1.81 MB - Manly Council

Transcription

Agenda
Manly Independent Assessment
Panel
Notice is hereby given that a Manly Independent
Assessment Panel of Council will be held at Council
Chambers, 1 Belgrave Street, Manly, on:
Thursday 20 March 2014
C o m m e n c i n g a t 10.30am f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f c o n s i d e r i n g
items included on the Agenda.
Manly Independent Assessment Panel Agenda
Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item
Page No.
SITE INSPECTIONS
The Manly Independent Assessment Panel will leave Town Hall on Thursday, 20 March 2014 at
8.00am for a site inspection on each agenda item.
MIAP
MIAP Report No. 12
Andrew Boy Charlton Swim Centre, LM Graham Reserve - Balgowlah Road, Manly DA0261/2013 ........................................................................................................................... 2
MIAP Report No. 13
402 Sydney Road, Balgowlah - DA0219/2013 ....................................................................... 39
MIAP Report No. 14
27 Fairlight Street, Fairlight - DA0044/2013 ........................................................................... 68
MIAP Report No. 15
7 Harvey Street, Seaforth - DA0212/2013 ............................................................................. 95
MIAP Report No. 16
16 Moore Street, Clontarf - DA0260/2013 ........................................................................... 129
MIAP Report No. 81
374-378 Sydney Road, Balgowlah - DA277/2011
Section 96 (2) Modification .................................................................................................. 143
MIAP Report No. 17
8 Smith Street, Manly - DA0236/2013 ................................................................................. 155
MIAP Report No. 18
102-104 North Steyne, Manly - DA0056/2012
Section 96(1A) ..................................................................................................................... 170
***** END *****
Page 1
MANLY INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PANEL
TO:
Manly Independent Assessment Panel - 20 March 2014
REPORT:
MIAP Report No. 12
20 MARCH 2014
SUBJECT: Andrew Boy Charlton Swim Centre, LM Graham Reserve - Balgowlah Road,
Manly - DA0261/2013
FILE NO:
MC/14/27446
Application Lodged:
Applicant:
Owner:
Estimated Cost:
Zoning:
Surrounding Development:
Heritage:
Officer:
20 December 2013
Manly Council – Michael Biddulph
Manly Council
$1,500,000
Manly Local Environmental Plan, 2013 – RE1 Public Recreation
Manly Golf Club, recreational facilities (outdoor) within LM
Graham Reserve, dwelling houses, Semi-detached dwellings
and residential flat buildings.
No
Glen Hugo
SUMMARY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
DEVELOPMENT CONSENT IS SOUGHT FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 25 METRE
POOL AND CONSTRUCTION IF NEW WATER POLO SWIMMING POOL, RETAINING
WALL, SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, SPECTATOR SEATING FOR SWIM CENTRE ANDREW BOY CHARLTON SWIM CENTRE.
THE APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO ALL ADJOINING AND NEARBY PROPERTY
OWNERS AND 27 SUBMISSIONS OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT, A PETITION
CONTAINING 160 SIGNATURES AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT AND 110 SUBMISSIONS
IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WERE RECEIVED.
THE APPLICATION WAS REFERRED TO THE ALL PRECINCT COMMUNITY FORUMS
WITH COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM BALGOWLAH HEIGHT PRECINCT, FAIRY BOWER
PRECINCT, IVANHOE PARK PRECINCT CLONTARF PRECINCT, OCEAN BEACH
PRECINCT, LITTLE MANLY PRECINCT AND THE CORSO PRECINCT.
SITE INSPECTION IS RECOMMENDED.
THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.
Locality Map
Page 2
20 MARCH 2014
MIAP Report No. 12 (Cont’d)
Report
Introduction
Subject site and surrounding area
The proposed development is located within the Andrew Boy Charlton Swim Centre which is
located within LG Graham Reserve between Balgowlah Road and Kenneth Road Manly legally
known as Lots 49 to 54, Section 9 DP 939916. . The site currently contains a 50m outdoor pool, a
25m outdoor pool, a toddler pool, amenities buildings, kiosk and other associated structures. The
site currently has parking for 85 cars adjacent to the facility which are publicly available for the
adjacent park and other uses.
The site is classified as ‘Community Land’ under the Local Government Act 1993. The proposal is
consistent with the Plan of Management for Community Land, LM Graham Reserve.
Development consent has been granted by the JRPP under DA177/13 for alterations and additions
to the existing Andrew “Boy” Charlton Manly Swim Centre including partial demolition of existing
facility structures, construction of an all purpose aquatic centre comprising of a twenty-five (25)
metre eight (8) lane lap pool, seating for one hundred and fifty (150) spectators, program pool,
leisure pool, spa pool, sauna and steam room, administration rooms, plant rooms, gymnasium and
group fitness/multipurpose space, kiosk, amenities, with the retention of the outdoor 50 metre pool,
outdoor toddlers pool, outdoor twenty-five 25 metre pool and plant rooms, on-site parking for 46
cars, 170 car parking spaces in Kenneth Road and a separate community facilities building
containing change rooms, amenities, storage and a bus shelter.
The surrounding development consists of Manly Golf Club, Recreational facilities (outdoor) within
LM Graham Reserve, dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings and residential flat buildings.
Description of proposed development
The proposed development consists of demolition of the existing 25m swimming pool and
surrounding concourse and construction of new water polo pool with new concourse, retaining
walls, screening, landscaping and spectator seating.
Applicant’s Supporting Statement
The applicant provided a Statement of Environmental Effects in support of the application.
Internal Referrals
Engineers Comments
The Council’s Engineers offered no objections to the proposal subject to inclusion of recommended
conditions of consent.
Building Comments
The Council’s Building Surveyor offered no objections to the proposal subject to inclusion of
recommended conditions of consent.
Landscape Officers Comments
Council’s Landscape Officer has commented on the proposal as follows:
"ANS01 – Removal of the proposed four (4) trees (T1, T2, T3, & T4) That are not exempt
within Councils current controls is conditional to replacement of a suitable number within
suitable location within the proposed development site.
ANS02 – All works shall be subject to AS1940-2009 Protection of Trees on development
sites."
Page 3
20 MARCH 2014
Waste Officer Comments
The Council’s Waste Officer offered no objections to the proposal subject to inclusion of
Access Committee Comments
Council's Access Committee has commented on the proposal as follows:
"The Committee would like to confirm spectator space for a person with a disability to watch
adjacent to the benches shown"
Assessing Officers Note: Suitable space is provided on the plans adjacent to the seating.
Traffic Engineer Comments
The Council’s Traffic Engineer offered no objections to the proposal.
Environmental Health Officer Comments
Council's Environmental Health Officer has commented on the proposal as follows:
“The site is classified as Class 3 Acid Sulphate Soil and as such excavation is not to be more
than one (1) metres below natural ground surface. The construction certificate plans are to
be amended to reflect this. Application to be approved subject to the following conditions.
CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION
CERTIFICATE
 2SP03
The Construction Certificate drawings and specification required to be submitted pursuant
to Clause 139 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must detail
the connected of backwash to Sydney Waters’ sewer in compliance with Australian/New
Zealand Standard 3500.
The discharge of backwash water to any stormwater system is water pollution and an
offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The connection of
any backwash pipe to any stormwater system is an offence under the Protection of the
Environment Operations Act 1997.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and Australian Standards and to protect
public health and amenity.
CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ANY COMMENCEMENT
 4CD02
In order to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties, audible site works must be
restricted to the hours between 7:00am and 6:00pm, Monday to Friday and 7:00am and
1:00pm, Saturdays. No site works can be undertaken on Sundays or Public Holidays.
Unless otherwise approved within a Construction Traffic Management Plan, construction
vehicles, machinery, goods or materials must not be delivered to the site outside the
approved hours of site works.
Reason: To prevent disturbance to the surrounding community.
 4DS02
Any de-watering from the excavation or construction site must comply with the Protection
of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the following:
1) Ground water or other water to be pumped from the site into Council’s stormwater
system must be sampled and analysed by a NATA accredited laboratory for
compliance with ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines;
Page 4
20 MARCH 2014
2) If tested by NATA accredited laboratory, the certificate of analysis issued by the
laboratory must be forwarded to Manly Council as the appropriate regulatory authority
under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, prior to the
commencement of de-watering activities;
3) Council will grant approval to commence site de-watering to the stormwater based on
the water quality results received; and
4) It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure during de-watering activities, the
capacity of the stormwater system is not exceeded, there are no issues associated
with erosion or scouring due to the volume of water pumped; and turbidity readings
must not at any time exceed the ANZECC recommended 50ppm (parts per million)
for receiving waters.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and to protect the surrounding natural
environment.
 4MS04
The Sediment Control Plan is to be implemented from the commencement of works and
maintained until completion of the development.
Reason: To protect the environment from the effects of sediment and erosion from
development sites.
 4WM03
Hazardous waste must be contained, managed and disposed of in a responsible manner
in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation
ONGOING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF THE PREMISES OR
DEVELOPMENT
 6AQ01
The use of the premises must not give rise to air impurities in contravention of the
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and must be controlled in accordance
with the requirements of this Act.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and to protect public health and amenity.
 6NL03
The ongoing use of the premises/property must not give rise to ‘offensive noise’ as
defined under the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.
 6NL04
External sound amplification equipment or loud speakers must not be used for the
announcement, broadcast, playing of music (including live music) or similar purposes.
Reason: To protect the acoustic amenity of neighbouring properties and the public.
 6WM01
Activities must not detrimentally affect impact existing and future amenity of the adjoining
occupations and the neighbourhood in general by the emission of noise, smoke, dust,
fumes, grit, vibration, smell, vapour, steam, soot, ash, waste water, waste products, oil,
electrical interference or otherwise.
Reason: To protect existing and future amenity of the adjoining occupations from
excessive waste emissions.
Page 5
20 MARCH 2014
ADDITIONAL NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS
 Construction noise
Noise arising from the works must be controlled in accordance with the requirements of
the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and guidelines contained in the
New South Wales Environment Protection Authority Environment Noise Control Manual.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and to prevent disturbance to the
surrounding community.
 Trackable wastes
Removal of trackable wastes from the site must comply with the Protection of the
Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 for the transportation, treatment and
disposal of waste materials. Waste materials must not be disposed on land without
permission of the land owner and compliance with the provisions of the Protection of the
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation.
 Noise and Vibration Management Plan
Prior to the commencement of works, a Noise and Vibration Management Plan is to be
prepared by a suitably qualified person addressing the likely noise and vibration from
demolition, excavation and construction of the proposed development and provided to the
Principal Certifying Authority.
