Agenda of Lane Cove Local Planning Panel

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 27 May 2025

Unit B502 of 35 Little Street Lane Cove

Item No: LPP7/25

Subject: Unit B502 of 35 Little Street Lane Cove

Record No: DA25/33-01 - 26582/25

Division: Planning and Sustainability Division

Author(s): Thomas Xi

Property:	Unit B502 of 35 (27-43) Little Street, Lane Cove
DA No:	DA33/2025
Date Lodged:	08/04/2025
Cost of Work:	$47,600.00
Owner:	Gai Keniry, Stephen Keniry
Applicant:	Performance Building Consultants

Description of the proposal to appear on determination	New vergola to top floor, Unit B502 balcony.
Zone	R4 High Density Residential
Is the proposal permissible within the zone	Yes
Is the property a heritage item	No
Is the property within a conservation area	No
Does the property adjoin bushland	No
BCA Classification	Class 3
Stop the Clock used	No
Notification	In accordance with Council’s policy, no submissions were received.

REASON FOR REFERRAL

Referral to the Lane Cove Planning Panel is required as the development includes a contravention of more than 10% from the Lane Cove LEP 2009 height-development standard.

The proposed development would achieve a height of 15.02m which is a variation of 22.30%.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· On 8 April 2025 Council received a development application which seeks consent for a new vergola to the top floor unit B502 balcony and is accompanied by a Clause 4.6 variation request relating to the height of building development standard.

· The application was notified in accordance with Lane Cove Council’s notification policy from 8^th April 2025 to 24^th April 2025 and no submissions were received.

· The Clause 4.6 variation request is considered to be well founded and provides reasonable planning grounds to support the contravention.

· The development application satisfies Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including consideration against the Council’s LEP, Council’s DCP and the other relevant planning instruments.

· The proposed development would be reasonable and therefore, it is recommended that the Lane Cove Planning Panel support the Clause 4.6 variation request and support the development application subject to the recommended conditions.

SITE

The site is known as Magnolia Apartments and is located at No 27 – 43 Little Street Lane Cove. The site has a total area of 6912m² and is located on the western side of Little Street.

The site is rectangular in shape and is in the form of an amphitheater or a bowl facing the east. The site falls both from north and south to the center and west to east.

The site contains three (3) existing residential flat buildings. Number 35 is the centrally located residential flat building within the site. Unit 502B is located on the upper level (level 4) of 35 Little Street. The unit contains an existing terrace/balcony facing west.

Toward the north of the site is Pottery Gardens retirement centre. Towards the south is a multi-dwelling housing development. Towards the west are residential flat building developments.

Figure 1: Front View of Site

Figure 2: Existing similar structure on building

Figure 3: Location plan and proposed vergola.

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

An application was initially lodged on 23 December 2014 and was considered by Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel at its meeting held on 14 July 2015 and further deliberation on 7 and 21 August 2015. The Panel approved the application and issued the consent on 31 August 2015. (DA14/223)

A section 96 modification application for minor amendments to conditions was lodged with Council on 11 September 2015 and approved under Delegated Authority by Council on 24 September 2015.

A section 96 modification application to reinstate the loss of FSR as a result of deletion of an apartment was lodged with Council on 27 November 2015 and was considered by Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel at its meeting held on 31 March 2016. The Panel approved the modification application and the amended consent was issued on 13 April 2016.

A section 96 modification for the removal of 2 trees and the pruning of a third tree was approved under delegation on 5 October 2016.

A section 96 modification for correction of an error made relating to the consent document. The description of the proposal was not updated to reflect the section 96 modification in which the number of apartments was reduced from 93 to 85 and was approved under delegation on 9 March 2017.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes a new vergola attached over an existing top floor terrace, with an area of 28m².

· The vergola would be 5.55m in depth and 7.77m in length.

· The vergola would include operable louvres and have internal colourbond gutters;

· The vergola would be approximately 28 sqm in area and cover the footprint of the balcony.

· A Clause 4.6 variation request for the height development standard has been submitted, albeit the proposed structure is within the footprint of the existing residential flat building.

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

Local Environmental Plan 2009

Zoning: R4 High Density Residential Site Area: 6912m²

LEP table
	Development Standard	Proposal	Complies
Floor Space Ratio (max)	1.2:1	No change	Yes
Height of Buildings (max)	12m	15.02m (22.30% breach)	Supported - Refer to Clause 4.6 variation submitted.

ASSESSMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

PROVISIONS OF ANY LEP, DCP, SEPP OR REGULATION (Section 4.15(1)(a))

Clause 4.6 Request - Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

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

Building height is defined in the Lane Cove LEP2009 as the vertical distance between ground level (existing) at any point to the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like. Clause 4.3(2) of Lane Cove LEP 2009 states that the height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. In this instance, the Height of Buildings Map identifies a maximum height of 12m for any building on the subject site.

Request provided by the applicant

The applicant has provided a request which seeks to contravene the building height development standard. The maximum height of the development would be 15.02m (22.30% breach). A copy of the request is provided to the Panel.

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

1. The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

2. Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

3. Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that:

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

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

4. The consent authority must keep a record of its assessment carried out under subclause (3).

Clause 4.6 (3) (a) & (b) the applicant is required to demonstrate:

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

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

The applicant’s Clause 4.6 variation request states that it is unreasonable or unnecessary to require strict compliance with the development standard in this instance, and, that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard for the following reasons (which have been summarised):

· The proposed vergola is consistent with the prevailing height of the buildings and the streetscape character of the locality.

· The awning has no adverse impact with regards to privacy of adjacent properties and maintains adequate solar access to the building.

Comment: The applicant relies in part on improving the overall amenity of the upper level apartment. The proposed vergola would accommodate weather protection from the sun and allow the balcony to be more usable for the occupants. The proposal would not detract from amenity enjoyed by other apartments within the development. The non-compliant section of the proposed vergola would be attributed to the fall in natural ground level. The vergola would be the same height as the existing wall it is attached to. The proposed vergola satisfies the relevant zone objectives. The changes to the existing building would not be readily discernible from neighbouring properties or Little Street. Compliance with the relevant objectives ensure that the development is consistent with the public interest. As such, there are sufficient planning grounds to justify contravening the building height development standard.

Figure 4: Proposed eastern elevation.

Figure 5: Overview of height variation to 12m control.

Figure 6: Northern elevation of 35 Little Street.

The Clause 4.6 request satisfies Clause 4.6(3) (a) & (b) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

Conclusion Clause 4.6 Height of Buildings

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 height development standard of LCLEP 2009 is considered well-justified in this instance. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the proposed vergola, and the objectives of the development standard have been met. The development satisfies the objectives and criteria outlined in Clause 4.6 and as such, the building height breach and request is supported.

REFERRALS

Development Engineer – Part O – Stormwater Management

No objections subject to recommended conditions.

Assessment - Environmental planning and assessment act 1979

provisions of any lep, dcp, SEPP or regulation (Section 4.15(1)(a))

The application is permissible and any issues in regard to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 has been addressed.

The application proposed a variation to the height control standard under clause 4.6 which is considered well founded in this instance.

Other Planning Instruments

SEPP (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

The subject site and adjoining sites are zoned for residential purposes. Given the type of uses within the residential zones, it is unlikely that the site would be contaminated.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 indicates that the standards for demolition and removal of materials should meet with AS 2601-2001 and therefore any consent would require the application of a relevant condition seeking compliance with this Standard.

IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT (Section 4.15(1)(b))

The proposal would not adversely impact neighbouring properties or the public domain in terms of overshadowing, visual privacy, acoustic privacy, or traffic and parking. The proposal presents a development outcome that is consistent with the objectives of the relevant planning controls.

SUITABILITY OF SITE (Section 4.15(1)(c))

The subject site would be suitable for the proposed development as the proposed use is permissible within the Zone. The proposed development would positively contribute to the amenity of the surrounding area and the subject site constrain the development or neighbouring sites.

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION (Section 4.15(1)(d))

The original application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy and no submissions were received.

CONCLUSION

The matters in relation to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been satisfied.

The Clause 4.6 Request to vary the building height development standard is well founded and provides reasonable planning grounds to support the contravention. It is recommended that the Lane Cove Planning Panel support the Clause 4.6 request.

