|
RECOMMENDATION
That pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the Lane Cove Local Planning
Panel, at its meeting of 7 March 2023, exercising the functions of Council as
the consent authority, refuse Development Application DA148/2022 for
the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi-unit
development consisting of 5 units over basement parking and strata
subdivision at 1A – 3 Bridge Street, Lane Cove, for the following
reasons:
Tree Removal
1. The
development application should be refused because it proposes excessive tree
removal without adequate justification, would result in a significant loss of
tree canopy on site and adversely affect the amenity of the site and
locality.
Particulars
(a) The
following aims set out in clause 1.2 of LCLEP 2009 are relevant:
“(a) to establish, as the first land use
priority, Lane Cove’s sustainability in environmental,
social and economic terms, based on ecologically sustainable development,
inter-generational equity, the application of the precautionary principle and
the relationship of each property in Lane Cove
with its
locality,
(b) to preserve and, where appropriate, improve the existing
character, amenity and environmental quality of the land to which this Plan
applies in accordance with the indicated expectations of the community,
(c) in
relation to residential development, to provide a housing mix and density
that—
…
(ii) is
compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality
…”
(b) The Land Use Table for Zone R3 Low Density Residential in LCLEP
2009 contains the following relevant objectives:
“•
To encourage the erection of buildings that are designed in
response to the characteristics of the site and locality.
• To maximise the
residential amenity of medium density housing in the area.
• To ensure that
landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential
environment.”
(c) Section
2.1 in Part C1 of LCDCP 2010 contains the following relevant general
objectives:
“1 Development is
compatible and complementary to the visual and environmental character of
surrounding residential areas.
…
3 The protection of
significant natural landscape features.”
(d) Section 2.6 in Part C2 of
LCDCP 2010 contains the following relevant objectives in relation to
landscaped area:
“2.6 Landscaped Area
Objectives
The objectives for landscaped
area are:
1 To provide privacy and
amenity.
2 To retain and provide for
significant vegetation, particularly large and medium sized trees and to
provide continuous vegetation corridors.
3 To conserve significant
natural features of the site.
…”
(e) Section
2.7 in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 requires reference to the cut and fill controls
in Section 1.6 in Part C2. Section 1.6 contains the following relevant
control:
“f)
Excavation or fill is not to result in the loss of any significant mature
trees within the side, front or rear boundary setbacks.”
(f) Section
2.8 in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provides the following control relating to
building design:
“c)
Visual continuity of open space corridors and vegetation elements in the
block is to be maintained by the position of buildings.”
(g) Section
1.4 in Part J of LCDCP 2010 contains the following relevant objective for landscaping
of new development:
“3.
The development should retain existing trees where reasonably possible and
should not require unnecessary tree removal. Indigenous canopy trees should be provided where space permits. In
particular where tree removal is required compensatory tree planting is
required…”
(h) Section 2.2 in Part J of LCDCP 2010
provides the following relevant objective in relation to tree preservation:
“1. The retention of the maximum possible number of
existing trees, particularly native trees, within the Municipality in healthy
condition and natural form and shape.”
(i) Of particular concern is the proposed
removal of T12 and T13, which are identified as Eucalyptus botryoides (Southern
Mahogany), being a locally endemic tree to Lane Cove. These trees were found
to be in good condition in the arborist report (prepared by Treehaven
Environscapes, dated 31 January 2022), addendum report (prepared by Treehaven
Environscapes, dated 16 March 2022) and by the Council’s arborist
during an inspection on 10 February 2022.
(j) T12 and T13 have attained a height of in
excess of 22m and 16m, respectively, canopy spreads of up to 15m and are
highly prominent within streetscape.
(k) This loss of canopy would have an adverse
impact on the amenity of the locality in terms of the outlook, vegetative
screening and environmental benefits that are presently associated with the
trees.