The Plan is to identify amelioration measures to ensure the noise and vibration levels will
be compliant with the relevant legislation and Australian Standards. The report should
itemise equipment to be used for excavation works. The Plan shall address, but is not
limited to, the following matters:
(a) Identification of activities carried out and associated noise sources;
(b) Identification of potentially affected sensitive receivers, including residences,
churches, commercial premises, schools and properties containing noise sensitive
equipment;
(c) Determination of appropriate noise and vibration objectives for each identified
sensitive receiver;
(d) Noise and vibration monitoring, reporting and response procedures;
(e) Assessment of potential noise and vibration from the proposed demolition, excavation
and construction activities, including noise from construction vehicles;
(f) Description of specific mitigation treatments, management methods and procedures
to be implemented to control noise and vibration during construction;
(g) Construction timetabling to minimise noise impacts including time and duration
restrictions, respite periods and frequency;
(h) Procedures for notifying residents of construction activities likely to affect their
amenity through noise and vibration; and
(i) Contingency plans to be implemented in the event of non-compliances and/or noise
complaints. A register should be kept of compliances received, and the action taken
to remediate the issue.
Reason: To protect acoustic amenity of surrounding properties and the public.
 Rock-breaking
The activity of rock-breaking associated with the development of the site, must only occur
between the following hours:
- 9:00am and 4:00pm, Monday to Friday only.
Rock-breaking activities must not occur on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays.
Surrounding properties must be notified in writing of the times and days in which rockbreaking activities will be carried out. Notices must be distributed at least seven (7) days
before the activity is to occur.
Page 6
20 MARCH 2014
 Outdoor lighting
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority must be satisfied
that all outdoor lighting is designed and positioned to minimise any detrimental impact
upon the amenity of other premises and adjacent dwellings and that the outdoor lighting
complies with the relevant provisions of the Australian Standard 1588.3:2005 Pedestrian
area (Category P) lighting – Performance and design requirements and Australian
Standard 4282:1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.
Reason: To protect public health and amenity.
 Deliveries and waste collection
Deliveries and waste collection must only occur during the following hours:
- 7:00am and 8:00pm, Monday to Friday; and
- 8:00am and 8:00pm, Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays.
Reason: To minimise disruption to neighbouring properties.
 Air quality
The construction and ongoing use of the premises, building services, equipment,
machinery and ancillary fittings shall not give rise to air pollution. All works shall ensure air
quality controls are in place and all activity is in accordance with the Protection of the
Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean
Air) Regulation 2002.
 Asbestos removal
Anyone who removes, repairs, or disturbs bonded or friable asbestos material must hold a
current removal licence from WorkCover NSW. Before starting work, a work site-specific
permit approving each asbestos project must be obtained from WorkCover NSW. All
removal, repair or disturbance of or to asbestos material must comply with the
requirements of WorkCover NSW and with the following:
 Work Health and Safety Act 2011;
 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011; and
 How to Safely Remove Asbestos Code of Practice [WorkCover NSW (2011)].
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and protect the health and safety of site
workers and of the public.
 Dangerous goods storage
WorkCover NSW must be notified for the storage of dangerous goods onsite. All
requirements imposed by WorkCover NSW must be implemented to ensure all dangerous
goods are being stored and handled onsite in a safe manner. The storage, handling and
use of dangerous goods must be in accordance with the requirements of the Work Health
and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and to protect the health and safety of site
 Pool/Spa Water Management Plan
A plan of management for the pools and spa is to be prepared and implemented by a
suitably qualified person which identifies the ongoing operation of these facilities. The plan
should include (but is not limited to):
(a) Cleaning and maintenance of facilities and associated plant;
(b) Treatment/dosing of the facilities; and
(c) Response action plan for emergencies/incidents.
Page 7
20 MARCH 2014
Records must be kept demonstrating compliance with the Public Health Act 2010 and
Public Health Regulation 2012.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and to protect public health and safety.
 Mechanical plant
Documentation prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted certifying noise
levels emitted from the mechanical plant does not exceed 5dBA above the background
level inclusive at the boundary of the site.
Note: This method of measurement of sound must be carried out in accordance with
Australia Standard 1055.1-1997.
 Excavation and Acid Sulfate Soils
Excavation for the proposal is not to exceed 1m below the natural ground surface. Plans
to be amended prior to the issue of a construction certificate.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of clause 6.1 of the Manly LEP 2013.
 Contaminated Waste
The nature and content of material to be excavated is to be tested by a suitably qualified
and experienced geotechnical consultant and a report submitted with the application for a
Construction Certificate which includes recommendations for the management and
disposal of all excavated material. Should acid sulphate soil be identified during this
assessment, it is advised that a full assessment should be undertaken for the site and any
management recommendations be adopted.
Reason: To ensure proper management of excavated material.
 Acoustic Report
An acoustic report from a suitable qualified professional is to be prepared for the proposed
development and the recommendations of which are to be adopted on the construction
certificate drawings. The acoustic report is to be submitted with the application for a
construction certificate.
Reason: to mitigate any acoustic impacts on the surrounding neighbours.
 Hours of operation
The premises shall operate to the public in accordance with the following days and hours
of operation:
Monday to Friday: 5.30am to 7.00pm
Weekends: 6.00am to 7.00pm
Public Holidays: 6.00am to 6.00pm.
The Swim Centre is also open for the running of Water Polo activities in the outdoor pools
from 7.00pm to 9.30pm.
Swim Centre staff arrive up to one (1) hour earlier and remain up to one (1) hour after the
scheduled closing time to set up the Swim Centre, secure equipment and carry out close
down procedures.
Reason: To ensure the hours and days of operation of the premises are compatible with
the amenity of surrounding land uses.”
External Referrals
Precinct Community Forum Comments
The proposal was referred to the all Precinct Community Forums for comment. The following
comments were received:
Page 8
20 MARCH 2014
Balgowlah Heights Precinct:
“This DA proposes to replace an existing 25mx10.4m pool with a 27mx20m water polo pool.
According to the Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE), this proposal is in response to
90 submissions received by Council. The SoEE states that the proposal has no added impact
on traffic in the area and is not impacted by flooding as it is above the expected flood height.
This precinct expresses its concern with the lack of parking and the proposed parking
solution to accompany this DA and the DA177/2013.”
Fairy Bower Precinct:
“The Precinct has the following concerns:
 funding for the construction and on-going operation of this new facility has not been fully
investigated...how much money is the State Water Polo body willing to commit for
construction and on-going expenditure? How much additional debt will Council incur?
 The pool must be available for public use and not be the exclusive domain of water polo
players .
 Car parking and the impact on Kenneth Rd is problematic”
Ivanhoe Park Precinct:
“This DA refers to the replacing of the existing outdoor 25m pool with an outdoor pool
suitable for water polo. It would have a consistent depth of 2m, be 27m long, and wider than
the existing pool incurring a loss of trees.
We can only consider and comment on the information in this DA, not the previously
approved DA for the bigger development.
Because of the pool depth, this new water polo facility would be unsuitable for swimming
lessons. We also understand it would be unsuitable for swimming squads, and squads that
previously used the 25m pool would have to use the indoor 25m pool approved on the
previous DA. A floating floor for the water polo pool, which would have made it suitable for
swimming lessons, has been dismissed by Council as too expensive.
The following motion was passed: By accommodating one special interest group it has
diminished the original design intent of having two x 25m pools accessible to the broader
local community, and is creating a compromised proposal that is less usable by the general
population. Approved by all meeting attendees.”
Clontarf Precinct:
“There is no objection from the precinct regarding the streetscape disturbance.”
The Corso Precinct:
“objection, First the plans have not been easily accessed and not on display at Pool as
written. Only plans have been on display are the original DA, which clearly showed that the
25m outdoor pool would be retained. The water polo pool will only be suitable up to age 14
and not for men’s or woman’s competition, and the CP is hoping that more dialogue with
community starts instead of being told that it has happened, and is a done deal, a bit like
Hugo’s also, CP is disappointed with the many changes that occur without consultation with
the community and hoping the outdoor 25 m stays and providing the Water Polo Association
contributes financially to this project also. CP wants more financial outcomes and parking
and more information here too pls.”
Little Manly Precinct
“LMP Precinct request further public consultation with residents and address the issue of
additional parking spaces for the Swim Centre, and a current budget estimate for the
refurbishments.”
Ocean Beach Precinct
Page 9
20 MARCH 2014
Motion Proposed by SM: OBP voice objection to these significant changes being lodged over
the Christmas period, which do not allow for community consultation through the precinct
system.
OBP feels the proposal does not represent the interests of the whole community. It over
represents the interests of one group, the water polo players, and does not represent the
mothers, elderly, and children who use the facility. The proposal is not consistent with the
intentions of a public pool. The outdoor pool in the proposal is currently used successfully,
throughout the day, by many of our residents including the elderly and children, who due to
the new design will not be able to use this pool. The proposed change in favour of one highly
specialized group is not supported.
The facade treatment proposed provided yet again another blank facade to the streetscape,
with a fenced in, brutal character. It does not convey the meaning of a public building which
should be visible and accessible.
OBP would like to see the outdoor pool maintained at its current depth for all users, who
enjoy the sunshine that makes this centre so unique to neighbouring pool centers.
OBP does not support this application.”
Planning Comments
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 – Section 79(C)(1)
In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of
the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development
application:
(a) the provisions of:
(i) any environmental planning instrument, and
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
Clause 65(3)(b) of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 lists outdoor recreational facilities as
development without consent within a public reserve as defined by the Local Government Act
1993. The proposal is not traffic generating development.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection
The Subject site is located within the Coastal Zone and as such an assessment against the clause
2 aims and clause 8 matters for consideration is required.
Clause 2 Aims;
“(a) to protect and manage the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the New
South Wales coast, and
(b) to protect and improve existing public access to and along coastal foreshores to the extent
that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and
(c) to ensure that new opportunities for public access to and along coastal foreshores are
identified and realised to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the
coastal foreshore, and
(d) to protect and preserve Aboriginal cultural heritage, and Aboriginal places, values, customs,
beliefs and traditional knowledge, and
(e) to ensure that the visual amenity of the coast is protected, and
(f)
to protect and preserve beach environments and beach amenity, and
(g) to protect and preserve native coastal vegetation, and
(h) to protect and preserve the marine environment of New South Wales, and
(i)
to protect and preserve rock platforms, and
(j)
to manage the coastal zone in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable
development (within the meaning of section 6 (2) of the Protection of the Environment
Administration Act 1991), and
(k) to ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location
and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area, and
(l)
to encourage a strategic approach to coastal management.”
Page 10
20 MARCH 2014
With regard to the above, the proposed development does not have a significant impact on the
coastal foreshore or the management of the NSW coast. The site does not contain any known
Aboriginal places, is not known to be of aboriginal cultural heritage value and as it is heavily
disturbed is unlikely to contain any potential Aboriginal artefacts. The proposed development does
not have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the coast, Manly Ocean Beach or the
amenity of Manly Ocean Beach. The proposed development does not have a significant impact on
the native coastal vegetation, the marine environment or rock platforms. The proposal is
considered to be of a type bulk, scale and size that is appropriate for the location and is acceptable
in terms of improving the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area. The proposal is consistent
with a strategic approach to coastal management.
