the roof garden which enhances the relationship with the established garden settings of Nos. 34 and 35 Greenwich Road.

· There is no potential for impact on Nos. 90 or 92 Greenwich Road, as they are visually remote from the development. An approved 1200 high wrought iron fence further separates the development from the River Road frontage and is sympathetic with the character and setting of the heritage items in River Road.

The proposal is considered satisfactory with respect to Clause 5.10 of LCLEP 2009.

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

Not applicable.

(iii) Any development control plan

The proposal as amended is not subject to development-specific controls within Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 however a summary of Council officer referrals is provided as follows:

Referral	DCP	Comment
Accessibility	Part F – Access and Mobility	No objection was raised to proposal under the original application with access adequately factored into the design and would subject to further detail at Construction Certificate stage. Level of accessibility compliance remains unchanged under the subject application.
Tree Preservation	Part J – Landscaping	Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has assessed the proposal as amended and raised no objections subject to amending a condition of consent and retaining all other existing tree conditions.
Engineering	Part O – Stormwater Management	No objection subject to retaining all existing engineering conditions.
Waste Management	Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation	No objection subject to retaining all existing waste conditions.
Traffic, Transport and Parking	Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking	Traffic acknowledges the following modifications as follows: - Minor modification to accessible ramp configuration to achieve compliance with AS1428 for disabled access. - Minor modification to ambulance access configuration to achieve AS2890 for traffic access Traffic has no concerns with these modifications.
Environmental Health	Part B – General Controls (Part B6/B7)	No objection subject to retention of all existing health conditions.
Heritage	Part B – General Controls (Part B9)	As detailed within LCLEP 2009 assessment, no objections to the proposal from a heritage perspective.

The following provides a summary of the external referrals for the proposed development:

Referral	DCP	Comment
NSW Police	Part B – General Controls (Part B8)	No objection to proposal under the original application subject to recommended conditions of consent relating to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.

Referral

DCP

Comment

NSW Police

Part B – General Controls (Part B8)

No objection to proposal under the original application subject to recommended conditions of consent relating to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.

(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 approved development would replace a dilapidated boarding house with a building of high visual quality that would positively contribute to the built environment in which it is situated. The proposal as amended would continue to retain significant trees where possible which would ensure the development would integrate well within an established landscape setting. Replacement planting would further enhance the natural environment in which it is situated. The development would provide positive social and economic outcomes through the provision of a high-care facility being compatible with and transitioning to the low-density residential character of Greenwich to the south of River Road.

The approved appearance of the building will not readily change as the approved building type, form, colours and materials will be retained. Minor adjustments to columns, piers, louvres and the parapet will not be readily discernible from the original approval and will remain consistent with the approved architectural design. The approved external building envelope, footprint, heights, storeys and setbacks will be retained. The modifications retain the approved bulk, scale, character of the building. The proposal will retain the approved landscaped areas. The proposal as amended will be compatible with the approved appearance of the building and landscaping.

The impacts of the development as amended have been considered and addressed. The impacts to the natural and built environments, social and economic or amenity of the locality are considered reasonable and anticipated for a low-density residential development. The likely impacts of the development as amended are satisfactory in accordance with Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

The subject site remains suitable for a residential aged care facility use as approved and the proposed modifications will enhance the amenity and functionality of the development. The approved number of suites and staffing numbers will be retained. The traffic generation will not increase. The modified proposal has been designed to respect surrounding developments and the character of the area. The site will remain suitable for the development as the site suitability had already been established under the original approval and would allow for the continued use of the site for residential aged care facility.

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

In accordance with Council’s notification policy, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application and 13 submissions was received by way objections primarily raising concerns with the proposed increase in FSR, the addition of a bar on the rooftop level, landscaping, tree removal, hours of construction and the cost of works. The following issues were raised as follows:

Concern	Comment
Increase to FSR Number of the submissions raised issues with the proposed increase to the FSR.	The additional FSR is entirely within the approved building envelope and will have no impact on surrounding properties. It will not affect the approved numbers of rooms or staff. There will be no increase to the intensity of the development compared to the approval. The proposal converts excess approved storage areas to other uses. meaning they are no longer excluded from GFA calculations. The modifications do not alter the approved external envelope or increase the floorplates of the approved building. The development will continue to satisfy the objective of FSR in Council’s LEP and there are environmental planning grounds to justify the departure from the standard. The technical increase in FSR is acceptable. The amendments to the approved storage areas are due to the changing demands for storage in aged care facilities and the required amount of storage has reduced.
Addition of a bar to the rooftop level Several submissions raised concerns with the bar at the rooftop level.	Council had already approved a rooftop clubroom and associated amenities. The modification does not seek to increase the extent of the approved rooftop level. The bar replaces an approved storeroom and is located internally. It is a small room that accommodates a bench top and sink. It is not a living area. It is not intended to be a highly trafficable area and will not be discernible from surrounding properties. The bar on the rooftop was previously approved under the original consent. It was subsequently removed however it has been reinstated as part of this application. The bar is centrally located within the clubroom. It will not result in any amenity impacts to surrounding properties when compared to the original approval. It will have no significant privacy impacts given the approved size and capacity of the club room will be retained. The bar will be limited up to dinner time at 5:30pm, except on special occasions. This will ensure acceptable levels of privacy are maintained for surrounding properties. It is recommended that a condition be added to ensure the bar is not to be used after dinner time except on special occasions.
Landscaping Submissions raised issues with the landscaped area of the development.	The proposed modification maintains the approved extent or level of landscaping which was established under the previous consents. Two of the objectors had requested that the bar area be used for further landscaping. The bar occupies an approved covered, internal area and rooftop planting will be provided in accordance with the approval.
Tree Removal Submissions raised concerns with the removal of trees on site.	This matter had already been resolved under the previous Section 4.55 Modification consent. As part of that approval, appropriate replacement trees will be provided on site.
Hours of Construction	This was appropriately conditioned under the original consent and should any breaches occur any complaints can be dealt with by Council’s compliance section.
Cost of Works Submissions suggested that cost of works have increased above the $30,000,000 threshold and a cost estimate ought to be provided.	The original cost of works of $29,148,097.00 has remained unchanged with the subject application and there is no requirement for an updated cost estimate report to be completed as part of the subject application. The original consent authority was the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel and it would be more appropriate to report the subject application back to the local panel in this instance.

(e) Public interest

The proposal as amended will retain the approved built form and has been designed to maintain the approved levels of amenity for surrounding developments and to the public domain. The proposed modifications will improve the functionality, accessibility, safety and amenity of an approved Residential Aged Care Facility. Having regard to the assessment contained within this report, it is considered that approval of the development as amended would not be contrary to the public interest.

SECTION 7.11 CONTRIBUTION

The relevant Section 7.11 contribution condition is required to be modified to reflect the increase in FSR and the current 2022/2023 fees and charges.

CONCLUSION

The matters in relation to Sections 4.55 & 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 have been assessed to be satisfactory. The proposed variation to the FSR development standard under the LEP is considered well justified and is supported. The written request adequately addresses the matters in Clause 4.6(3) and the proposal as amended meets with both the zone and standard objectives despite the non-compliance including the design requirements contained within SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. The proposal as amended provides for functionality and efficiency improvements to the approved development without causing significant adverse off-site impacts onto surrounding properties.

The proposed modifications are entirely within the approved envelope and building footprint and would relate to improvements to the internal layout including refinements to the external façade. These modifications will improve future operational requirements. The proposed modifications will retain the amenity of surrounding properties and will not be readily discernible from the public domain. The proposed modifications will enhance amenity for the future residents and are consistent with character of the approved development and surrounding area. The proposal as amended is substantially the same as the approval.

The subject application is reported to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel with a recommendation for approval subject to amending and adding conditions of consent to reflect the updated plans, the updated Section 7.11 Contributions amount, change to a tree condition and to restrict the usage of the bar.

RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 8 February 2022, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, grant consent to the Section 4.55 modification to Development Application DA103/19 for a Residential Care Facility development under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 on Lot 1 in DP 1135033, known as No. 33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich, subject to attached updated draft conditions below:

1. Approved Plans/Documents: Except where otherwise provided in this consent, the development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the following plans (stamped approved by Council):

Dwg No	Title	Author	Revision	Date
A01	Site Plan	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
A02	Basement Level 2 Plan	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
A03	Basement Level 1 Plan	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
A04	Ground Floor Plan	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
A05	First Floor Plan	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
A06	Second Floor Plan	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
A07	Roof Level Plan	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
A10	Elevations 1	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
A11	Elevations 2	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
A12	Elevations 3	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
A15	Sections 1	SB Architects	S4.55	06/05/2021
57.21(20)/213	Tree Retention Plan	iScape	S4.55	June 2021
57.21(20)/214	Ground Floor Plan	iScape	S4.55	June 2021
57.21(20)/215	Level 1 Plan	iScape	S4.55	June 2021
57.21(20)/216	Level 2 and Rooftop Plan	iScape	S4.55	June 2021
57.21(20)/217	Elevations	iScape	S4.55	June 2021
57.21(20)/218	Sections	iScape	S4.55	June 2021

And as amended by the following Drawings Nos. A01-A07 & A10-A12 Rev - dated 07/10/22 prepared SB Architects and 57.22(20)/175’A’ Revision A dated 03.08.22, 57.22(20)/243-248’B” Revision B dated 12.10.22 prepared by iScape

The following amendments are to be made to the architectural plans prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate:

· The rooftop glass windbreak is to be reduced to be a maximum 1.39m in height from the adjacent finished floor/garden bed level.