(l) The retention of the trees has not been
adequately considered in the design of the proposed development,
(m) The
development application seeks to retain T4, being a Jacaranda mimosifolia (Blue
Jacaranda) located in the north-eastern corner of the site. The proposed
excavation to reduce the existing ground level and construction of a boundary
retaining wall shown on Drawing No. DA-200 “North West Elevation”
(prepared by IDA Design Group, Revision C, dated 6 September 2022) would be
occurring within the Tree Protection Zone and Structural Root Zone of this
tree.
(n) The
proposed tree removal on site including the most significant vegetative
elements, being T12 and T13, and the potential need to remove T4, T15, T15A
and T16 where they are impacted by the major incursions outlined above, is
inconsistent with the following:
(i) The
aims of LCLEP 2009 set out above;
(ii) The
objectives of Zone R3 Medium Density Residential set out above;
(iii) The objectives
in clause 2.1 in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 set out above;
(iv) The objectives
in Section 2.6 in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 set out above;
(v) Control f)
in Section 1.6 in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010;
(vi) Control c) in
Section 2.8 in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010;
(vii) Objective 3 in
Section 1.4 in Part J of LCDCP 2010; and
(viii) Objective 1 in
Section 2.2 in Part J of LCDCP 2010.
Deep Soil Areas
2. The development application
should be refused as the trees to be removed are not proposed to be
compensated through adequate landscaping and deep soil areas on site, which
is contrary to the provisions of LCDCP 2010 and will adversely affect the
amenity of future occupants and the locality through a permanent loss of the
tree canopy that currently exists on site.
Particulars
(a) The various provisions extracted in particulars
(a)-(d) and (f) of Contention 1 above.
(b) The following additional provisions are relevant:
(i) Section 2.6 in Part C2 of
LCDCP 2010 provides the following control in relation to landscaped area:
“b) A minimum of 35% of
the site is to be landscaped area with a minimum width of 3.0m. For attached
dwellings, this refers to each allotment individually.”
(ii) The terms “landscape
area” and “deep soil zones” are relevantly defined for the
purposes of LCDCP 2010 as follows:
“Landscaped area means
part of a site used for growing plants, grasses and trees, but does not include
any building, structure or hard paved area.”
“Deep soil zones are
areas of natural ground with relatively natural soil profiles retained within
a development. Buildings, basement carparks, swimming pools, tennis courts,
patios and decks, and impervious surfaces such as paved areas, driveways,
carparking and roofed areas are NOT
included as part of the deep
soil zone.”
(iii) Section 1.6 in Part J of
LCDCP 2010 specifies that 35% of the site is to be landscaped area (i.e. deep
soil).
(iv) Section 1.4 in Part J of
LCDCP 2010 contains the following relevant objective for landscaping of new
development:
“12. Trees that are
removed as part of the DA process must be replaced at a 1:1 ratio.
Replacement trees must be able to reach the potential mature dimensions of
the removed tree.”
(v) The minimum standards for
planting on structures are set out in Section 1.10 in Part J of LCDCP 2010.
(c) The amended landscape plans
prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects (Revision C, dated 30 September
2022) indicate that deep soil areas meeting the definition of “deep
soil zone” under LCDCP 2010 (i.e. with dimensions of more than 3m)
represent only 21% of the site area, which falls short of the amount required
under section 2.6 in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 (and Section 1.6 in Part J of
LCDCP 2010) by 14%.
(d) The landscape plans do not
provide the soil volumes for the trees proposed in the central garden beds
above the basement level for the purposes of confirming whether the controls
in section 1.10 in Part J of LCDCP 2010 are met.
(e) Without appropriate deep
soil areas, the trees that are proposed to be removed cannot be replaced with
adequate compensatory planting to restore the canopy on the site.
(f) The recently approved multi
dwelling housing development at 1-1B Bridge Street complies with the
requirement to provide 35% of the site as landscaped area, and the approval
of this development application would therefore be contrary precedent set by
the adjoining development.
(g) While the proposed
replacement plantings do meet the ratio of 1:1 specified in section 1.4 in
Part J of LCDCP 2010, in light of the above inadequate soil volumes are
provided to enable the replacement trees to reach the potential mature
dimensions of the trees to be removed.