Clause 8 Matters for consideration;
“(a) the aims of this Policy set out in clause 2,
(b) existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a
disability should be retained and, where possible, public access to and along the coastal
foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be improved,
(c) opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians
or persons with a disability,
(d) the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the
surrounding area,
(e) any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore,
including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of
views from a public place to the coastal foreshore,
(f)
the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect and improve these
qualities,
(g) measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation
Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats,
(h) measures to conserve fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act
1994) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats
(i)
existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors,
(j)
the likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any likely
impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards,
(k) measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based coastal
activities,
(l)
measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of
Aboriginals,
(m) likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal waterbodies,
(n) the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic
significance,
(o) only in cases in which a council prepares a draft local environmental plan that applies to land
to which this Policy applies, the means to encourage compact towns and cities,
(p) only in cases in which a development application in relation to proposed development is
determined:
(i)
the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment, and
(ii) measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is
efficient.”
With regard to the above, the site is not located in the vicinity of the coastal foreshore. The
proposed development is considered to be suitable given its type, location and design. The
proposal does not have significant impacts on the amenity of the coastal foreshore or impact the
scenic qualities of the coastal foreshore.
Page 11
20 MARCH 2014
The proposal does not create any known impacts on terrestrial plants and animals or fish and
marine vegetation. The proposal does not affect existing wildlife corridors. The proposal is unlikely
to impact coastal processes and coastal hazards. The site does not contain any known Aboriginal
places, is not known to be of aboriginal cultural heritage value and as it is heavily disturbed is
unlikely to contain potential any Aboriginal artefacts. The proposed development is unlikely to have
any significant impact on the water quality of Manly Lagoon. The incremental changes caused by
other past development, the existing development and any development that is reasonably
foreseeable together with the proposal are considered to be acceptable, as such cumulative
impacts of the development are considered to be acceptable. The proposal includes water saving
and conservation measures.
Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013
The subject site is located in Zone RE1 Public Recreation under Manly LEP, 2013 the proposed
development is considered to be Recreational Facility (outdoor) and is defined below:
“recreation facility (outdoor) means a building or place (other than a recreation area) used
predominantly for outdoor recreation, whether or not operated for the purposes of gain,
including a golf course, golf driving range, mini-golf centre, tennis court, paint-ball centre,
lawn bowling green, outdoor swimming pool, equestrian centre, skate board ramp, go-kart
track, rifle range, water-ski centre or any other building or place of a like character used for
outdoor recreation (including any ancillary buildings), but does not include an entertainment
facility or a recreation facility (major).”
The proposal is permitted with consent.
Under the Manly LEP 2013, the site is:
Zone RE1 Public Recreation
Objectives of zone
• To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.
The proposed use is for a recreational purpose.
• To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.
The proposed development provides for additional recreational uses that are not currently provided
for.
• To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and retains the surrounding vegetation
as far as practicable.
•
To protect, manage and restore areas visually exposed to the waters of Middle Harbour,
North Harbour, Burnt Bridge Creek and the Pacific Ocean.
The site is not visually exposed to waters of Middle Harbour, North Harbour, Burnt Bridge Creek or
the Pacific Ocean.
•
To ensure that the height and bulk of any proposed buildings or structures have regard to
existing vegetation, topography and surrounding land uses.
The height and bulk of the proposal is considered to be acceptable noting the proposed landscape
screening.
Part 4 Principal development standards
The provisions of the Manly LEP 2013 have been referred to as part of the assessment, no
development standards affect this site.
Part 5 Miscellaneous Provisions
The provisions of the Manly LEP 2013 have been referred to as part of the assessment:
Page 12
20 MARCH 2014
5.
5.5
5.9
Miscellaneous Provisions
Development within the
coastal zone
Preservation of trees or
vegetation
Applies
Yes
Complies
Yes
Comments
Refer to below comments
Yes
Yes
Proposal complies with the clause
Comments:
Development within the coastal zone
The proposed development does not affect public access to or along the foreshore. Given the
developments type, location, bulk, scale, size and built form, the proposed development is
considered to be suitable given its relationship with the surrounding area and it impact on scenic
quality. The proposed development does not result in amenity impacts on the coastal foreshore.
The proposal does not affect the visual amenity of the coast and as such the visual amenity of the
coast is protected. The proposed development does not have a significant impact on the
biodiversity or ecosystems in the area. The cumulative impacts of the development and other
development in the coastal catchment are considered to be acceptable. As such the proposal is
considered to be constant with clause 5.5 of the Manly LEP 2013.
Part 6 Local Provisions
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
Local Provisions
Acid Sulphate Soils
Earthworks
Flood Planning
Applies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Complies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comments
Comments:
Acid Sulphate Soils
A Conceptual Acid Sulphate Soil Management Plan has been submitted with the application.
However, Council’s Environmental Health Officer’s advise that the Conceptual Acid Sulphate Soil
Management Plan is not satisfactory to satisfy the requirements of clause 6.1 of the Manly Local
Environmental Plan 2013. A request for additional information was made requiring a full
assessment in accordance with clause 6.1 of the Manly LEP 2013. In response the applicant
requested that a condition be placed on the application limiting the excavation to 1m below natural
ground surface.
Earthworks
The proposed development includes retaining walls and earthworks associated with the proposed
pool and concourse. The proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on
drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality. The development is likely to retain the future use
of the land as an outdoor recreational facility. A conceptual acid sulphate soil management plan
has been provided with the application and conditions of consent are recommended to manage the
removal of earthworks safely. Given the disturbed nature of the site it is unlikely that the
development will disturb any relics. The proposal is unlikely to create and adverse impacts on
Manly Lagoon. Given these considerations it is considered that the proposal is complies with
clause 6.2.
Flood Planning
The proposed development has a level of RL 3.9 AHD which is above the flood planning level.
79C(1)(a)(ii) - any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on
public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority (unless
the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the draft
instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and
There is no applicable draft planning instrument.
Page 13
20 MARCH 2014
79C(1)(a)(iii) - any development control plan, and
Manly Development Control Plan 2013:
The following is an assessment of the proposal’s compliance with the standards of the
Development Control Plan. Where a variation is proposed to the standards an assessment is
included in the Planning Comments.
Part 3 General Principles of Development
Issues
Streetscape
Sunlight Assess and
Overshadowing
Privacy and Security
Maintenance of Views
Sustainability
Accessibility
Stormwater management
Waste Management
Mechanical Plant Equipment
Consistent with principle


Inconsistent with principle







Comment:
Streetscape
The proposed development is consistent with the existing streetscape which is dominated by
fencing and pool related structures. It is noted that the development includes landscaping to soften
the development when viewed from the street.
Acoustic privacy
It is not anticipated that the proposed development will significantly increase acoustic impacts
beyond that of the existing use of the site. The proposed development includes a landscaped
hedge to filter any additional acoustic impacts on the surrounding properties. The recommended
conditions of consent require the applicant to obtain an acoustic report from a suitable qualified
person and comply with any recommendations of the report prior to the issue of a construction
certificate.
Part 4 - Development Controls
As the proposed development is located within the RE1 public recreation zone the development
controls within paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 do not apply. The proposal is consistent with paragraph
4.4.1 relating to demolition and paragraph 4.4.5 relating to excavation.
Part 5 - Special Character Areas and Sites
Special Character Areas and Sites
Conservation Area
Foreshore Scenic Protection Area
Threatened Species and Critical Habitat
Flood Control Lots
Riparian Land and Watercourses
Road Widening
Applicable
Not Applicable






Comment:
Flood Control Lots
The proposed development is partially constructed within the flood planning line. The level of the
proposed development is above the flood planning level.
Page 14
20 MARCH 2014
79C(1)(a)(iiia)- any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any
draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and
No planning agreement or draft planning agreement has been entered into.
79C(1)(a) (iv)- the regulations
The regulations have been considered.
79C(1)(a)(v) – any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal
Protection Act 1979)
There is no Coastal Zone Management Plan applicable for the Manly area.
79C(1) (b)- the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on
both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality
The physical works are have acceptable environmental impacts on the natural an built environment
in the locality The proposal will have positive social impacts providing for additional public facility
for recreation. The proposal will have negligible economic impacts.
Hours of operation
The proposed hours of operation until 9:30pm for the water polo pool are unlikely to result in
significant acoustic impacts on the surrounding properties beyond that of the existing development.
However, an acoustic report is recommended to analyse and mitigate any acoustic impacts from
the development.
Traffic and parking.
The proposed development has peak usage at times that differ from the peak usage of the
surrounding recreational facilities. As such it is anticipated that the development will not have
significant traffic or parking impacts.
79C(1) (c)- the suitability of the site for the development,
The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development noting the recommended
conditions limiting excavation and the development being above the flood planning level.
79C(1) (d)- any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations
The application was notified to nearby and adjoining property owners in accordance with Council’s
Development Control Plan 2013 Section 2.2 with 27 submissions objecting to the proposal, petition
contain 160 signatures against the development and 110 submissions in support of the
development received raising the following concerns:
Objector
Issues raised
David Lawton, 58 Pacific  Supports the development but requests that the wire
Parade, Manly
fence on Balgowlah Road be replaced with glass or
brick fence to reduce the noise impacts.
James & Valmai Kernaghan,
 Opposes the demolition of the 25m pool.
4/7-11 Ashburner Street,  The property should be used for all residents not just a
Manly
few.
 The majority of swimmers will be worse off.
 The handicapped, recovering stroke victims and poor
swimmers will have difficulty gaining a toe hold.
 The demands of squad training, private lessons ect are
pushing the rest out.
Nick Anderson
 Supports the development as it will provide a water polo
facility that is sorely needed.
Mark Gilbert
Adam Lovell, 1 Judith Street  Supports the development as it will provide a water polo
Seaforth
Page 15
20 MARCH 2014
Steve Mater,
Boyle Street, Balgowlah
Michael Copping
Jamie Stewart
Matt Underhill
Joshua Simons
Scott McLellan
David Barter
Simon Fry
A N Gildon
Judith Kennedy, Level 4, 22
Darley Road, Manly.
Ray Townsend
Michael Kennedy, Level 4,
22 Darley Road, Manly.
Mark Houston, Level 31 133
Castlereagh Street Sydney
facility that will help the sport grow..
 Supports the proposal as it will provide a permanent
water polo facility.
facility that will make the northern beaches a
powerhouse for water polo.
 Opposes the development.
 The demolition of the 25m pool is unnecessary and
unwanted by current patrons.
 Suggests that the water polo pool should be built in the
indoor facility.
 Opposes the demolition of the existing 25m swimming
pool.
 Teachers and children do not want to swim indoors for
many months of good weather.
 Opposes the demolition of the existing swimming pool.
 The proposed pool will not suit exiting users of the
existing 25m pool.
 Objects to the haste that Manly Council is proceeding
with the changes to the Manly Swim Centre.
 Opposes the demolition of the existing 25m swimming
pool.