The application does not alter the Floor Space Ratio development standard of the Lane Cove LEP 2009.

The proposal generally meets with the objectives of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

On balance the proposed development would be reasonable and therefore is reported to the Lane Cove Planning Panel for approval subject to the recommended conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

The applicant has made a request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 for the proposed breach of the building height development standard. Council is satisfied that the Clause 4.6 requirements have been met and that there are sufficient planning grounds to support the variation. The proposed development would be in the public interest as the exceedance is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and of the zone in which the development is to be carried out. It is therefore recommended that the Clause 4.6 request for the building height development standard be supported by the Lane Cove Planning Panel.

That pursuant to Section 4.16(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, at its meeting of 27 May 2025, exercising the functions of the Council as the Consent Authority, approve Development Application DA33/2025 for the new vergola to top floor unit no. 502 balcony as it is satisfied that the applicant’s request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 of that Plan, and the proposed development would be in the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of that particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone.

You are advised that the abovementioned application development application has been approved by Council subject to the following conditions:

PART A – GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. A.1 - Approved plans and supporting documentation

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

Plan No	Revision	Plan Title	Drawn By	Dated
19674		1 of 6 Site Plan	JGW	28.03.2025
19674		2 of 6 Plan	JGW	28.03.2025
19674		3 of 6 Section, Post Fixing Detail, Post Detail, Centre Beam Detail	JGW	28.03.2025
19674		4 of 6 Southern Elevation Bldg B	JGW	28.03.2025
19674		5 of 6 Eastern Elevation Bldg B	JGW	28.03.2025
19674		6 of 6 Northern Elevation Bldg B	JGW	28.03.2025

In the event of any inconsistency between the approved plans and the supporting documentation, the approved plans prevail. In the event of any inconsistency between the approved plans and a condition of this consent, the condition prevails.

Note: an inconsistency occurs between an approved plan and supporting documentation or between an approved plan and a condition when it is not possible to comply with both at the relevant time.

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

2. A.3 - Payment of security deposits

Before the commencement of any works on the site or the issue of a construction certificate, the applicant must make all of the following payments to Council and provide written evidence of these payments to the Certifier:

Security deposit	Revision
Infrastructure damage bond	$5,000.00

The payments will be used for the cost of:

· making good any damage caused to any council property (including street trees) as a consequence of carrying out the works to which the consent relates,

· completing any public work such as roadwork, kerbing and guttering, footway construction, stormwater drainage and environmental controls, required in connection with this consent, and

Reason: To ensure any damage to public infrastructure is rectified and public works can be completed.

3. A.7.L Tree preservation and approved landscaping works

Lane Cove local government area in accordance with State Environmental Planning policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021. Chapter 2, Part 2.2, section 2.6 of this Sepp states:

“A person must not clear vegetation in a non-rural area of the State to which Part 3 applies without the authority conferred by a permit granted by the council under that Part “Clearing of vegetation includes “a) cut down, fell, uproot, kill, poison, ringbark, burn or otherwise destroy the vegetation, or b) lop or otherwise remove a substantial part of the vegetation.” Removal of trees or vegetation protected by the regulation is an offence against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

The maximum penalty that may be imposed in respect to any such offence is $1,100,000.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees to be retained and to confirm trees removed for pruning/removal.

4. A.9.T Works on Council land

Separate application shall be made to Council’s Open Space and Infrastructure Division for any associated works on Council property. Written approval is to be obtained prior to the start of any works on Council property.

Where the applicant requires the use of construction plant on the public road reservation, an “Application for Standing Plant Permit” shall be made to Council. Applications shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of any related works. Note: allow 2 working days for approval

Reason: To manage impacts to Council’s assets.

5. A.10.E Drainage plan amendments

Before the issue of a construction certificate, the certifier must ensure the approved construction certificate plans (and specifications) detail the following required amendments to the approved stormwater drainage plans prepared by Vergola (NSW) Pty Ltd, reference no. 19674 and dated 28.03.2025:

1. All new down pipes shall be connected to an appropriate pipe system

2. If the existing system is not in good condition and does not satisfy Council standards, the applicant is to reconstruct the existing system to meet the Council standards.

Certification from a suitably qualified engineer as to the matters below is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of any CC:

a) Compliance with the amendments detailed in this condition.

Where a variation is sought, written approval is to be obtained from Council’s Urban Services Division.

Reason: To ensure adequate stormwater management in accordance with Council’s DCP.

6. A.12 - Construction Certificate

The submission of a Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Principal Certifier PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing.

Reason: To ensures the detailed construction plans and specifications comply with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and any relevant Australian Standard.

PART C – BEFORE THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

7. C.24.E - Structural engineer’s details

The Construction Certificate plans and specifications must include detailed professional structural engineering plans and/or specifications for the following:

· Structural work.

and where relevant in accordance with any recommendations contained in an approved geotechnical report.

Reason: To ensure structural adequacy.

PART D – BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUILDING WORK

8. D.3 - Signs on site

A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work or demolition work is being carried out:

a) showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifier for the work, and

b) showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c) stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work or demolition work is being carried out but must be removed when the work has been completed.

Note: This does not apply in relation to building work or demolition work that is carried out inside an existing building that does not affect the external walls of the building.

Reason: Prescribed condition under section 70 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2021.

9. D.4 - Compliance with Home Building Act

In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

Reason: Prescribed condition under section 69 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.

10. D.5 - Home Building Act requirements

Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifier for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information —

d) In the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed -

i) the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

ii) the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

e) In the case of work to be done by an owner-builder—

i) the name of the owner-builder, and

f) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifier for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the updated information.

Reason: Prescribed condition under section 71 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.

PART E – WHILE BUILDING WORK IS BEING CARRIED OUT

11. E.1 - Hours of work

The principal certifier must ensure that building work, demolition or vegetation removal is only carried out between:

Monday to Friday (inclusive) 7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday 7.00am to 4.00pm

With NO high noise generating activities, to be undertaken after 12 Noon on Saturday.

A Notice/Sign showing permitted working hours and types of work permitted during those hours, including the applicant’s phone number, project manager or site foreman, shall be displayed at the front of the site.

The principal certifier must ensure building work, demolition or vegetation removal is not carried out on Sundays and public holidays, except where there is an emergency.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the surrounding area.

12. E.2 - Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

Building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

Reason: Prescribed condition under section 69 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2021.

13. E.7 - Construction noise

While building work is being carried out and where no noise and vibration management plan is approved under this consent, the applicant is to ensure that any noise caused by demolition, vegetation removal or construction does not exceed an LAeq (15 min) of 5dB(A) above background noise, when measured at any lot boundary of the property where these works is being carried out.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

14. E.15.B - Critical stage inspections

Critical stage inspections are to be carried out in accordance with Section 6.5 of the EP&A Act 1979 and sections 61, 63 and 65 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Development Certification and Fire safety) Regulation 2021Where Lane Cove Council is appointed as the PCA, an inspection is to be booked for each of the following relevant stages during the construction process:

g) structural work;

Reason: EP&A Act requirement.

15. E.18.B - No obstruction of public way

The public way must not be obstructed by any materials, vehicles, refuse, skips or the like, under any circumstances. Non-compliance with this requirement will result in the issue of a notice by Council to stop all work on site.

Reason: To ensure public safety.

16. E.20.EH – Stockpiles

Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside.

No stockpiling of materials, building equipment or additional activities listed in section 4.2 of AS4970-2009 The Protection of trees on Development Sites is to occur within designated tree protection areas or on the Council Owned Nature Strip. All building materials must be delivered and stored within the subject site.

Reason: To mitigate adverse environmental impacts on the surrounding area.

PART F – BEFORE THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

17. F.1 - Works-as-executed plans and any other documentary evidence

Before the issue of the relevant occupation certificate, the applicant must submit, to the satisfaction of the principal certifier, works-as-executed plans, any compliance certificates and any other evidence confirming the following completed works:

(a) All stormwater drainage systems and storage systems

(b) The following matters that Council requires to be documented:

· The stormwater from new roof/impervious area has been connected to existing drainage system. In this case, a hydraulic engineer’s or qualified plumber’s certificate is required that the existing drainage system is in good working condition.

· Certification from qualified structural engineer that the proposed construction has been completed according to approved plan and structurally satisfied.