(h) The lack of appropriate
replacement planting and deep soil areas will adversely affect the amenity of
future occupants and the locality.
Roof Top Terraces / Third
Level
3. The development application
should be refused because the proposed roof top terraces are uncharacteristic
in the locality and would have unacceptable amenity on future occupants and
residents of the adjoining properties, which is contrary to the controls in
Part C2 of LCDCP 2010.
Particulars
(a) The Land Use Table for Zone R3 Low Density Residential
in LCLEP 2009 contains the following relevant objectives:
“• To encourage
the erection of buildings that are designed in response to the
characteristics of the site and locality.
• To maximise the
residential amenity of medium density housing in the area.
• To provide for a
suitable visual transition between high density residential areas and lower
density residential areas.”
(b) Section 2.1 in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provides the
following relevant general objective:
“1 Development is
compatible and complementary to the visual and environmental character of
surrounding residential areas.”
(c) Section 2.3 in Part C2 of LDCP 2010 provides the
following relevant objectives and controls in relation to streetscape:
2.3 Streetscape Objectives
The objectives for
streetscapes are:
5 To ensure the existing
topography and landscape setting are enhanced and reinforced by new
development.
6 To achieve development of a
scale and appearance which is in keeping with the predominant traditional or emerging
street and neighbourhood character.
…
Provisions
a) New buildings are to
recognise and respond to the lot pattern and rhythm of dwellings within the
street.
…”
(d) Section 2.8 in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provides the
following relevant controls in relation to building design:
“2.8 Building Design
…
b) The
architectural style of development must be sympathetic to the adjoining and
surrounding buildings in terms of height, materials, roof pitch and overall
building character.
…
i) Height
I. The
maximum number of storeys for attached dwellings or townhouses in the R3 zone
is 2 storey
…”
(e) Section 2.9 in Part C2 of
LCDCP 2010 provides the following relevant objective and control in relation
to amenity:
“2.9 Amenity
Objectives
The objective for amenity is:
1 To ensure that existing and
future residents can enjoy reasonable privacy in their dwellings and private
open space without being overlooked by adjoining neighbours.
…
Provisions
2.9.1 Privacy
a)
Development should be located and oriented to maximise visual and acoustic
privacy between buildings.
…”
(f) The proposed rooftop
terrace presents as a third storey, which is inconsistent with the control in
section 2.8 in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 requiring the number of storeys of multi
dwelling housing in Zone R3 to be limited to 2 storeys. Up to here
(g) In providing a third storey
in the form of a rooftop terrace, the proposed development is highly
inconsistent with the character of development in the immediate locality. In
this regard, it is noted that no other developments within Bridge Street
incorporate such a feature, including the recently approved multi dwelling
housing development adjoining the site at 1-1B Bridge Street (DA136/2018).
The proposed terrace is therefore inconsistent with the objective of Zone R3
to “encourage the erection of buildings…designed in response
to the characteristics of the site and locality”, as well as the
following provisions in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010: Objective 1 in section 2.1,
Objectives 5 and 6 and control a) in section 2.3 and control b) in section
2.8.
(h) The three storey built form
also fails to provide an appropriate transition between the land within Zone
R4 High Density Residential to the rear of the site and the land in Zone R2
Low Density Residential across Bridge Street, which is inconsistent with the
objective of Zone R3 to provide a “suitable visual transition”
between such areas.
(i) Furthermore, the proposed
terrace is not likely to provide acceptable amenity for either future
occupants or adjoining residents in so far as it is exposed to the elements
with little to no shading, provides limited landscaping, provides
opportunities for overlooking of dwellings within and adjoining the
development and the use of the terraces may have acoustic impacts on these
dwellings. This is inconsistent with the objective of Zone R3 to “maximise
the residential amenity
of medium density housing”,
as well as Objective 1 and control a) in section 2.9 of Part C2 of LCDCP
2010.