 Recommends swimming as a physician and
cardiologist.
 Many patents use the shallow 25m pool because of the
greater security it conveys should they develop
symptoms. Similar reasons with the old and young.
 Patents use it for water walking rehabilitation.
 Cannot see why the pool can’t be located to the north of
the existing 50m pool and retain the existing 25m pool.
 The size of the proposed pool is not suitable for squad
training.
 Squad training would be limited to the indoor 25m pool
or the 50m outdoor pool.
 Older patrons use the 25m pool for water walking, the
depth would prevent this.
 The pool is also used for younger children.
 Concerned that private associations are funding the pool
and that Council will be beholding to these association
and provide the facility exclusively.
 A critical factor in gaining community support for DA
177/2013 was the retention of the existing outdoor
pools.
Page 16
20 MARCH 2014
Nicole and Bern Ward
Stephen Perks, Seaforth
Viv Allen
Eli and Ivan Demeny
 If DA 261/2013 is approved the DA 177/2013 should be
put again to the community.
 The proposal is inconsistent with the council resolution
on 14 October 2013 as DA261/2013 is not
complementary to the other pools.
 The size of the proposed pool is not suitable for squad
training.
 Squad training would be limited to the indoor 25m pool
or the 50m outdoor pool.
 Older patrons use the 25m pool for water walking, the
depth would prevent this.
 The pool is also used for younger children.
 Concerned that private associations are funding the pool
and that Council will be beholding to these association
and provide the facility exclusively.
 A critical factor in gaining community support for DA
177/2013 was the retention of the existing outdoor pools.
 If DA 261/2013 is approved the DA 177/2013 should be
put again to the community.
 The proposal is inconsistent with the council resolution
on 14 October 2013 as DA261/2013 is not
complementary to the other pools.
 Supports the principal of a water polo pool but opposes
the demolition of the existing 25m pool.
 Questions whether the pool will be for the exclusive use
of water polo.
 What does this mean for the previous 25m pool users.
 Outdoor environment of the centre is a key feature.
 How will Council fund the $1,500,000 pool.
 Is Water Polo Australia or an associated entity making
financial contributions to the pool. If so will they control
over a community asset will this preclude water polo
users from paying rent / leasing when they use the pool.
 Concerned over a lack of transparency with the process.
 Supports the principal of a water polo pool but opposes
the demolition of the existing 25m pool.
 Questions whether the pool will be for the exclusive use
of water polo.
 What does this mean for the previous 25m pool users.
 Outdoor environment of the centre is a key feature.
 How will Council fund the $1,500,000 pool.
 Is Water Polo Australia or an associated entity making
financial contributions to the pool. If so will they control
over a community asset will this preclude water polo
users from paying rent / leasing when they use the pool.
 Concerned over a lack of transparency with the process.
 Objects to the demolition of the 25m pool and the
construction of a 25m pool in its place.
 The 25m pool is used by hundreds of people per day
because it is small and shallow.
 Children use it for swimming, adults for coaching and as
a teaching pool for the very young.
 It is used by the elderly who no longer feel safe in the
50m pool.
Page 17
20 MARCH 2014




Pip Hutton



Alison Donnan




Marguerite M Morgan, 2/13
Fairlight Crescent Fairlight




Jodie Bennett, President,
Manly LAA Swimming Club.



Rory Lynsky, 34
Street Balgowlah.
Dudley
Replacing the pool is a waste of money.
The water polo pool can be built in the indoor area.
Object to the demolition of the existing 25m pool.
The 25m pool is full midweek and after school hour and
weekends.
People like using this pool outdoors.
DA 177/2013 and advertising material stated that the
existing pools would be maintained.
The swimming club Manly Ladies would no longer be
able to use the pool on Saturday afternoons.
This club has been running for generations.
The current depth is ideal for families with children the
proposal is not.
I am a physiotherapist and we recommend this pool for
rehabilitation due to the appropriate depth.
Do not oppose water polo but would like a multi purpose
pool.
Oppose the redevelopment of the 25m pool.
It is currently used as a children’s pool and a therapeutic
pool.
A deeper pool to accommodate the water polo players
may not suit the needs of the broader rate paying
community.
Why can’t the new indoor pool accommodate the water
polo players?
If the development of the pool proceeds then it will be no
longer suitable for our weekly competition.
The 25m pool is suitable for many uses.
The standardise depth of this pool is suitable for young
children and older members of the community. I is
valuable for people with disabilities and those in
rehabilitation and mobility programs.
 The depth of the proposed water polo pool would restrict
its use.
 It would be no longer suitable for competition, learn to
swim or other general community uses.
 If the 25m pool is redeveloped exiting users will have to
use the indoor facilities.
 Alternative facilities will need to be constructed prior to
the commencement of the water polo pool.
 The loss of the 25m pool will have a negative impact on
our club.
 The alterations and additions under DA 177/2013 were
accepted by the community on the basis that the
existing pools would be retained.
 Refers to Manly Daily article reporting council motion
only to explore the possibility and funding opportunities.
 The application was notified over the Christmas new
year period.
 The water polo pool could be built in the new facility.
 Regular users of the 25m pool will be forced indoors as
the 2m depth is for other uses.
 The outdoor facility is well used and is important for the
elderly and simmers with a disability.
Page 18
20 MARCH 2014
Steve Clynk
Megan Keogh
David Keogh
Brooke Keogh
Mitchell Keogh
Chris Brasler, 5 Cliff Street
Manly
Heather Beard
Paul Hull
Greg and Meegan McDonald
Bella Wakes-Miller, Oxford
Falls
Oisin McMorrow-Dermody
Karen And Chris Sparkes
Joss Hawling
Melinda Ward
Linda Moon
Amanda Lazar
Sue Boudakin
Katrina Graham
Adrian Ciano
Steven Brandson
Suzanne Hemsworth
Michelle Woolven
Cameron Steel
Catherine Ryan
Ian Gard
 Supports the development.
 The Northern Beaches lacks the facilities to
accommodate water polo.
 Our children currently have to play water polo at an
unacceptably late hour due to schedule conflicts.
 Supports the development as it is difficult for water polo
players to find a pool to train and play in.
 Other areas such as Sutherland shire, Inner west, NSW
University etc have purpose built water polo pools.
 Supports the development as
it will provide a water polo
Page 19
20 MARCH 2014
Jemma Baldwin, 32 Karalta
Crescent Belrose
Damian and Catherine Kelly,
180 Old Pittwater Road
Allambie Heights
Robyn Holt, 3/13 Lombard
Street
Vicki Pye, Freshwater
Gareth Samuel
Ben Brown
Brett Macartney
Vincent Dermody, 10 Smith
Street Manly
Monica Jacobs, 10 a Dudley
Street Balgowlah
Teah Wood
Julie Kearns
John Wood, 856a Pittwater
Road Dee Why
Frank Ribout
Bruce Watt
Michelle Richter
Melanie Morton
Dave Michael
Jacqui Joubert
Michael Wood
 Expresses concern over the demolition of the existing
25m pool.
 The 25m pool is used by Manly LAA Swimming club
 The proposed changes would mean that the pool would
not be suitable for our weekly club events.
 Manly Council should be supporting small sporting
clubs.
 The existing pool is well suited for young children and
older community members as well as for rehabilitation
and mobility programs.
 The plan would restrict the use to a single purpose
facility.
 Supports the development as water polo currently relies
on WAC to allow most teams to play.
 Will allow more children to participate as flipper ball is
currently constrained by the lack of a local purpose built
faculty.
Page 20
20 MARCH 2014
Colleen Button and Mechelle
Hare
Tim Emmerson
Geoff Goodyer, Suite 6A 226
Condamine Street Manly
Vale
Peter Ingle, 51 Beatrice
Street Balgowlah Heights
Michael Board
Michel Pejar
Lisa Watt
Christine Reed
Chelle Brown
Peter King
John Cason
Brigitte Gladstone
Geoff Lazar
Craig Mason , 16 Bower
Street Manly
Chris Shaw, 151 Macquarie
Street Sydney
Stuart Cameron, 48 Bower
Street Manly
 Objects to the proposal.
 The changes to the pool under DA 177/2013 stated that
the existing pools would not be affected.
 The existing pool is suitable for children who are
progressing from the toddler pool but are nerves about
the 50m pool.
 Older members of the community enjoy the consistent
depth for water walking and swimming.
 It is used for rehabilitating.
 Many groups use the existing facility and enjoy the
outdoor environment.
 Replacing the 25m with a water polo pool will render the
pool unsuitable for many uses that currently use the
pool.
 The outdoor environment is the attraction of the facility.
 The parking facilities are already under pressure at
times when the water polo competitions and training
operate.
 Why can’t the water polo pool be located indoors.
 Objects to the removal of the 25m pool and the
construction of a water polo pool.
 Don’t change it for a minority sport.
 Manly has a long affiliation with water polo.
 The community deserves a proper water polo facility.
 Opposed the development and the removal of the 25m
pool.
 The 25m pool is used almost every day and is a
valuable resource.
Page 21
20 MARCH 2014
Julian Duggan
Don Sarkies
Paula Woolley, Secretary,
Breakers
Water
Polo,
Sydney Northern Beachers
Water Polo Club Inc.
Joe Penney
Liz Martinuzzo
Stephanie
Bury,
528
Pittwater Road North Manly
Narelle Simpson
 The 25m pool provides an overflow when the 50m pool
is very busy.
 SNB Breakers Waterpolo club supports the
development as it will provide a water polo facility that is
sorely needed.
 Expresses concern over the demolition of the existing
25m pool.
 The 25m pool is used by Manly LAA Swimming club
 The proposed changes would mean that the pool would
not be suitable for our weekly club events.
 Manly Council should be supporting small sporting
clubs.
 The existing pool is well suited for young children and
older community members as well as for rehabilitation
and mobility programs.
 The plan would restrict the use to a single purpose
facility
 Opposes the demolition of the 25m pool.
 The loss of water space for outdoor learn to swim.
 The detentions and depth of the pool makes it
unsuitable for regular swimmers.
 No school carnivals can be held as the length is not
suitable.
 The public can no longer use the pool for water walking
and rehabilitation.
 The Council states that the 25m pool would be
maintained and now it is not.
Lucy Flanagan
 Water polo feel that they will have exclusive use of the
pool and it will only be available to the public for a few
hours a day.
 Families will lose their splash and play area.
 Safety issues due to the deep pool being next to the
toddler pool.
 Noise from spectators and whistles blowing from 7am to
9pm.
 The car park is full and this will triple the amount of
people.
 If the water polo pool is built then the public will only
gain 3 additional lanes that are indoor.
 Objects to the development.
 The development should not be considered as a
separate application to DA 177/2013.
 The existing 25m pool is adjacent to the baby’s pool and
allows families to move from one pool the other.
Page 22
20 MARCH 2014
Jake Condon, 18 Francis
Street Fairlight
Cassia Clynk
Helen
Curzon,
4/78a
Balgowlah Road Balgowlah
 The 1m depth suits young children.