The principal certifier must provide a copy of the plans to Council with the occupation certificate.

Reason: To confirm that the proposed works have been constructed satisfactorily as per approved plans.

PART H – OCCUPATION AND ONGOING USE

18. H.1 - Release of securities / bonds

When Council receives an occupation certificate from the principal certifier, the applicant may lodge an application to release the securities held in accordance with Condition (2). Council may use part, or all of the securities held to complete the works to its satisfaction if the works do not meet Council’s requirements.

Reason: To allow release of securities and authorise Council to use the security deposit to complete works to its satisfaction.

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 27 May 2025

S4.55(1A) (Mod 4) at 266 Longueville Road Lane Cove

Item No: LPP8/25

Subject: S4.55(1A) (Mod 4) at 266 Longueville Road Lane Cove

Record No: DA17/117-01 - 32257/25

Division: Planning and Sustainability Division

Author(s): Christopher Shortt; Robert Montgomery

Property:	Lot 1 in DP 321353, Lot 1 in DP 1227921 and Lot 2 in DP 1227921 (No. 266) Longueville Road Lane Cove
DA No:	DA 117/2017
Date Lodged:	10 April 2025
Cost of Work:	$91,512,300.00 (no change)
Owner:	Lane Cove Council
Applicant:	The Trustee for Longueville The Village Unit Trust

Description of the proposal to appear on determination	Modification pursuant to s4.55(1A) of Development Consent DA117/2017 and approved plans to reflect changes to glazing on Levels 5 and 6, changes to solar panels on roof, increasing the size of selected window frames, extension of block wall on Level 7 Building C, the erection of fencing along building perimeter, the erection of various block walls for internal privacy and fire compliance, and the erection of an access ladder on level 7 and roof for maintenance
Zone	R4 High Density Residential
Is the proposal permissible within the zone	Yes
Is the property a heritage item	No
Is the property within a conservation area	No
Does the property adjoin bushland	Yes
BCA Classification	Class 1a and 10b
Stop the Clock used	No
Notification	Neighbours notified from 10^th to 25^th April 2025.

SITE

Property	Lot 1 in DP 321353, Lot 1 in DP 1227921 and Lot 2 in DP 1227921
Area	9,204m2
Site location	266 Longueville Road Lane Cove
Existing improvements	The site is currently under construction, with works commenced in relation to Development Consent DA117/2017.
Shape	Irregular
Dimensions	Width: 91m-103m Depth: 84m-147m
Adjoining properties	East: Lane Cove Golf Course West: Longueville Road, Buddhist Temple and detached dwellings North: Residential flat building and detached dwellings South: Residential flat building known as “timbertops”

SITE APPLICATION HISTORY

DA 117/2017	Construction of a seniors housing development comprising 70‐bed residential aged care facility, 82 independent living units/self‐contained dwellings, with basement car parking for 122 vehicles, new public park and facilities and landscaped through‐site link. Approved by SNPP 6/9/21
S4.55(1) Mod	Minor modification to enable multiple construction certificates to be issued under the consent for various stages of work. Approved LCLPP 6/12/22
S4.55(2) Mod	Change in accommodation mix to solely independent living units, provision of additional basement level for car parking and services, removal of commercial tenancy and a number of adjustments to building envelope and external finishes. Approved SNPP 28/7/23.
S4.55(1A) Mod	Changes to parking, vehicle ramp entry, internal layouts, courtyards, setbacks and external finishes/design elements. Approved by LCLPP 27/3/24.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is for a number of minor modifications to the approved plans for construction of a seniors housing development, which was approved by Sydney North Planning Panel on 6 September 2021. In summary, the proposed changes relate to some areas of glazing, some additional minor block walls for fire compliance, changes to solar panel configuration, fencing around building perimeter and roof access ladders.

The applicant states that “The modifications proposed will not result in any additional environmental impacts and are mostly internal modifications. They offer improved servicing and maintenance of the development. The addition of the fence around the edge of the development is due to a requirement under AS1428.1-2009, access ladders to Level 07 and the roof level allow for efficient and safe maintenance of the building. The location and change to the size of the solar panels on the rooftop is to allow coordination with the servicing requirements.”

The application is made pursuant to Section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

REASON FOR REFERRAL

The Sydney North Planning Panel previously delegated all functions relating to determination of applications to modify consent to Council’s General Manager. However, as the Council is the owner of the land, the application is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel for determination in accordance with the relevant Ministerial guidelines.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This assessment report is prepared by Robert Montgomery, an independent town planner engaged by Lane Cove Council to assess the application.

The Section 4.55(1A) application seeks to modify Development Consent DA117/2017 by proposing a number of changes relating to some areas of glazing, some additional minor block walls for fire compliance, changes to solar panel configuration, fencing around building perimeter and roof access ladders.

Approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel on 6 September 2021, the development is described as:

“Construction of a seniors housing development comprising 70 bed residential aged care facility, 82 independent living units/self-contained dwellings, with basement car parking for 122 vehicles, new public park and facilities and landscaped through-site link.”

The development consent has been modified on three previous occasions as detailed in the site application history above. The modification approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel on 28 July 2023 changed the description of the development to:

“Construction of a seniors housing development comprising 92 independent living units/self-contained dwellings, with basement car parking, new public park and facilities and landscaped through site link.”

Attachment 1 is a copy of the development consent as amended.

In accordance with the Lane Cove Community Participation Plan, the modification application was notified from 10^th to 25^th April 2025. A total of three submissions were received.

The modification application has been assessed under the provisions of Sections 4.15 and 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and is recommended for approval.

SITE & SURROUNDINGS

The site comprises three parcels of land described as Lot 1 in DP 321353, Lot 1 in DP 1227921 and Lot 2 in DP 1227921, with a total area of 9,204m2. The site is irregular in shape and has a northern boundary of approximately 147m, an eastern frontage to Lane Cove Golf Course of approximately 81m, a southern boundary of approximately 83m and a combined western frontage to Longueville Road of approximately 103m.

The site has a fall from north to south of 0.85m along Longueville Road, and a fall from west to east of approximately 18m, from 57.83 AHD near the north-western end of the street frontage to 40.00 AHD near the eastern most edge of the development area. Beyond the eastern edge of the development site, there is a further fall to the east of approximately 10-11m to the Lane Cove golf course.

Figure 1: Satellite Image. Source: NSW SDT Explorer

Development in the surrounding area comprises a mix of single and two storey free standing dwelling houses, multi storey residential flat buildings, a Buddhist temple and recreational facilities

To the north is a residential flat building at Nos. 250-252 Longueville Road and detached dwelling houses at Nos. 42-58 Richardson Street. To the east is dense bushland on steep topography that leads down towards the Lane Cove Golf Course.

To the south is a part three and part four storey residential flat building known as ‘Timbertops’. This building relies on a long-standing informal arrangement with the Council for the use of the driveway within the subject land for vehicular access to Longueville Road. Figure 2 below illustrates this relationship. The original consent requires the creation of a right of carriageway in favour of this property.

Development on the western side of Longueville Road comprises the former Masonic Lodge (now Buddhist Temple) and detached dwellings.

Figure 2: Relationship to “Timbertops Building to South”.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION

The key modifications sought under this application include:

• Fencing added along northern and southern perimeter of the building for edge protection as per AS1428.1-2009.

• 1.8m high wall along north-eastern perimeter of the development as per FER between SOU and fire egress.

• Glazing radius amended on front elevation on Level 05 and 06.

• Location and sizes of solar panels on roof coordinated with services.

• Access ladder added on Level 07 and roof for maintenance.

• Block wall extended for constructability on Level 07 of Building C.

• Increase in size of the frames between windows to account for services on the balcony.

Attachment 2 is a table prepared by the applicant which contains detailed comparison statistics for the modification.

SECTION 4.55 ASSESSMENT

The application is made under section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. This section relates to “modifications involving minimal environmental impact” and provides that the consent authority may modify the consent if:

(a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

(b) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with—

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

In relation to section 4.55(1A) (a), it is considered that the changes proposed by the modification are of minimal environmental impact only. Although there are some external changes proposed, the changes are not substantive and will have little or no impact.