Contaminated Land – Remediation Action Plan
4. The development application
must be refused because Council is not satisfied that the remediation action
plan has reasonably considered all methods of remediation and that the RAP
can not be relied upon to substantiate the removal of the trees which have
been found to be in condition by both the Application’s and
Council’s arborist.
Solar Access
5. The development application
should be refused because of the inadequate solar access which would be
provided to Unit 5. No alternate methods of light source have been considered
and this Unit would provide unreasonable solar amenity. An in-depth solar
access assessment for the neighbouring properties has also not been provided.
A solar access table or elevation shadow diagrams would enable this assessment.
Particulars
(a) Section 2.9.2 in Part C2 of LDCP 2010 provides the
following relevant controls relating to solar access:
“2.9.2 Solar Access
a)
Dwellings within the development site and any residential development beyond
the site are to receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight to habitable rooms and
to at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.
b) Where
existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement,
this should not be unreasonably reduced. Shadow diagrams are required with
development applications to show solar access and the extent of
overshadowing.”
(b) Section 2.9.3 in Part C2 of
LCDCP 2010 also requires POS to be located to
maximum solar access.
(c) The proposed cover on the entry ramp to the garage basement would reduce the
solar access at 1/5 Bridge Street for the primary kitchen and living area
from 4 hours to 1 hour. This impact is unreasonable and is not supported.
Insufficient Information
6.
The development application should be refused because insufficient
information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of the proposed
development.
Particulars
(a)
The provided landscaping documentation lacks details on the following:
i. front setback /
Council verge area, has not clearly demonstrated
ii. the Proposed Tree
Protection measures as per the DA Landscape Checklist
iii. There is no Development
Application Landscape Checklist submitted and as a result the following
critical information is missing:
a. Sections and
elevations clearly showing the relationship of the proposed landscaping with
the built form. A minimum of two sections east – west and north
– south required
b. Sections and
elevations for T4, T15 7 T15A would provide valuable information on tree
incursions
iv. no bulk earthworks plan as per the DA Landscape
checklist which clearly shows the proposed cut and fill and possible
conflicts with the roots of trees to be retained
v. The levels on the landscape plan are
incorrect for Units 4 & 5
vi. The Architectural plans represent a 4m x 4m
square area of Private Open Space, yet the landscape plans show the majority
of this area as raised garden bed which will be inaccessible as Private Open
Space
vii. The raised planter boxes allocated to unites
1, 2, and 3 do not provide a compliant soil volume to meet the control as
outlined in Part J – Landscape 1.10 Planting on Structures
(b)
The development application was not accompanied by a report detailing the
compliance of the proposed development with the provisions of the BCA.
(d)
Root mapping is required to a depth of 50mm along the proposed line of the
slab for unit 4 within the TPZ of T15. No roots are to be severed as part of
this investigation.
(e)
Clarification from the Architect with regards to the extent of site
excavation and installation of boundary retaining wall is required as it will
have an affect on trees proposed for retention.
(f) currently the Ongoing Management Plan is to
present bins on the kerb for collection – this will need to be adjusted
to demonstrate an onsite service.
i. The building will be
required to have all bins ready for emptying prior to arrival of the Waste
Contractors on allocated collection day.
ii. Bins must be
properly cleaned and maintained which is currently not mentioned in the WMP
(who will be responsible for this). They must clarify that the building
itself will be responsible (either through Building
Management/Strata/Residents).
(g)
The gradient of the driveway is too steep to facilitate the required garage
truck as explained in the report. Furthermore, swept paths required to be
shown in the WMP of the truck entering and exiting the site in a forward
facing direction. Should also include the truck having unimpeded access to
the service location on the “Basement Floor Plan” page.
(h)
The proposal was not accompanied by the following environmental health
related documents:
i. Environmental
Management Plan
ii. No Construction
Noise & Vibration Management Plan
iii. No Construction &
Demolition Waste Management Plan which is concerning regarding the
potentially contaminated material.
Public Interest
The development application should be refused because the
proposed development is not in the public interest having regard to the
contentions raised above and the concerns raised in the submissions received
(to the extent that they align with those contentions).
|