 The 25m pool is used extensively by older less active
members of the community.
 The funding structure of the water polo pool threatens
public ownership.
 The timing of the application over the Christmas new
year period means that the community is unaware of the
DA.
 Serious flaws in the process under the development
application.
 Suggests that the water polo pool be located on the
graced area adjacent to Kenneth road or in the indoor
section.
 Insure that the water polo pool has a retractable floor so
that the 1m depth can be maintained.
 Supports a water polo pool in Sydney’s north.
 A water polo pool is needed.
 Suggest that it be built on the western end of the pool.
 Supports the development application as it will
encourage participation and be an asset to Manly.
 Is concerned with the proposed development.
 Manly has produced many swimming Olympians.
 The Manly Ladies Amateur Swimming Club is the oldest
swimming club on the peninsula.
 We have members who need to feel safe when
swimming and walk in the water.
 The cost of the facility is astronomical and it is not
warranted.
 Local water polo players are from outside the Manly
Community and are not rate payers.
 The proposal will adversely affect our club members.
Tim Scott, 2/100 Condamine
Street Balgowlah
John Masters
Vicki Sargent,
5 Beverly Place South Curl
Curl
Jonathan Pohl
Scott
Schweickle
Head
Coach
Women,
SNB
Breakers Water Polo Club
Greg Schultz
Belinda Thomson
 The 25m pool is suited to young children as they gain
confidence in the water.
 There is insufficient parking to accommodate the
development.
 Angle parking is hazardous.
facility that is sorely needed subject to it being available
for other uses when not used for water polo.
Page 23
20 MARCH 2014
Cameron Berkman
51 Alexander Street Manly
Stuart Murray
David Blamires, Level 1, 2
Richardson Place North
Ryde
Miro Pejar
Linda Blackman
Sean O’Shea
Karen Thomson
Margaret Gibson
Lisa Todd
Majella O’Brian & Seb LiellCock
Charlotte Brasler, 5 Cliff
street Manly
Kate Skinner
Christina McCulloch
40 Clontarf Street Seaforth
Mathew Fuller
Tarni and Peter Nankervis
Barbara Rabbitts
Maris
Luidmanis,
North
Balgowlah
Miriam Rihani, 61 Golf
Parade Manly
Peter Nankervis.
Various
 Support the development as it will be an asset to the
area.
 Opposes the demolition of the existing 25m pool.
 The swim school will no longer be able to conduct swim
classes.
 The pool is located near the toddlers pool so parents
can supervise on both pools.
 The pool is used by the elderly and inexperienced
swimmers who are not confident in the 50m pool.
 The pool is extremely popular with younger swimmers.
 Those who use the pool for water walking or
physiotherapy will be forced indoors.
 The consultation carried out by the Council led to a
representation that the 25m and 50m pools would be
retained.
 Petition containing 160 signatures objecting to the
development. Issues raised are covered by other
submission
Page 24
20 MARCH 2014
Confidential
Mia Pejar
Tanja Hayes
Andy Small
David Michael
Jeremy Elliot
Isabel Dreyer
Derek Dreyer
Sarah Ryan
Hilary Ingle
Jude O’Shea
Kathryn Thorowgood
Malcolm Kindred
Scott Mitchell
Suzanne Arthurs
Jon Kirkwood
Yudit Tielen
 Objects to the development.
 How do a few water polo players with money to spend
take priority over a much greater number of children
learning to swim? Learning to swim is an essential life
skill and can’t be undermined by the entertainment of
others.
 Supports the development as it increases recreational
options available and will be a valuable asset to Manly.
 Supports the development as it increases recreational
options available and will be a valuable asset to Manly.
 The existing 25m pool is much appreciated.
 The existing facility needs to be updated.
 It should not be assumed that existing users would use
the indoor facility.
 The existing outdoor pools should all be retained.
 Car parking should meet the needs of patrons
particularly those with young children and the elderly.
 Providing for new groups should not be at the expense
of other existing users. ie water polo provided for
separately.
 Supports the request for a solid fence of some sort to
reduce noise.
 Supports the development as it will diversify available
recreational options.
 Supports the development as there has been no
adequate facility for water polo.
 Supports the development as it will provide for more
space for water polo which is in demand and lead to
less conflicts with swimmers.
Comment on submissions:
With regard to the above, the majority of the submissions relate to matters which are not
consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. As
such they are not matters to be considered in the context of a development application.
Page 25
20 MARCH 2014
With regard to the acoustic impacts of the development it is not anticipated that the
development will have increased impacts beyond that of the existing development on the site.
However, an acoustic report is recommended as a condition of consent and landscape
screening will help to mitigate any acoustic impacts.
With regard to the safety concerns raised in relation to the proximity of the water polo pool
being adjacent to the toddler pools a condition of consent is recommended to place suitable
barrier between the two pools when the pool is used for water polo. As the proposed
development has an expected peak usage at a different time to the remainder of the
development in the locality, the proposal is not considered to have significant traffic or parking
impacts beyond that of the existing development.
79C(1) (e) - the public interest.
The public interest is best served by the consistent application of the relevant Environmental
Planning Instruments, and by the consent authority ensuring that any adverse impacts on the
surrounding area are avoided. This is considered to have been achieved in this instance.
S94 Contribution towards provision or improvement of amenities or services
This part of the Act relates to the collection of monetary contributions from applicants for use in
developing key local infrastructure. The Act reads as follows:
‘(1)
(2)
If a consent authority is satisfied that development for which development consent is sought
will or is likely to require the provision of or increase the demand for public amenities and
public services within the area, the consent authority may grant the development consent
subject to a condition requiring:
(a) the dedication of land free of cost, or
(b) the payment of a monetary contribution,
or both.
A condition referred to in subsection (1) may be imposed only to require a reasonable
dedication or contribution for the provision, extension or augmentation of the public amenities
and public services concerned.’
Comments:
In this case, in this section 94 contributions are not applicable.
CONCLUSION:
The application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Manly Development
Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be to be acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Development Application No. 261/2013 for demolition of existing 25 metre pool and
construction if new water polo swimming pool, retaining wall, screening, landscaping, spectator
seating for swim centre at Andrew Boy Charlton Swim Centre, LM Graham Reserve, Balgowlah
Road, Manly be approved subject to the following conditions:DA1
The development, except where modified by the conditions of this consent, is to be carried out in
accordance with the following plans and documentation
Page 26
20 MARCH 2014
Plans affixed with Council’s stamp relating to Development Consent No. 261/2013
Plan No. / Title
DA02 / Site Plan / Survey
DA03 / Ground Floor Plan
DA04 / Sections
DA05 / Sections / elevations
DA06 / Elevations
DA08/ Landscape Plan
Issue/
Revision & Date
Revision A / December 2013
Revision A / January 2013
Date Received by
Council
20 December 2013
20 December 2013
20 December 2013
20 December 2013
20 December 2013
19 February 2013
Documentation affixed with Council’s stamp relating to Development Consent No. 261/2013
 Statement of Environmental Effects dated December 2013 and received by Council 5
February 2013.
In the event of any inconsistency between the approved plans and supplementary documentation,
the plans will prevail.
Reason: To ensure that the form of the development undertaken is in accordance with the
determination of Council
ANS01
Excavation for the proposal is not to exceed 1m below the natural ground surface. Plans to
be amended prior to the issue of a construction certificate.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of clause 6.1 of the Manly LEP 2013.
ANS02
The nature and content of material to be excavated is to be tested by a suitably qualified and
experienced geotechnical consultant and a report submitted with the application for a
Construction Certificate which includes recommendations for the management and disposal
of all excavated material.
Reason: To ensure proper management of excavated material.
ANS03
An acoustic report from a suitable qualified professional is to be prepared for the proposed
development and the recommendations of which are to be adopted on the construction
certificate drawings. The acoustic report is to be submitted with the application for a
Reason: to mitigate any acoustic impacts on the surrounding neighbours.
ANS04 Hours of operation
The premises shall operate to the public in accordance with the following days and hours of
operation:
Monday to Friday: 5.30am to 7.00pm
Weekends: 6.00am to 7.00pm
Public Holidays: 6.00am to 6.00pm.
The Swim Centre is also open for the running of Water Polo activities in the outdoor pools
from 7.00pm to 9.30pm.
Swim Centre staff arrive up to one (1) hour earlier and remain up to one (1) hour after the
scheduled closing time to set up the Swim Centre, secure equipment and carry out close
down procedures.
Reason: To ensure the hours and days of operation of the premises are compatible with the
amenity of surrounding land uses.
Page 27
20 MARCH 2014
ANS05
A suitable barrier is to be erected separating the infant’s pool from the water polo pool while
the water polo pool is in use for water polo. Plans to be amended prior to the issue of a
Reason: to protect infants using the toddler pool while the water polo pool is in use.
ANS06
Noise arising from the works must be controlled in accordance with the requirements of the
Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 and guidelines contained in the New
South Wales Environment Protection Authority Environment Noise Control Manual.
ANS07
A Construction Traffic Management Plan is to be submitted with the application for a
Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure traffic in and around the site during the demolition and construction
phases does not unreasonably affect the safe movement of vehicles pedestrians and
cyclists on the local road and footpath network.
ANS08
that all outdoor lighting is designed and positioned to minimize any detrimental impact
upon the amenity of other premises and adjacent dwellings and that outdoor lighting
Area (Category P) lighting – Performance and design requirements and Australian Standard
4282.:1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.
ANS09
An Operational Plan shall be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate
which includes management responsibilities for safe storage of goods and equipment and
safe evacuation of people in the event of a flood incident.
Reason: To ensure the safety of people and safe storage of goods and equipment in the
event of flood.
ANS10
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and guidelines contained in the New
South Wales Environment Protection Authority Environment Noise Control Manual.
ANS11
Removal of trackable wastes from the site must comply with the Protection of the
Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 for the transportation, treatment and
disposal of waste materials. Waste materials must not be disposed on land without
permission of the land owner and compliance with the provisions of the Protection of the
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation.
ANS12
Prior to the commencement of works, a Noise and Vibration Management Plan is to be
prepared by a suitably qualified person addressing the likely noise and vibration from
demolition, excavation and construction of the proposed development and provided to the
Principal Certifying Authority.
Page 28
20 MARCH 2014
The Plan is to identify amelioration measures to ensure the noise and vibration levels will be
compliant with the relevant legislation and Australian Standards. The report should itemise
equipment to be used for excavation works. The Plan shall address, but is not limited to, the
following matters:
(a) Identification of activities carried out and associated noise sources;
(b) Identification of potentially affected sensitive receivers, including residences,
churches, commercial premises, schools and properties containing noise sensitive
equipment;
(c) Determination of appropriate noise and vibration objectives for each identified
sensitive receiver;
(d) Noise and vibration monitoring, reporting and response procedures;
(e) Assessment of potential noise and vibration from the proposed demolition,
excavation and construction activities, including noise from construction vehicles;
(f) Description of specific mitigation treatments, management methods and
procedures to be implemented to control noise and vibration during construction;
(g) Construction timetabling to minimise noise impacts including time and duration
restrictions, respite periods and frequency;
(h) Procedures for notifying residents of construction activities likely to affect their
amenity through noise and vibration; and
(i) Contingency plans to be implemented in the event of non-compliances and/or noise
complaints. A register should be kept of compliances received, and the action taken
to remediate the issue.