In relation to section 4.55(1A) (b), the test is whether the development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted. There is a significant amount of case law relating to this test. The relevant citations are provided below in a brief outline of the principles.

i) The comparison to be undertaken is between the proposed development as modified and the original approved development.

ii) The question of whether a development is substantially the same as that which was originally approved is a question of fact and degree depending on the specific circumstances of each matter which will reasonably admit different conclusions: Scrap Realty Pty Limited v Botany Bay City Council (2008) 166 LGERA 342 at [13].

iii) The meaning of "substantially the same" is "essentially or materially having the same essence": Vacik Pty Limited v Penrith City Council [1992] NSWLEC 8, Stein J; supported by Mason P in North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Assoc Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 468; 97 LGERA at 440.

iv) The question of whether the development is substantially the same is not a question which is capable of scientific or mathematical precision, but rather is a judgment based on an overall quantitative and qualitative assessment: Moto Projects No. 2 Pty Limited v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298 Bignold J at [56]. This means that it must be a comparison not only of the physical changes, but an appreciation of the qualitative impacts of the development as approved.

v) However, the exercise is to be considered in the context of a statutory modification power that has been held to be "beneficial" and "facultative": Houlton v Woollahra MC (1997) 95 LGERA 201; Michael Standley & Assoc. Pty Ltd (supra) at 482; and "free standing": Michael Standley & Assoc. Pty Ltd (supra) at 481.

vi) It is axiomatic that modifications to a development will result in some change. The term "modify" means "to alter without radical transformation". However, that does not mean that even quite extensive changes will result in the overall development becoming something other than substantially the same. In Michael Standley & Assoc. Pty Ltd the scope of the architectural change was significant, but not so as to radically alter the fundamental essence of the development.

The “substantially the same” test was considered at length by the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP) in its decision of 28 July 2023 to modify the consent by, inter alia, removing the 70-bed residential aged care facility from the development. Notwithstanding, the current modification application must satisfy the test. That is, is the development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.

The applicant provides the following information to assist the Panel in considering the matter:

Substantially the same test - Consent

A Section 4.55(1A) Modification Application can only be applied where an existing active Development Consent exists. As noted previously, Development Consent DA117/2017 which granted approval for the “Construction of a seniors housing development comprising 70‐bed residential aged care facility, 82 independent living units/self‐ contained dwellings, with basement car parking for 122 vehicles, new public park and facilities and landscaped through‐site link” applies to the site has not lapsed for the purposes of the EP&A Act.

Substantially the same test – Land Use

Development Consent DA117/2017 is primarily a consent for a ‘seniors housing’ land use as per the former State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, this aspect of the approved development will not change in terms of how the development is viewed or interpreted in terms of the built form and operation of the premises.

Affordable housing places pursuant to Clause 45(6) of SEPP HSPD are maintained. In this regard the operator will make this housing available through an Affordable Housing Policy which provides:

• On-site support services to enable residents to ‘age in place’ for the entire facility including three meals a day provided on a communal basis or to a resident’s dwelling, personal care, home nursing visits, assistance with housework and laundry as required, and

• 10 Units (10.8%) of the inventory to be eligible for affordable housing.

The Original Consent approved 82 ILUs as seniors housing in a residential flat development form. The previous modification received consent to change the housing mix to 92 ILUs and removed the provision of residential aged care beds. This modification maintains these ILUs, residential amenities, activity spaces, outdoor recreation, landscaped through-site link, and public park and facilities, as all previously

modified.

Substantially the same test – Built Form

The development maintains the approved bulk and scale of the development which will cause no significant changes to the streetscape or relationship to neighbouring properties.

Provision of the landscaped through‐site link is maintained.

Provision of the public park and facilities is maintained.

The development maintains the relationship to neighbouring properties with respect to bulk and scale.

The built form of the development will not cause any additional unreasonable environmental impacts such as overshadowing, visual, and acoustic privacy, traffic generation, or changes to stormwater patterns. In fact, is it noted, that the modification will improve the capabilities to service and maintain the development.:

The applicant provides the following detailed description of the modifications proposed in relation to each level, building elevations and materials and finishes.

Level 00

No modifications

Level 01

The modifications see the minor change in 1.8m wall added between the sole occupancy unit (SOU) and the fire egress path. These modifications result in a development still substantially the same as the

Original Consent, resulting in no significant impact.

Level 02

The modifications see the change in the fence added for edge protection as per AS1428.1-2009. These modifications result in a development still substantially the same as the Original Consent, resulting in no significant impact.

Level 03

Level 04

The modifications see the minor change in the fence added for edge protection as per AS1428.1-2009. These modifications result in a development still substantially the same as the Original Consent,

resulting in no significant impact.

Level 05

The modifications see the minor change in the glazing radius on the front elevation to Level 05, and the fence added for edge protection as per AS1428.1-2009. These modifications result in a development still substantially the same as the Original Consent, resulting in no significant impact.

Level 06

The modifications see the minor change in the glazing radius on the front elevation to Level 06. These modifications result in a development still substantially the same as the Original Consent, resulting in no significant impact.

Level 07 and Roof Level

The modifications see the change in location to the solar panels on the roof (as part of Building A), the addition of access ladders on Level 07 and the roof level for maintenance purposes, and the block wall being extended on Level 07 of Building C for constructability. The location and sizes of the solar panels on the roof have been slightly amended as coordinated with building services. These modifications result in a development still substantially the same as the Original Consent, resulting in no significant impact.

North Elevation

The modifications see the addition of widened window frames to support servicing, and the fence added around the development permitter for edge protection as required under AS1428.1-2009 to the north elevation. These modifications result in a development still substantially the same as the Original Consent, resulting in no significant impact.

South Elevation

The modifications see the addition of widened window frames to support servicing, and the fence added around the development permitter for edge protection as required under AS1428.1-2009 to the south elevation. The block wall on Level 07 of Building C has been extended for constructability and can be seen on the southern elevation. These modifications result in a development still substantially the same as the Original Consent, resulting in no significant impact.

East Elevation

The modifications see the addition of widened window frames to support servicing, and the fence added around the development permitter for edge protection as required under AS1428.1-2009 to the east elevation. These modifications result in a development still substantially the same as the Original Consent, resulting in no significant impact.

West Elevation

The modifications see the amendment of the glazing radius to Level 05 and Level 07, and the addition of widened window frames to support servicing requirements to the west elevation. These modifications result in a development still substantially the same as the Original Consent, resulting in no significant impact.

Materials and Finishes

The addition of fence details for the edge protection fence added as part of these proposed modifications results in a development still substantially the same as the Original Consent, resulting in no significant impact. No other modifications to the materials and finishes of the development are proposed.

Comparison plans are provided within the architectural plan set at Attachment 4 which demonstrate the consistency in built form between the original consent and proposed modification.

Accordingly, the Panel can be satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact and is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

In relation to section 4.55(1A)(c), the application was notified from 10^th to 25^th April 2025 in accordance with the Lane Cove Community Participation Plan. Three submissions were received, which are summarised elsewhere in this report.

Pursuant to Section 4.55(3) of the Act, the consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified. The reasons for the decision are contained within the Sydney North Planning Panel Determination and Statement of Reasons dated 6 September 2021. The reasons for the Panel’s subsequent determination on 28 July 2023 are also provided for information. Refer to Attachment 5.

Having reviewed and considered the reasons for determination, it is concluded that the proposed modification is not in conflict with any of those reasons.

Accordingly, the Panel can be satisfied in relation to s4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

SECTION 4.15(1) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 4.55(3) also requires that in determining an application for modification, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.

The following section 4.15(1) matters have been considered.

Environmental Planning Instruments

State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2024

In accordance with Schedule 6 of the SEPP, development with a capital value of more than $30 million, or more than $5 million where Council is the owner of the land is defined as regionally significant development. The proposal triggers both of these criteria.

The consent authority for this modification is therefore the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

Clause 4.6 of the SEPP provides:

(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

It is considered that the consent authority can be satisfied in relation to the provisions of clause 4.6 of the SEPP, as these matters were considered in the original development application, with appropriate conditions applied to ensure that the site is remediated and will be suitable for the development.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

Chapter 2 of the SEPP provides that vegetation must not be cleared without approval. The SEPP refers to the requirements of the Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2016.

The modification does not result in the removal of any additional bushland or native vegetation compared to the development as originally approved.