1A. The approved bar within the Clubroom on the roof level is not be in operation after 6pm

daily except on special occasions which is not to be used after 10pm.

Reason: To ensure appropriate privacy or amenity is achieved between the development and surrounding properties.

5. Section 7.11 Contributions. THE PAYMENT OF A CONTRIBUTION FOR ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL'S SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN. THIS PAYMENT BEING MADE PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE FIRST CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND IS TO BE AT THE CURRENT RATE AT TIME OF PAYMENT. THE AMOUNT IS $175,088.18 AT THE 2022/2023 RATE OF PAYMENT. NOTE: PAYMENT MUST BE IN BANK CHEQUE. PERSONAL CHEQUES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

THIS CONTRIBUTION IS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES, OPEN SPACE/ RECREATION AND ROAD UNDER THE LANE COVE SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNTER, LANE COVE COUNCIL, 48 LONGUEVILLE ROAD, LANE COVE.

The Section 7.11 Contribution is calculated in the following manner:

Contribution for Residential Care Facility

Proposed Use / Rate

Area

Contribution payable @

$145.41 per m²2022/2023 fees and charges

Commercial

4438m²

$645,329.58

Credit for Existing Boarding House

Existing Use / Rate

Area

Credit available @

$145.41 per m²2022/2023 fees and charges

Commercial

3233.90m²

$470,241.40

Total Section 7.11 Contribution Payable

The total Section 7.11 contribution payable is the contribution less credit being a total of $175,088.18

68. Compliance with Arborist Report. All recommendations contained in section 6 and 7 of the Arborist report to amend the design or method to mitigate the impacts on retained trees are to be implemented. These are inclusive of;

· Permeable paving to be installed above grade for footpaths and driveways within Tree Protection Zones, excluding trees 43 and 44.

· Any boundary fencing posts that fall within a tree protection zone are to be hand dug and located clear of roots.

· Thrust boring for storm water installation within the Tree Protection Zones of retained and neighbouring trees.

· No roots greater than 40mm in diameter are to be pruned unless the Project Arborist is present to authorise it.

· All excavations within the Tree Protection Zones of retained and neighbouring trees to be manual or Hydrovac method to minimise damage to tree roots.

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Proposed Architectural Plans	11 Pages	Available Electronically
AT‑2 View	Proposed Landscape Plans	7 Pages	Available Electronically

DA Number	Council Reference: DA18/2021– Section 4.55 Modification (1A) Portal Reference: PAN-272386.
Proposed Development	s4.55 (1A) modification to approved residential flat building and delete condition 4(c) imposed by the Lane Cove Planning Panel.
Street Address	2 – 4 Merinda Street Lane Cove North
Applicant/Owner	Applicant: Mr Jason Youssef – Rockform Developments Pty Ltd Owner: The Trustee for Lane Cove Unit Trust
Date of DA Lodgment	14 October 2022
1. Development Cost	$15,750,000.00 (No change)
2. Public Notification Period	Notification Period: 7 December 2022 to 23 December 2022
3. Submissions Received	12 submissions received.
Recommendation	Council’s recommendation is that any change to condition 4(c) should be deliberated by the Lane Cove Planning Panel experts as they imposed this condition under their jurisdiction in the previous s4.55 application. The condition was not a recommendation of Council.
Local Planning Panel Referral Criteria (Schedule 1 of Planning Direction)	· s4.55(1A) Modification to delete condition imposed by the Lane Cove Planning Panel
List of relevant s4.15(1)(a) matters	· relevant environmental planning instruments - SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021; - SEPP(Resilience and hazards) 2021; - SEPP (Building Sustainability Index) 2004; - Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. · relevant development control plan - Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010
Clause 4.6 requests	Nil.
Summary of key submissions	· Concerns regarding the acoustic amenity impact of removing the condition. · Concerns relating to the matters assessed within the former development application approval such as building height, visual privacy, building setbacks, and shadows etc.
Report prepared by	Chris Shortt
Report date	17 January 2023

General Manager