Reason: To protect acoustic amenity of surrounding properties and the public.
ANS13
The activity of rock-breaking associated with the development of the site, must only occur
between the following hours:
- 9:00am and 4:00pm, Monday to Friday only.
Rock-breaking activities must not occur on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays.
Surrounding properties must be notified in writing of the times and days in which rockbreaking activities will be carried out. Notices must be distributed at least seven (7) days
before the activity is to occur.
ANS14
that all outdoor lighting is designed and positioned to minimise any detrimental impact
upon the amenity of other premises and adjacent dwellings and that the outdoor lighting
area (Category P) lighting – Performance and design requirements and Australian Standard
4282:1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.
ANS15
Deliveries and waste collection must only occur during the following hours:
- 7:00am and 8:00pm, Monday to Friday; and
- 8:00am and 8:00pm, Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays.
Reason: To minimise disruption to neighbouring properties.
ANS16
The construction and ongoing use of the premises, building services, equipment, machinery
and ancillary fittings shall not give rise to air pollution. All works shall ensure air quality
controls are in place and all activity is in accordance with the Protection of the Environment
Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation
2002.
Page 29
20 MARCH 2014
ANS17
Anyone who removes, repairs, or disturbs bonded or friable asbestos material must hold a
current removal licence from WorkCover NSW. Before starting work, a work site-specific
permit approving each asbestos project must be obtained from WorkCover NSW. All
removal, repair or disturbance of or to asbestos material must comply with the requirements
of WorkCover NSW and with the following:
 Work Health and Safety Act 2011;
 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011; and
 How to Safely Remove Asbestos Code of Practice [WorkCover NSW (2011)].
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and protect the health and safety of site
ANS18
WorkCover NSW must be notified for the storage of dangerous goods onsite. All
requirements imposed by WorkCover NSW must be implemented to ensure all dangerous
goods are being stored and handled onsite in a safe manner.
The storage, handling and use of dangerous goods must be in accordance with the
requirements of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety
Regulation 2011.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and to protect the health and safety of site
ANS19
A plan of management for the pools and spa is to be prepared and implemented by a
suitably qualified person which identifies the ongoing operation of these facilities. The plan
should include (but is not limited to):
(a) Cleaning and maintenance of facilities and associated plant;
(b) Treatment/dosing of the facilities; and
(c) Response action plan for emergencies/incidents.
Records must be kept demonstrating compliance with the Public Health Act 2010 and Public
Health Regulation 2012.
ANS20
Documentation prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted certifying noise
levels emitted from the mechanical plant does not exceed 5dBA above the background level
inclusive at the boundary of the site.
Note: This method of measurement of sound must be carried out in accordance with
Australia Standard 1055.1-1997.
ANS21 – Removal of the proposed four (4) trees (T1, T2, T3, & T4) that are not exempt within
Councils current controls is conditional to replacement of four (4) trees within suitable
location within the proposed development site. Landscape plan to be suitable amended
prior to the issue of a construction certificate.
Reason: to replace the trees removed on the site.
ANS22
All works shall be subject to AS1940-2009 Protection of Trees on development sites.
Reason: to protect existing trees to be retained on the site.
Page 30
20 MARCH 2014
CERTIFICATE
1 (2AC01)
The development must be designed to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination
Act 1992 and Australian Standard AS 1428.2-1992. Compliant access provisions for people with
disabilities is to be clearly shown on the drawings and submitted to the Council/Accredited Certifier
for approval with the Construction Certificate. All details and construction must be in compliance
with these requirements.
Reason: To provide equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability
discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.
2 (2AP01)
Four (4) copies of architectural drawings consistent with the development consent and associated
conditions are to be submitted to the Council/Accredited Certifier prior to the issue of the
Reason: To comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
3 (2AP03)
Consent given to build in close proximity to the allotment boundary is in no way to be construed as
permission to build on or encroach over the allotment boundary. Your attention is directed to the
provisions of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 which gives certain rights to adjoining owners, including
use of the common boundary. In the absence of the structure standing well clear of the common
boundary, it is recommended you make yourself aware of your legal position which may involve a
survey to identify the allotment boundary.
Reason: To advise developers of their responsibilities and to protect the interests of adjoining
owners.
4 (2CD01)
Pursuant to Section 97 of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council requires prior to the issue of
Construction Certificate, or commencement of any excavation and demolition works, payment of a
Trust Fund Deposit of $12,000. The Deposit is required as security against damage to Council
property during works on the site. The applicant must bear the cost of all restoration works to
Council’s property damaged during the course of this development. All building work must be
carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.
Note:
Should Council property adjoining the site be defective e.g. cracked footpath, broken kerb
etc., this should be reported in writing, or by photographic record, submitted to Council at
least seven (7) days prior to the commencement of any work on site. This documentation
will be used to resolve any dispute over damage to infrastructure. It is in the applicants
interest for it to be as full and detailed as possible.
Where by Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, refund of the trust fund deposit
will also be dependent upon receipt of a final Occupation Certificate by the Principal
Certifying Authority and infrastructure inspection by Council.
Reason: To ensure security against possible damage to Council property.
5 (2CD05)
Detailed engineering drawings of all work must be submitted for approval by the Council/Accredited
Certifier prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure the provision of public infrastructure of an appropriate quality arising from the
development works to service the development.
6 (2DS01)
A detailed stormwater management plan is to be prepared to fully comply with Council's
Specification for On-site Stormwater Management 2003 and Specification for Stormwater Drainage
2003 and must be submitted to Council for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.
Page 31
20 MARCH 2014
The stormwater management plan and designs are to be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer
with experience in hydrology and hydraulics.
Reason: To ensure appropriate provision is made for the disposal and management of stormwater
generated by the development, and to ensure that infrastructure reverting to Council’s care and
control is of an acceptable standard.
7 (2MS01)
Where construction or excavation activity requires the disturbance of the soil surface and existing
vegetation, details including drawings and specifications must be submitted to Council
accompanying the Construction Certificate, which provide adequate measures for erosion and
sediment control. As a minimum, control techniques are to be in accordance with Manly Council
Guidelines on Erosion and Sediment Control, or a suitable and effective alternative method. The
Sediment Control Plan must incorporate and disclose:
1) all details of drainage to protect and drain the site during the construction processes,
2) all sediment control devices, barriers and the like,
3) sedimentation tanks, ponds or the like,
4) covering materials and methods, and
5) a schedule and programme of the sequence of the sediment and erosion control works or
devices to be installed and maintained.
Details from an appropriately qualified person showing these design requirements have been met
must be submitted with the Construction Certificate and approved by the Council/Accredited
Certifier prior to issuing of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To protect the environment from the effects of sedimentation and erosion from
development sites.
8 (2SP03)
The Construction Certificate drawings and specification required to be submitted pursuant to
Clause 139 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must detail the
connection of backwash to Sydney Waters sewer in compliance with Australian/New Zealand
Standard AS/NZS 3500.
Note:
The drawings must show the location of Sydney Water’s sewer, the yard gully or any new
connection to the sewer system including a detailed cross section of the connection
complying with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.
The discharge of backwash water to any stormwater system is water pollution and an
offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The connection of
any backwash pipe to any stormwater system is an offence under the Protection of the
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and Australian Standards and to protect public
health and amenity.
9 (2WM02)
A Waste Management Plan is to be submitted with the application prior to a Construction Certificate
being issued in accordance with the Manly Development Control Plan 2013.
The plan should detail the type and estimate the amount of demolition and construction waste and
nominate how these materials will be sorted and dealt with. Weight dockets and receipts must be
kept as evidence of approved methods of disposal and recycling. All demolition and excess
construction materials are to be recycled where ever practicable. It should include consideration of
the facilities required for the ongoing operation of the premises’ recycling and waste management
services after occupation. A template is available from the Manly Council website.
Reason: To plan for waste minimisation, recycling of building waste and on-going waste
management.
Page 32
20 MARCH 2014
10 (3CD01)
Building work, demolition or excavation must not be carried out until a Construction Certificate has
been issued.
Reason: To ensure compliance with statutory provisions.
11 (3CD02)
Demolition must be carried out by a registered demolition contractor. Documentary evidence of
registration must be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of demolition work.
Reason: To ensure demolition is carried out in an appropriate manner that is non-disruptive to the
locality and the public.
12 (3CD03)
An adequate security fence is to be erected around the perimeter of the site prior to
commencement of any excavation or construction works, and this fence is to be maintained in a
state of good repair and condition until completion of the building project.
Reason: To protect the public interest and safety.
18 (3LD01)
All healthy trees and shrubs identified for retention on the submitted landscape drawing are to be
suitably marked for protection before any construction works start.
Reason: To ensure the trees conditioned to stay on the site are suitably protected during any
construction works .
13 (3LD02)
All trees on the site clear of the building are to be retained, and those trees within 7.5m of the
building are to be provided with a tree guard and a notice on each guard reading: ‘This tree is the
subject of a Tree Preservation Order by Manly Council’. This notice is to be in position prior to any
work being commenced on the site. This does not include trees which have Council approval to be
removed.
Reason: To ensure trees clear of the building are retained and those within 7.5m of the building are
protected.
14 (3LD03)
Where trees greater than 5 metres in height which are not within the proposed footprint (i.e. not
directly affected by the development) and are proposed for removal, a tree permit is required
subject to the Tree Preservation Order 2001 criteria.
Reason: Retain the number of existing trees on site which are protected by the Tree Preservation
Order and not directly in the way of development.
15 (3PT01)
In accordance with the Roads Act 1993, written consent from Council must be obtained and must
be in hand prior to any track equipped plant being taken in or onto any roadway, kerb & gutter,
footway, nature strip, or other property under Council's control.
Reason: To ensure appropriate protection of public infrastructure and facilitate access for public
and vehicular traffic.
CONDITIONS TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING DEMOLITION AND BUILDING WORK
16 (4AP02)
A copy of all stamped approved drawings, specifications and documents (including the
Construction Certificate if required for the work incorporating certification of conditions of approval)
must be kept on site at all times so as to be readily available for perusal by any officer of Council or
the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure the form of the development undertaken is in accordance with the
determination of Council, public information and to ensure ongoing compliance.
Page 33
20 MARCH 2014
17 (4CD01)
All of the following are to be satisfied/complied with during demolition, construction and any other
site works:
1) All demolition is to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2601-2001.
2) Demolition must be carried out by a registered demolition contractor.
3) A single entrance is permitted to service the site for demolition and construction. The
footway and nature strip at the service entrance must be planked out.