Accordingly, the Panel can be satisfied in relation to the SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

The original development application and subsequent S4.55 were referred to Transport for NSW for comment., and no objections were raised. As no changes to traffic movements are proposed as a result of the current modification, no referral was required in this instance.

The modification presents no additional traffic impacts.

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (Repealed)

This SEPP has been repealed since the application was lodged. Design quality requirements have been transferred to the Housing SEPP 2021, however, this development is excluded from those provisions due to the savings clause contained within the SEPP.

There is no substantive change to the design of the building, nor any changes which would conflict with the former SEPP. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has provided a Design Verification Statement by the project architect which states, in part:

“We confirm other than the amendments being sought for this DA modification, the design is generally consistent with the DA approved set – as determined on 6th September 2021 (Ref DA117/2017) and the S4.55 approved set - as determined on 9th April 2024.

3EM Architects verify that as required by the Clause 50 (1AB) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 the design quality principles set out in Schedule 1, design quality principles of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the objectives in Part 3 and Part 4 of the Apartment Design Guide have been achieved for the proposed development as described in the architectural documents.”

Although technically not required, the modification satisfies the relevant design principles.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022

This SEPP contains the requirements for BASIX compliance and sets out other sustainability requirements. The previous modification was accompanied by an updated BASIX report which confirms consistency with the requirements of the SEPP.

The proposal complies.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021

This SEPP does not apply to the development due to the savings provisions which exempt development where consent was granted prior to the commencement date. Accordingly, the former Seniors SEPP 2004 applies.

This SEPP is not relevant to the development.

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

The proposal, as amended, maintains consistency with the objectives of the Policy. There are no modifications that warrant further assessment provided against the relevant 2004 SEPP provisions.

The original development application and subsequent modifications have demonstrated compliance.

It is concluded that the Panel can be satisfied in relation to this SEPP.

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

The land is zoned R4 High Density Residential under the provisions of Lane Cove LEP 2009.

A close up of a map

Description generated with very high confidence

Figure 3: Extract from Lane Cove LEP 2009 Land Zoning Map LZN_004

Residential flat buildings are permissible within the R4 zone, therefore seniors living is permissible under the provisions of the former State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

Clause 2.3(2) provides:

(1) The consent authority must have regard to the objectives for development in a zone when determining a development application in respect of land within the zone.

The objectives of the zone are reproduced below with comments in relation to the development.

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

The development as proposed to be modified satisfies this objective.

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

The development as proposed to be modified provides a range of three, two and one bedroom apartments for seniors with availability of on-site support services.

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

The development as proposed to be modified includes an open space area which is accessible to the public. In-house support services will also be provided.

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

The land is located some 800 metres from the southern edge of Lane Cove Village. A bus stop is located on Longueville Road at the front of the land. A number of services are also to be provided within the development by the operator.

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

The development is designed to respect and minimise the amenity of adjoining residences. The proposed modification does not create additional impact.

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

The development site is an amalgam of three titles. There is no opportunity for further development of the any of the adjoining sites with an existing residential flat building adjoining to the south and partially to the north, detached dwellings within the R2 low density zone to the north and bushland zoned E2 to the east.

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

A considerable number of mature trees are to be retained on the land. A comprehensive landscape plan also proposes new plantings and enhancement of existing landscaping. The proposed modification does not alter this situation.

It is concluded that the Panel can be satisfied in relation to the Clause 2.3(2) of Lane Cove LEP 2009.

Clause 4.3 Height of buildings

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

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

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

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

(d) to relate development to topography.

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

The Height of Buildings Map provides a maximum height for the subject land of 62.8m AHD. The height of the approved building, as modified, varies between RL 63.8m and RL 68.0m. A written request for exception from the building height standard under Clause 4.6 of Lane Cove LEP 2009 was accepted by the Sydney North Planning Panel in its decision to approve the original development application.

The proposed development as modified does not alter the height of the building. Notwithstanding, Table 3 below tracks the height as originally approved and as modified.

Table 1: Building Height Comparison

Building	Approved	Approved Modification 2023	Approved Modification 2024
Building A: roof	RL63.7	RL63.3	RL63.8
Building A: lift overrun	RL64.9	RL66.0	RL66.0
Building B: roof	RL 67.0	RL66.9	RL66.9
Building B: lift overrun	RL 67.7	RL66.9	RL68.0
Building C: roof	RL 63.4	RL 63.4	RL63.5
Building C: lift overrun	RL66.8	RL66.9	RL68.0

It is considered that the objectives of the height of buildings clause are satisfied by the overall design response to the site. The impacts of the height exceedance are considered to be negligible and are therefore acceptable. Indeed, the Sydney North Planning Panel and Lane Cove Local Planning Panel have both confirmed this view in previous decisions.

Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio

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

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

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

The site is identified on the Floor Space Ratio Map as having a maximum floor space of 1.1:1. As a Site Compatibility Certificate was issued which states that the land is suitable for more intensive development, an additional floor space ratio (FSR) bonus of 0.5:1 is applicable pursuant to Clause 45 Vertical villages of the former Seniors SEPP (2004). The maximum permissible FSR for the site is therefore 1.6:1.

The original development was approved with an FSR of 1.589:1. The development as modified achieves an FSR of 1.587:1, and the current modification does not change the FSR.

The proposed development as modified complies with the maximum permissible FSR of 1.6:1.

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

There are no draft instruments.

Development Control Plans

Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP) 2010 applies to the subject land. The development as originally approved and subsequently modified was assessed in detail against the Lane Cove Development Control Plan and it was concluded that the objectives of the DCP were achieved and the development was compatible with the surroundings.

The current modification does not propose any changes that would bring about a non-compliance with the DCP.

Having reviewed the proposed modification, it is concluded that the proposal satisfies the requirements of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

Planning Agreements

There is no planning agreement associated with the site or the development.

Regulations

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2021 (EP&A Reg) contains provisions relating to modification applications. The following clauses apply:

Table 2: Summary of Relevant Clauses in the EP& A Reg, 2021

Clause	Summary	Comment
69	Compliance with BCA	Complies
98	Sets out who can make an application	Complies
99	Form, particulars and lodgement	Complies
100	Content required	Complies
102	Modification must include a design verification statement from a qualified designer.	Complies
104	Consent authority may ask for additional information	Not required as information submitted was comprehensive.
105	Requires notification of 4.55(1A) if required by local community participation plan	In accordance with the Lane Cove Community Participation Plan, the application was notified from 10^th to 25^th April 2025. Three submissions were received.
109	Relevant concurrence and approval bodies to be notified if the modification affects any condition imposed.	The original application was referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for comment as traffic generating development under the Infrastructure SEPP. As the modification proposes no change, referral is not required. Approval is not required from any other Agencies.

The application satisfies the relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2021.

Likely Impacts of the Development

Natural Environment

The impacts were considered in the assessment of the original development application. The development has a critical interface with the bushland reserve adjoining the eastern boundary. The setback to this boundary is considered sufficient to preserve the bushland. The setbacks are the same as the development as originally approved.

No additional trees or native species are proposed to be removed. Landscaping details have been refined as part of this modification application, however, the changes are minor in nature and maintain the required provision of landscaping.

It is considered that the modification does not bring about any different or additional impacts on the natural environment compared to the approved development.

Built Environment

The development maintains the same building height, bulk, and scale to that originally approved and subsequently modified. Setbacks are consistent with SEPP 65 Building Separation requirements and DCP objectives as previously approved.

It is considered that the modification does not increase impacts in terms of the built environment.

Amenity

The amenity of the proposed future residents, staff and visitors is maintained to a high standard as

approved.

No changes are proposed which will impact on amenity.

Privacy

The proposed modifications maintain appropriate levels of privacy to occupants of the development and adjoining properties.

It is considered that there is no change in relation to privacy impacts.

Solar Access

The modifications to the development maintain reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas because of site orientation and generous setbacks. The proposed built form, setbacks and height of the approved building remain substantially unchanged.

It is therefore considered that there will be no additional impact on adjoining buildings in terms of solar access.

Traffic Access

Longueville Road is a local unclassified road which is owned and managed by Council.

Access to the development is proposed by a one-way vehicle entry from Longueville Road to a street level portico at level 5 located some 30 metres north of the southern boundary, and a two-way driveway located along the southern boundary which accesses the basement car park and service areas. Both driveways are treated with left in-left out restrictions. This southern driveway also provides vehicular access to the adjoining “timbertops” apartment building.

The approved access configuration is not changed by the modification.

Traffic Generation

The traffic generation will remain the same for the modification now proposed, as the number of ILUs is not changed.

Parking

The development as modified provides 186 spaces. The former SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 in clause 50(h) provides that an application cannot be refused if parking is provided at least for 0.5 car spaces for each bedroom where the development application is made by a person other than a social housing provider. The development comprises 246 bedrooms in 92 units. Therefore, the minimum number to avoid refusal of a DA is 123 spaces. This is generally regarded as a minimum standard (not a maximum) for car parking under the SEPP.

Under the provisions of Lane Cove DCP 2010, the minimum number of parking spaces for residential flat buildings is calculated at 1 space per one bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 3 bedroom or larger, plus 1 visitor space per four units This calculates to a requirement for 192 spaces. There is no specific requirement in the DCP for seniors living parking rates, however it is open to applicants to provide analysis for the proposed parking rates, has been done in this instance.

If one uses the parking rate from the SEPP, the proposed modification provides an excess of 63 spaces. Using the Lane Cove DCP, the modification is deficient by 6 spaces.

No change to bedrooms or staffing levels is proposed by this modification.

This matter was considered by the Sydney North Planning Panel in relation to the previous modification on 28 July 2023 and found to be acceptable. The development as modified provides more car parking than the “must not refuse” standard of SEPP Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

Social Impacts

The applicant submits that the proposed modifications maintain the development’s ability to have a positive social impact in that it will improve the supply of high-quality seniors housing, providing the same housing choice and the option for local residents to remain in the area as the development approved.

It is considered that the proposed development as modified will have a positive social impact on the locality and the wider Lane Cove LGA by providing accommodation and services in a suitable location to meet the demands of an aging population.

Economic Impacts

The proposal would provide short term employment opportunities during demolition and construction and long-term employment with some 10 operational staff. Large developments such as that proposed also provide significant ongoing opportunities for local contractors in servicing the buildings, plant and equipment.

It is considered that the development would have a positive economic impact.

Suitability of the Site

The suitability of the site was established by the granting of the original development consent.

The site has appropriate physical characteristics to support a development of this scale, while minimising impacts to surrounding properties. The proposed modification does not affect the suitability of the site.

Any Submissions Made

In accordance with the Lane Cove Community Participation Plan, the application was notified from 10^th to 25^th April 2025. Three submissions were received from adjoining residents in Richardson Street West. The following is a summary of the submissions and comments in response.

1. Access to public Pathway

The submitters are concerned that the pathway from Longueville Road to the golf course, through the buffer zone should remain as a community asset. The fencing cuts off the promised public access through this area. There should be a gate for public access.

It was always intended that the pathway would be gated to prevent entry at night for security purposes. Conditions 155, 155.1 and 170 deal with this aspect of the pathway and are not proposed to be changed.

155. Documents giving effect to the creation of a positive covenant allowing for public access to the publicly accessible walkway, pocket park, playground and the access park located on the northern boundary of the site registered on the title of the property. The wording of the terms of the positive covenant shall be in accordance with the wording provided by Lane Cove Council.

155.1 Access to the public pathway along the northern boundary of the site shall be closed between the hours of dusk and dawn. Lockable gates and signage shall be installed to the satisfaction of Council.

“170 Public access to the through site link between Longueville Road and the Lane Cove Golf Course shall be made available between the hours of dawn and dusk. Lockable gates and signage shall be installed to the satisfaction of Council.”

Conditions 155 and 155.1 must be satisfied prior to issue of an occupation certificate, while condition 170 is an operational condition which will continue to apply to the development.

2. Boundary Fencing and Access

The submitter is concerned that the boundary fence between the premises and the dwellings on Richardson Street West is not specifically addressed. Are any changes proposed? Will we still be able to use our gate to access the public pathway?

No changes to the boundary fence are proposed by this modification. Access to the site via an existing gate is a private matter between submitter and the operator/lessee of the site.

The Public Interest

It is considered that the proposed modification will facilitate the Objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. In particular, the following Objects are relevant:

(g) to promote good design and amenity of the built environment,

(h) to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants,

Accordingly, it is considered that the approval of the modification serves the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The proposed modification satisfies all relevant statutory requirements and maintains the high quality design outcome for this site. It is considered that the development as modified will have a positive impact in that it will increase the supply and variety of seniors housing in Lane Cove, providing more housing choice and the option for local residents to remain in the area as they continue to age.

The application has been assessed having regard to the provisions of Sections 4.15 and 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the provisions of relevant environmental planning instruments as detailed in this report.

It is concluded that the proposed modification satisfies the required “substantially the same development” test and the development as modified will not result in adverse impacts when compared the approved development.

Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

A. The Panel is satisfied that the proposed modification:

· is of minimal environmental impact;

· is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent was modified;

· has been notified; and

· has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters in s4.15(1) EP&A Act.

The Panel has taken into account the reasons of the consent authority that granted the consent that is sought to be modified.

B. 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 27 May 2025, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, approve the modification to Development Consent DA 117/2017 for construction of a seniors housing development comprising 92 independent living units/self-contained dwellings, with basement car parking, new public park and facilities and landscaped through-site link, by replacing the table of plans in Condition 1 with the following table:

1. The development shall be strictly in accordance with the following drawings and documents:

Drawing Number	Title	Date and Revision	Prepared By
DA-050	Context	05.12.2023 Rev 1	3EM Architects
DA-100	Site Plan	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-200	Level 00	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-201	Level 01	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-202	Level 02	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-203	Level 03	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-204	Level 04	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-205	Level 05	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-206	Level 06	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-207	Level 07	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-208	Level Roof	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-300	Level 00	05.12.2023 Rev1	3EM Architects
DA-301	Level 01	05.12.2023 Rev1	3EM Architects
DA-302	Level 02	05.12.2023 Rev1	3EM Architects
DA-303	Level 03	05.12.2023 Rev1	3EM Architects
DA-304	Level 04	05.12.2023 Rev1	3EM Architects
DA-305	Level 05	05.12.2023 Rev1	3EM Architects
DA-306	Level 06	05.12.2023 Rev1	3EM Architects
DA-307	Level 07	05.12.2023 Rev1	3EM Architects
DA-401	Elevations – Sheet 1	11.12.2024 Rev 3	3EM Architects
DA-402	Elevations – Sheet 2	11.12.2024 Rev 3	3EM Architects
DA-403	Elevations – Sheet 3	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-404	Elevations - Sheet 4	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-501	Sections – Sheet 1	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-502	Sections – Sheet 2	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-503	Sections – Sheet 3	11.12.2024 Rev 2	3EM Architects
DA-1000	GFA Plans	05.12.2023 Rev 1	3EM Architects
LA01	Tree Removal & Retention	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA02	Site Plan	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA03	Site Plan	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA04	Playground and Longueville Road streetscape	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA05	Longueville Road Porte- cochere	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA06	Level 3 Courtyard	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA07	L3 Courtyard Character Lll	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA08	L3 Courtyard Sections & Elevations	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA09	L1 Courtyard	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA10	L1 Courtyard Sections	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA11	L3 Resident Terraces	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA12	L3 Resident Terraces Sections	07.06.2018 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA13	BIO Retention Plan & Eastern Boundary Interface	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA14	Rooftop Plan	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA15	Tree Replenishment Plan	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA16	Planting Plan	06.01.2025 Rev IIIII	Taylor Brammer
LA17	Planting Schedule	N/A	Taylor Brammer

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Item No: LPP9/25

Subject: Supplementary Planning Report, 36-38 Dunois Street, Longueville

Record No: DA24/157-01 - 27771/25

Division: Planning and Sustainability Division

Author(s): Andrew Bland

Property:	36 – 38 Dunois Street, Longueville
DA No:	DA157/2024
Date Lodged:	20/01/2025
Cost of Work:	$1,800,000.00 (EDC $2,721,750.00)
Owner:	SBM Homes Pty Ltd
Applicant:	Sam Semaan

Supplementary Report

The subject report has been prepared in relation to the deferred decision from the Lane Cove Planning Panel at is meeting on the 19 February 2025. The Panel deferred determination of the application to allow the Applicant the opportunity to submit further information. These matters are as follows:

· A view analysis from an experienced specialist consultant to demonstrate the impact of the proposal on views, in particular water views from the living areas, of the heritage listed home at 101 William Edward Street, Longueville. The additional information should also have regard to the planning principle set out in Tenacity and include photomontages of views with the proposed buildings superimposed, consistent with the technical guide issued by the Land and Environment Court of NSW entitled ‘Policy: Use of Photomontages and Visualisation Tools’. (the Panel notes the verbal agreement given by the subject property owner to grant access in a timely way).