4) No blasting is to be carried out at any time during construction of the building.
5) Care must be taken during demolition/ excavation/ building/ construction to prevent any
damage to adjoining buildings.
6) Adjoining owner property rights and the need for owner’s permission must be observed at
all times, including the entering onto land for the purpose of undertaking works.
7) Any demolition and excess construction materials are to be recycled wherever practicable.
8) The disposal of construction and demolition waste must be in accordance with the
requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.
9) All waste on the site is to be stored, handled and disposed of in such a manner as to not
create air pollution (including odour), offensive noise or pollution of land and/or water as
defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. All excavated material
should be removed from the site in an approved manner and be disposed of lawfully to a
tip or other authorised disposal area.
10) Section 143 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 requires waste to
be transported to a place which can lawfully accept it. All non-recyclable demolition
materials are to be disposed of at an approved waste disposal depot in accordance with
legislation.
11) All materials on site or being delivered to the site are to generally be contained within the
site. The requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be
complied with when placing/stockpiling loose material, disposing of concrete waste, or
other activities likely to pollute drains or water courses.
12) Details as to the method and location of disposal of demolition materials (weight dockets,
receipts, etc.) should be kept on site as evidence of approved methods of disposal or
recycling.
13) Any materials stored on site must be stored out of view or in such a manner so as not to
cause unsightliness when viewed from nearby lands or roadways.
14) Public footways and roadways adjacent to the site must be maintained and cleared of
obstructions during construction. No building materials, waste containers or skips may be
stored on the road reserve or footpath without prior separate approval from Council,
including payment of relevant fees.
15) Building operations such as brickcutting, washing tools or paint brushes, and mixing
mortar not be performed on the roadway or public footway or any other locations which
could lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.
16) All site waters during excavation and construction must be contained on site in an
approved manner to avoid pollutants entering into waterways or Council's stormwater
drainage system.
17) Any work must not prohibit or divert any natural overland flow of water.
Reason: To ensure that demolition, building and any other site works are undertaken in accordance
with relevant legislation and policy and in a manner which will be non-disruptive to the local area.
18 (4CD02)
In order to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties, audible site works must be restricted to
between 7.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday and 7.00am to 1.00pm Saturday. No site works
can be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.
Unless otherwise approved within a Construction Traffic Management Plan, construction vehicles,
machinery, goods or materials must not be delivered to the site outside the approved hours of site
works.
Page 34
20 MARCH 2014
19 (4CD03)
Toilet facilities are to be provided at or in the vicinity of the work site on which work involved in the
erection or demolition of a building is being carried out, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 person
or part of 20 persons employed at the site, by effecting either a permanent or temporary connection
to the Sydney Water's sewerage system or by approved closets.
Reason: To maintain sanitary conditions on building sites.
20 (4CD07)
Anyone who removes, repairs or disturbs bonded or a friable asbestos material must hold a current
removal licence from Workcover NSW. Before starting work, a work site-specific permit approving
each asbestos project must be obtained from Workcover NSW. A permit will not be granted without
a current Workcover licence.
All removal, repair or disturbance of or to asbestos material must comply with the following:
 The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000,
 The Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001,
 The Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos [NOHSC: 2002 (1998)],
 The Guide to the Control of Asbestos Hazards in Buildings and Structures [NOHSC: 3002
(1998)] http://www.nohsc.gov.au/ ], and
 The Workcover NSW Guidelines for Licensed Asbestos Removal Contractors.
Note:
The Code of Practice and Guide referred to above are known collectively as the Worksafe
Code of Practice and Guidance Notes on Asbestos. They are specifically referenced in the
Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 under Clause 259. Under the
Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001, the Worksafe Code of Practice and
Guidance Notes on Asbestos are the minimum standards for asbestos removal work.
Council does not control or regulate the Worksafe Code of Practice and Guidance Notes
on Asbestos. Those involved with work to asbestos should be made aware of the
requirements by visiting ww.workcover.nsw.gov.au or one of Workcover NSW’s offices for
further advice.
Reason: To ensure the health of site workers and the public.
21 (4DS02)
Any de-watering from the excavation or construction site must comply with the Protection of the
Environment Operations Act 1997 and the following:
1) Ground water or other water to be pumped from the site into Council’s stormwater system
must be sampled and analysed by a NATA accredited laboratory or Manly Council for
compliance with ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines, and
2) if tested by NATA accredited laboratory, the certificate of analysis issued by the laboratory
must be forwarded to Manly Council as the appropriate regulatory authority under the
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, prior to the commencement of dewatering activities; and
3) Council will grant approval to commence site de-watering to the stormwater based on the
water quality results received, and
4) It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure during de-watering activities, the capacity
of the stormwater system is not exceeded, there are no issues associated with erosion or
scouring due to the volume of water pumped; and turbidity readings must not at any time
exceed the ANZECC recommended 50ppm (parts per million) for receiving waters.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and to protect the surrounding natural environment.
22 (4LD02)
All healthy trees and shrubs identified for retention on the drawing are to be:
(a) suitably protected from damage during the construction process, and
(b) retained unless their removal has been approved by Council.
Reason: This is to ensure that the trees on the site which do not have approval to be removed on
the site are suitably protected during any construction works.
Page 35
20 MARCH 2014
23 (4LD03)
The felling, lopping, topping, ringbarking, wilful destruction or removal of any tree/s unless in
conformity with this approval or subsequent approval is prohibited.
Reason: To prohibit the unnecessary damage or removal of trees without permission from Council
during any construction.
24 (4LD04)
The following precautions must be taken when working near trees to be retained:
 harmful or bulk materials or spoil must not be stored under or near trees,
 prevent damage to bark and root system,
 mechanical methods must not be used to excavate within root zones,
 topsoil from under the drip line must not be added and or removed,
 ground under the drip line must not be compacted, and
 trees must be watered in dry conditions.
Reason: This is to ensure no damage is caused to trees from various methods of possible damage.
25 (4LD05)
Trees and shrubs liable to damage (including, but not limited to street trees) are to be protected
with suitable temporary enclosures for the duration of the works. These enclosures are to only be
removed when directed by the Principal Certifying Authority.
The enclosures are to be constructed out of F62 reinforcing mesh 1800mm high wired to 2400mm
long star pickets, driven 600mm into the ground and spaced 1800mm apart at a minimum distance
of 1000mm from the tree trunk.
Reason: To ensure protection of the trees on the site which could be damaged during any
development works and to outline the type of protection.
26 (4LD06)
All disturbed surfaces on the land resulting from the building works authorised by this approval
must be revegetated and stabilised to prevent erosion either on or adjacent to the land.
Reason: To prevent/contain erosion.
27 (4LD07)
Where development/construction necessitates the pruning of more than 10% of existing tree
canopy, a permit application must be lodged with the Council’s Civic Services Division, subject to
the Tree Preservation Order 2001.
Reason: To ensure those trees are maintained appropriately and compliance with Australian
Standard AS 4373:2007 – Pruning of Amenity Trees.
28 (4MS01)
Should you appoint Council as the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) to undertake inspections
during the course of construction, then the following inspection/certification are required:
 Footing inspection - trench and steel,
 Framework inspection,
 Wet area moisture barrier,
 Swimming pool reinforcing steel inspection,
 Swimming pool safety fence inspection,
 Final inspection.
The cost of these inspections by Council is $1,770(being $295 per inspection inclusive of GST).
Payment of the above amount is required prior to the first inspection. Inspection appointments can
be made by contacting the Environmental Services Division on 9976 1414.
Page 36
20 MARCH 2014
At least 24 hours notice should be given for a request for an inspection and submission of the
relevant inspection card. Any additional inspection required as a result of incomplete works will
incur a fee of $165.
Reason: To ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the terms of the
development consent and with the Building Code of Australia.
29 (4MS04)
The Sediment Control Plan is to be implemented from the commencement of works and maintained
until completion of the development.
development sites.
30 (4WM03)
Hazardous waste must be contained, managed and disposed of in a responsible manner in
accordance with the Protection of Environment and Operations Act 1997.
Reason: Compliance with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment and Operations Act
1997.
CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE
31 (5DS01)
Stormwater drainage from the proposed addition/extension must be disposed of to the existing
drainage system. All work is to be carried out in accordance with Council standards and
specifications for stormwater drainage. Work is to be completed prior to the issue of the
Occupation Certificate.
generated by the development, and to ensure infrastructure reverting to Council’s care and control
is of an acceptable standard.
32 (5LD01)
A qualified Landscape Consultant is to submit a Certificate of Practical Completion to the Principal
Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, stating the work has been
carried out in accordance with the approved Landscape Drawing and a maintenance program has
been established.
Reason: This is to ensure the landscaping is planted in accordance with the drawing and
maintained appropriately
33 (5SP01)
All protective fencing and gates are to be in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1926 prior to
the pool being filled with water. The fence is to be a minimum of 1200mm in height and posts
and/or supports are to be firmly fixed or encased in such a way that the posts/support are unable to
be removed easily. The fence is not to be removed or altered at any time without the prior approval
of Council. No water can be in the swimming pool until the required protective fencing has been
inspected and approved by Council.
Reason: To comply with Australian Standard AS1926 and provide a reasonable level of child
safety.
DEVELOPMENT
34 (6AQ01)
The use of the premises must not give rise to air impurities in contravention of the Protection of the
Environment Operations Act 1997 and must be controlled in accordance with the requirements of
this Act.
35 (6LP01)
Page 37
20 MARCH 2014
No existing street trees can be removed without Council approval. Where such approval is granted,
the trees must be replaced at full cost by the applicant with an advanced tree of a species
nominated by Council's relevant officer.
Reason: To encourage the retention of street trees.
36 (6LP02)
No tree other than on land identified for the construction of buildings and works as shown on the
building drawing can be felled, lopped, topped, ringbarked or otherwise wilfully destroyed or
removed without the approval of Council.
Reason: To prevent the destruction of trees on other properties adjoining the development site.
37 (6LP03)
Landscaping is to be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscaping Drawing.
Reason: This is to ensure that landscaping is maintained appropriately.
38 (6LP04)
Leighton Green Cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii or any of its cultivars, must not be planted on
the site for the life of the development. In the event of any inconsistency between this condition and
the development application documents, this condition will prevail to the extent of the
inconsistency.
Reason: To reduce the potential for adverse amenity effects such as overshadowing, loss of views,
and loss of plant diversity.
39 (6NL03)
The ongoing use of the premises/property must not give rise to ‘offensive noise’ as defined under
the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.
40 (6NL04)
External sound amplification equipment or loud speakers must not be used for the announcement,
broadcast, playing of music (including live music) or similar purposes.
41 (6WM01)
occupations and the neighbourhood in general by the emission of noise, smoke, dust, fumes, grit,
vibration, smell, vapour, steam, soot, ash, waste water, waste products, oil, electrical interference
or otherwise.
Reason: To protect existing and future amenity of the adjoining occupations from excessive waste
emissions.