· Additional information clarifying the applicant’s position on the legal applicability or otherwise of Clause.4.1 and Cl.4.6 of the Lane Cove LEP 2009

· Additional survey details with more spot levels to inform accurate plotting of the existing ground level, including the vertical cliff/retaining wall in the central part of the site. Surveyor’s sections of the land profile at relevant locations to the building sections are to be shown on the architectural drawings. This will also demonstrate compliance or otherwise with the LEP height development standard. The surveyor should also verify in writing the accuracy of the subsequent height “blanket” prepared by the architect

· Sections to demonstrate the maximum external wall height of the dwellings relative to existing ground level, to be prepared following above further survey data

· Geotechnical advice to clarify whether or not approval under the Water Management Act 2000 is required (in relation to potential de-watering of any groundwater) and any specific recommendations

· Revisions to the driveway(s) and stormwater infrastructure as necessary to retain the existing Canary Island Palm

· A revised Landscape Plan is to be submitted to show: increased and compliant landscaped area having regard to the DCP provisions; and the planting of endemic native canopy trees to ensure equivalent or greater tree cover compared to the current situation

This information was to be submitted to Council by Monday 7 April 2025. A further Council assessment report is to undertaken in a timely manner and the matter referred back to this Panel for determination, and this may include by electronic means.

Council received the updated / additional documents

Council received the updated documentation and on 8 April 2025 the amended architectural plans where re-notified. Council received 6 submissions in response to the notification period.

Information provided for the Panel

1. View analysis

The Applicant has provided a Visual Impact Assessment dated 4 April 2025 from urbaine design group. The view analysis provides an assessment on the impacts of the heritage listed home at 101 William Edward Street, Longueville with particular regard to the water views as requested. Other properties and the public domain are also included. This assessment provides commentary with reference to the Tenacity Principle and images in accordance with the Land and Environment Court of NSW procedures. The report concludes that:

“The assessment of view loss experienced by residents across 2 levels of the house vary between Minor-to-Moderate and Moderate-to-Severe. These have been assessed in both primary and secondary living areas.

The highest value components of the view are retained at the upper level of the neighbouring property, whilst at the lower level, it would not be reasonably expected for a view to be retained by any future development that is permitted to accommodate 2 storeys of accommodation on this site.

Since the proposal is largely compliant, and fully compliant with the permitted height envelope, with clear evidence of design excellence providing view corridors it satisfies the Council's guildelines for view-sharing between neighbouring properties.”

View analysis peer review from 101 William Edward Street

A view impact peer review dated 30 April 2025 from Jane Maze-Riley of Urbis has been provided in the submission on behalf of the owners at 101 William Edward Street. The submission advises objection to the development application on the basis that the view impact provided by the applicant is inadequate and cannot be relied upon as an objective or accurate analysis. These reasons include the following:

“The VIA does not follow or adequately address either planning principle to an extent that the

view impacts can be relied on as objective or accurate.

The key steps and questions to be answered in Tenacity, are not addressed so that there is

no objective justification for any of the view impacts reached.

The VIA erroneously considers visual effects shown in individual photomontages rather than

an impact for the whole dwelling.

The Urbaine material is contradictory arriving at impacts ranging from minor-moderate tomoderate-severe with no definitive impact for the dwelling, where the proposal is described as ‘largely compliant’.

The proposal is non-compliant with some relevant controls.

If the DA was fully compliant, Step 4 of Tenacity requires an assessment of the reasonableness of an impact and consideration of alternative, more skilful designs to reduce impacts on neighbours, which has not been undertaken.

The photomontages produced by Urbaine include multiple errors most importantly in relation to the verification of survey data used to insert, rotate and align the 3D architectural massing model in the view.

The preparation and presentation of the photomontages does not comply with the Land and Environment Court of NSW photomontage policy in relation to accuracy. In this regard they cannot be relied upon by Council to inform their assessment.

The DA should be refused on view impact grounds.”

Comment: The Applicant has provided a view loss analysis as requested by the Local Planning Panel. The peer review analysis on behalf of the owners at 101 William Edward Street provided refutes the accuracy of the depicted proposal. The Applicant and submitter disagree on the reasonableness of the proposal and whether a more compliant design could provide an improved view outcome.

2. Legal Advice and the Clause 4.6

The development application is accompanied by legal advice from McKees Legal Solutions dated 20 March 2025. This advice reaffirms the Applicant’s position on Clause 4.1 of the LC LEP 2009 regarding the application of the minimum lot size map.

The development application has also been accompanied by a Clause 4.6 variation request for the minimum lot size development standard. This has been provided as a precautionary measure should the Panel form the view that the 550sqm minimum lot size requirement applies to the site.

Comment: The additional information as requested by the Lane Cove Planning Panel does not alter Council’s position in relation to subdivision and the minimum lot size.

3. Additional survey details

An updated survey has been provided by Alan Bardsley of Anthony & associates surveying dated 18 March 25. This survey has been used to extrapolate the maximum height blanket in the amended architectural plans.

A further certificate from this surveyor dated 7 April 2025 has been provided confirming the accuracy of the extrapolated height blanket and natural ground level represented on the plans.

Comment: The survey points have been depicted on the amended architectural plans and used for the extrapolated height blanket. The height blanked has been certified by a surveyor as required by the Panel.

4. Additional sections to confirm wall height

Updated architectural plans have been provided which include additional sections and the updated survey levels to confirm the proposed wall height. The proposed development has been reduced by 500mm to minimise impacts on the surrounding neighbours.

Comment: The amended proposal would achieve a maximum wall height of 9.1m. The prior development was located beyond the 9.5m maximum height development standard in light of the additional survey data. The development has been reduced 500mm to ensure compliance with this development standard and to reduce impacts on neighboring dwellings.

5. Geotechnical Investigation Certificate

A geotechnical investigation certificate dated 28 March 2025 from CEC Geotechnical Pty Ltd has been provided. The following comments were provided:

“Based on our site observations, at the current stage, the approval under the Water Management Act 2000 may not necessarily be required. However, further investigation shall be conducted during CC stage.

If the site conditions at the time of construction differ from those described in the Geotechnical

Investigation Report prepared by CEC Geotechnical, Project No. GR23261, Date 12/12/2024, then CEC Geotechnical shall be contacted.”

Comment: The response provided appears inconclusive as to whether or not referral is required in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000.

6. Tree retention and associated driveway / stormwater revisions

The driveway and stormwater designs have been amended to ensure the retention of the Canary Island Palm. Council’s Arborist and Landscape officer provided the following comments:

“I have reviewed the amended plans and note that with the amendments that have been presented to the driveway layout and the relocation of the stormwater services, retention of the Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island date palm) - Tree 11 (in V2 of the Horticultural Management – AIA), Tree 9 (in V3 Horticultural Management – AIA) is achievable however will be subject to a condition being imposed for and AQF Level 5 Arborist supervision of hand excavation within the TPZ/SRZ.

Our views on Landscape remain unchanged.”

Comment: Council’s Arborist has confirmed that retention of this tree may be achieved through the amendments where a condition of consent is implemented requiring adequate supervision.

7. Revised landscape plan

The Applicant has provided a revised Landscape Plan which includes the planting of endemic native canopy trees which would attain a greater canopy cover than the existing. There has been no increase to the landscape area proposed and a minor reconfiguration in relation to the relocated driveway.

The Applicant has also provided a response from GSA Planning dated 7 April 2025, which addresses the shortfall in landscaping area. The Applicant is of the view that the proposed landscaping is reasonable and similar proposals have been approved in the vicinity.

Comment: Council’s arborist has provided the following comments in relation to the tree canopy ratio:

I have reviewed to proposed planting within the landscaping plans and the proposed canopy calculations found in Drawing No. L 016 dated 02/04/25 by Enclave Studio.

I note that the ‘canopy” species selected include species from both Western Australia or Northern Territory and are unlikely to achieve dimensions that would be achievable in the regions of origin and the planting sizes are conservative.

As such I would request that the Corymbia ficifolia be replaced with 100Ltr large tree species as indicated in Lane Cove Development Control Plan Part J

– Landscaping and Tree Preservation - Appendix 4 - Indicative Canopy Spread of Replacement Trees and that the Leptospermum madidum is replaced with 75 Ltr medium tree species from the same listing.

Clause 4.6 Request – 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 allows exceptions to development standards to provide flexibility and achieve better outcomes for and from development as a result of this flexibility. Consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority (Lane Cove Planning Panel in this instance) has considered and agrees with the request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard. This request must demonstrate compliance with the relevant provisions of Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009.

The applicant has provided a Clause 4.6 request to vary the minimum subdivision lot size development standard. This has been lodged as a precautionary measure in the event that the Panel is of the view that Council’s application of the Lot Size Map and interpretation of the proposed subdivision is correct. Council is of the view that the proposal includes amalgamation of the two lots and consequent subdivision that results in two undersized lots below the minimum area requirement of 550m². An assessment of the Clause 4.6 request follows.

The existing allotment for Lot 2 and Lot 3 is registered as an undersized lot with an area below the 550m² threshold. Lot 2 has an existing total area of 473.8m² and Lot 3 has an existing total area of 483.1m². As demonstrated in Figure 1, the Lot Size Map has depicted the lots as ‘uncoloured’ as they are already registered as undersized. When amalgamated for the purposes of subdivision, the new lot would measure 956.9m², meaning that the Lot Size Map would highlight the new lot in colour as it would be above the minimum 550m². The proposed development would result in a departure of 76.2m2 (approximately 13.85%) for Lot 2 and 66.9m2 (approximately 12.16%) for Lot 3.

Figure 1: Minimum Lot Size Map (Lane Cove Council)

Request provided by the applicant

The applicant has provided a request from GSA Planning dated April 2025 which seeks to contravene the minimum subdivision lot size development standard on a precautionary basis. Notwithstanding the applicants differing view on subdivision and the application of the minimum lot size map, the request reports that “the variation achieves the objectives of the zone and development standard and has demonstrated there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.”

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards

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

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that:

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

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

(4) The consent authority must keep a record of its assessment carried out under subclause (3).

Clause 4.6 (3) (a) & (b) the applicant is required to demonstrate:

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

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

The applicant’s Clause 4.6 request states that it is unreasonable and unnecessary to require strict compliance with the development standard in this instance, and, that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard for the following reasons (which have been summarised):

· The proposed development would result in 2 lots which maintain the size of the 2 existing lots, however the lots would be orientated towards Dettmann Avenue.

· The subdivision would maintain the character of the site and the low density scale of the residential built forms on site, notwithstanding the shortfall.

· The proposal is compatible with the surrounding subdivision pattern in terms of orientation.

· The proposal would more appropriately orientate 2 dwellings towards Dettmann avenue as opposed to Dunois Street and the associated landscaped verge.

· The proposal results in an improved streetscape outcome for the site.

· The proposal would have improved visual curtilage of the heritage item.

· The proposed development is consistent with the objects of the EPA Act (Section 1.3): in particular (c) to promote the orderly and economic development of the land and (g) to promote good design and amenity of the built environment.

Comment: The proposed development would have unreasonable impacts due to the shortfall in site area. The proposed development fails to meet the R2 zone objective to retain, and where appropriate improve, the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area. A compliant approach in the existing lot orientation (with a compliant rear setback from the southern boundary) would provide site lines towards the Lane Cove River from the rear yard and living areas. This would assist in retaining the residential amenity of this Heritage listed dwelling.

The shortfall from the minimum site area results in a development which fails to meet the R2 zone objective to ensure that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment. The proposed development would provide an insufficient landscaped area. The landscaped character of the site is being removed and not adequately replaced. The subject site would be dominated by a dwelling with an appearance of 4 storeys from Dettmann Avenue and landscaping would not be the major element.

The proposed development also requires excavation far beyond what is reasonable as a result of the changed lot orientation. The process of cascading 2 dwellings across a significant fall is an unnecessary approach when the 2 individual lots can accommodate the construction of 2 dwellings without this level of excavation. The development would therefore be contrary to the 6.1A Earthworks objective which seeks to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

The proposed development further intensifies the use of Dettmann Avenue where access is already provided of Dunois Street. Access from Dunois Street is more suitable given Dettmann is a narrow and busy street and existing access is already provided from Dunois Street for the upper lot. The proposal would provide two 3-4 storey dwelling houses on undersized lots within an R2 Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal requires the consolidation and subdivision of the two undersized lots to alter their existing arrangement. This fails to satisfy the 1.2 Aims of Plan (LEP) stated within 2(c), 2(d)i)), 2(d)ii)) and 2(d)iii)).

The Clause 4.6 request fails to satisfy Clause 4.6(3) (a) & (b) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

The Development Application fails to satisfy Clause 4.6 of the LEP 2009

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION

Council received 6 submissions in response to the renotification period. The concerns raised in these submissions have been summarised below.

Concern

Comment

Concern that the Visual Impact Assessment is inadequate and cannot be relied upon as an objective or accurate analysis.

A peer review and an alternate View Impact Assessment has been provided on behalf of the owners at 101 William Edward Street. References have also been made to other view loss cases.

Request that a more skillful design be explored in order to account for the matter raised in the peer review and alternate view impact assessment.

The View Assessments have both been provided to the Panel for their consideration.

These assessments have been addressed earlier in this report.

Concern that the further information and specifically the survey levels and geotechnical information have not been provided for assessment.

These documents were requested by the Panel for its decision.

The updated survey report, a surveyor’s verification of the ‘height blanket’ diagram and geotechnical information have been provided to the Panel for assessment.

The update survey points have been depicted on the amended architectural plans.

Concerns regarding minimum lot size.

Council maintains this view on minimum lot size.

Concern with the proposed deep soil.

Concerns regarding the landscape plan not showing compliant landscaping.

The Applicant does not propose compliant landscaping and has sought to justify this.

Council maintains this view on the deep soil variation.

Concerns that the rear setback does not comply.

Council maintains this view on the rear setback variation.

Concerns with the levels of excavation proposed.

Council maintains this view on the excavation variation.

Concerns with sediment and erosion runoff.

Any approval would be accompanied by a sediment and erosion plans as well as conditions to manage stormwater runoff.

Concerns with the lack of information regarding to the groundwater and associated geotechnical comment.

A letter has been provided from a Geotechnical expert – this has been addressed earlier in this report and provided to the Panel for their review.

Concerns with the noncompliant wall height and storeys count.

Council maintains this view on the wall height and storeys variations.

Concern with the proposed tree removal, replanting and net canopy loss.

Council’s arborist has completed a full assessment regarding the removal of species on the subject site. The assessment is summarised within the Officer Comments section of the original report.

Refer to Council’s Arborist response regarding tree canopy.

Concerns that the proposed development would breach the maximum height control.

A surveyor has certified that the proposed development is within the maximum height control.

Concerns with the front setbacks proposed.

The development is proposed as compliant with the front setback controls where Dettmann avenue is the recognised frontage.

Concerns with the proposed development resulting in 2 dwellings.

The Applicant is able to construct 2 dwellings in the existing lot orientation.

Concerns that a neighbouring dwelling has been incorrectly identified on the plans as 3 storey dwelling.

The Panel has visited this property and notes the number of the storeys.

CONCLUSION

The applicant has provided a response to the 7 requested items from the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel.

The Applicant is of the view that all matters have been adequately addressed.

Council maintains the concerns, including but not limited to, the minimum lot size and subdivision pathway.

The additional information as requested by the Lane Cove Planning Panel does not alter Council’s position and recommendation for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Lane Cove Planning Panel receives and notes the additional information as requested at the meeting of 19 February 2025.

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Original Report - 36 - 38 Dunois Street, Longueville - Lane Cove Local Planning Panel - Wednesday, 19 February 2025

51 Pages

Available Electronically

Acting General Manager