ATTACHMENTS
AT- MIAP Plans - DA0261/2013 - Andrew Boy Chalrton
Swim Centre - Balgowlah Road, Manly - MIAP 20/03/14
1
10
Pages
Circulated in
Attachments document
MIAP20032014MI_5.DOC
***** End of MIAP Report No. 12 *****
Page 38
TO:
REPORT:
MIAP Report No. 13
20 MARCH 2014
SUBJECT: 402 Sydney Road, Balgowlah - DA0219/2013
FILE NO:
MC/14/27707
Application Lodged:
Applicant:
Owner:
Estimated Cost:
Zoning:
Heritage:
NSW LEC:
Planning Officer:
03 November 2013
Aconsult
AM & YM Lai
$1,100,000
Manly Local Environmental Plan, 2013 – B2 Local Centre
Retail and consultancies (Business) & Residential- edge of
Balgowlah shopping precinct.
N/A
N/A
Nancy Sample
SUMMARY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
DEVELOPMENT CONSENT IS SOUGHT FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED 3 STOREY BUILDING TO THE REAR
FOR THE PURPOSES OF A BOARDING HOUSE INCLUDING TEN (10) ROOMS,
COMMON ROOM, BALCONIES, COURTYARDS AND COMMON OUTDOOR AREA.
OWNERS AND TEN (10) SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED.
THE APPLICATION WAS REFERRED TO THE NORTH HARBOUR PRECINCT
COMMUNITY FORUM FOR COMMENTS WHO OBJECTED THE PROPOSAL.
THE APPLICATION WAS PRESENTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT
MEETING ON THE 06 MARCH 2014 WHERE IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL.
THE APPLICATION DOES NOT INCLUDE A VARIATION TO ANY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS.
THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL.
Locality Map
Figure 1: Location Plan
Page 39
20 MARCH 2014
Report
Introduction
Subject Property and surrounding area
The subject property is commonly known as 402 Sydney Road, Balgowlah and legally known as
Lot A in DP85983. The site is located on the Northern side of Sydney Road. The property is
rectangular in shape and has a frontage of 9.295m to Sydney Road and an average depth of
42.67m and an overall site area of 380.80m2. The property currently contains a two storey
commercial building with no vehicular access. The property slopes from front to rear and includes
an average crossfall of 0.01m. The building at 402 Sydney Road currently houses three main (3)
areas of business as listed on the signage plaque outside – Speech pathologist, Kids Occupational
therapy, Kids creative therapy.
The surrounding area includes a mix of commercial development (Balgowlah shopping precinct)
interspersed with residential development. In this case, to the eastern side of the subject property
there is a Porters Liquor store including a rear parking area accessed from Woodland Road. To
the western side there is a commercial building including a business specialising in physical
rehabilitation and exercise clinic. The ground floor commercial frontage to that building is the
restaurant called ‘Noodle Blast’.
The area is characterised by commercial development along this part of the Northern side of
Sydney Road and the Southern side of Sydney Road includes predominantly residential
development in the direct vicinity of the subject Lot.
Property Burdens and Constraints
A sewerline bisects the property running from East to West about 1/6 of the length of the site, down
from the rear property boundary into the property. In terms of the length of the proposed building,
Council has received no evidence as to the relative location of the sewerline and consideration of
any impacts from the development upon the sewerline. There are no Council easements across
the property shown on our internal GIS system.
The proposal includes a rear addition (three storey building) to an existing two storey commercial
building fronting Sydney Road including two (2) existing businesses accessible from Sydney Road.
The proposed rear addition is a self contained Boarding House with no access through the existing
building to the front of the site. Access to the Boarding House is proposed via the existing side
alley (pathway) to the Eastern side of the property. The proposal includes the upgrading of this
accessway removing existing brick stairs and landing and replacing with a graded (max.1:20)
access ramp 12.4m in length.
The proposal also includes the demolition of the existing ground floor rear section of the existing
building currently used for storage
The proposed Boarding House (addition) includes ten (10) boarding rooms and one (1) common
room as follows:
Ground floor level (R.L.45.2)
Existing two storey commercial building (front section) retained and the proposed demolition of rear
single storey (ridge height R.L.48.44) attached section of the building and rear addition in the same
location and beyond being a single storey roofed element adjoining the new rear three storey
building.
Page 40
20 MARCH 2014
This level of the proposed three storey boarding house includes boarding rooms 1 & 2 including
ensuite bathrooms and kitchenette areas and access to external courtyard areas, two (2) lobby
areas with door dividing them, shared laundry, garbage area and a common room with a kitchen
area included (kitchen is not a separate area). The common room is located to the northern end of
the building and is approximately 24m2 in size being a mirror image of boarding room 2. The
common room leads to an outdoor courtyard area located to the northern end of the lot (adjoining
rear boundary).
It is noted that the roof above the central lobby is a skylight. However, the design does not detail
balconies to each level of the ‘central’ lobby area that would facilitate this area to act as a lightwell.
This would provide a better outcome for the residents were this application to be approved. In this
case, the application has been recommended for refusal. The changes to this level include the
redevelopment of the side access to the western side setback of the commercial building to
provide disabled access to the ground floor level of the new building and retain existing stair
access to the commercial building.
The works proposed also include a new front entrance and entry slab and access to existing stairs
to the front of the existing commercial building from Sydney Road. This amendment to the front
building also includes the ‘bricking up’ of the existing side access door and relocation of meter box
which would otherwise be located within the proposed side access ramp.
First floor level (R.L.48.60)
This proposed level of the boarding house includes boarding rooms 3-6, each including an ensuite
bathroom and kitchenette. Rooms 6 & 3 are shown as being approximately 24m2 (ex- kitchen and
bathroom areas) and rooms 4 & 5 are shown as being approximately 22m2 (ex-kitchen and
bathroom areas). Each of the rooms at this level accesses individual balconies with an average
area of 7.8m2 each. This level is accessed by stairs adjoining the central lobby area. This stairwell
would benefit from an additional skylight should this application be approved. This assessment
has resulted in a recommendation for refusal.
Second floor level (R.L.52.00)
This proposed level of the boarding house includes boarding rooms 7-10, each including an
ensuite bathroom and kitchenette. Rooms 7 & 10 are shown as being approximately 24m2 (exkitchen and bathroom areas) and rooms 9 & 8 are shown as being approximately 22m2 (ex-kitchen
and bathroom areas). Each of the rooms at this level accesses individual balconies with an
average area of 7.8m2 each. This level is accessed by stairs adjoining the central lobby area. This
stairwell would benefit from an additional skylight should this application be approved. This
assessment has resulted in a recommendation for refusal.
Roof level (R.L.56 & ‘Skylight Roof’ R.L.56.5)
The proposal includes a new 5 degree (sloped) skillion roof including a rectangular skylight which
protrudes above the roof by 0.5m.
The applicant provided a document in form of a Statement of Environmental Effects entitled State
Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing (2009) Boarding House Lot A dp85983
No.402 Sydney Road, Balgowlah prepared by AconsulT with no date included received by Council
on 03.11.14 in support of the application.
The application is also supported by the following reports:
Disability Access Report prepared by Lindsay Perry (nominated architect NSW Reg.No.7021);
Fire Engineering Report prepared by Rawfire Pty Ltd dated 25 September 2013;
Page 41
20 MARCH 2014
Contact with relevant parties
The assessing officer met with the applicant on 06.12.2013 to take photographs and undertake
initial site inspection. The applicant was advised during the site inspection that the application
could not be supported due to non-compliances with the minimum requirements of the AHSEPP.
Further to this, the assessing officer visited the site again with the Manager on 13.12.2013 to allow
him to consider the proposal in context as requested by the applicant. The matter of noncompliance with the AHSEPP was again discussed and the lack of support for the proposal due to
the non-compliances was reiterated.
The officer has been in regular contact with the applicant throughout the assessment process and
has advised them that this application has been recommended for refusal for reasons given
throughout this report.
Internal Referrals
Engineers Comments
Building Comments
Council’s Landscape Officer has commented on the proposal as follows:
"Amended landscape plan to include proposed endemic planting as per Manly Council
DCP 2013"
In this case, the landscape plan was not requested because the application is not supported.
Were the works to be supported by MIAP, the following condition is recommended to be included;
‘ANS...
A landscape plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect is required to be prepared
including endemic species as per the Manly Development Control Plan 2013.
Reason: To comply with the Manly Development Control Plan 2013
Additional standard conditions will be sought and provided in case the application is approved by
MIAP as these were not provided with the internal referral responses.
Environmental Health Comments
The following comments were provided on 28.11.2013:
- ‘Ten (10) rooms proposed with a maximum capacity of twenty (20) lodgers. No boarding
room or on-site dwelling proposed for a boarding house manager as required under the
SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing).
- Plan of Management outlines time restrictions for ‘excessive noise’ in internal common
areas to not exceed 10:00pm – 6:00am, and for noisy activities on balconies and outdoor
common areas to be restricted to the hours between 10:00pm and 8:00am. The details
regarding how this is to be managed in the absence of an on-site manager and a
definition of what is considered ‘excessive noise’ and ‘noisy activities’ have not been
identified.
- Contact details of the offsite caretaker will be provided to the lodgers and displayed in the
main foyer of the building. Details on how to receive and resolve complaints to also be
outlined. The details regarding the procedure for complaint resolution hasn’t been
provided as part of the application.
Page 42
20 MARCH 2014
The plans provide limited detail of kitchen and laundry facilities. Plans indicate one (1) washing
machine and one (1) dryer to be provided in the laundry. This may not be sufficient to
accommodate a maximum capacity of twenty (20) lodgers.
Further information is required to address the comments above.
1.
2.
An on-site manager must be provided in compliance with the SEPP.
Updated Management Plan in compliance with the Manly Development Control Plan 2013.
Procedure for complaint resolution and a definition for excessive noise and noisy activities
must be included within the plan.
Updated plans showing detail of the facilities to be provided in the laundry and kitchen areas.
The following conditions have been recommended:
‘CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ANY COMMENCEMENT
4CD01
site works:
10) All waste must be contained entirely within the site.
legislation.
recycling.
Page 43
20 MARCH 2014
16) Building operations such as brick-cutting, washing tools or paint brushes, and mixing
drainage system.
Reason: To ensure that demolition, building and any other site works are undertaken in
accordance with relevant legislation and policy and in a manner which will be non-disruptive to the
local area.
4CD02
between 7.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday and 7.00am to 1.00pm Saturday (including works
undertaken by external contractors). No site works can be undertaken on Sundays or public
holidays. Unless otherwise approved within a Construction Traffic Management Plan, construction
vehicles, machinery, goods or materials must not be delivered to the site outside the approved
hours of site works.
DEVELOPMENT
6AP04
All towers, ventilation/ducting, exhaust fan structures, chillers and condensers for air-conditioning
and any other structures on the roof are to be the subject of a separate Development Application.
Reason: To maintain the amenity of the surrounds.
6NL03
6WM01
occupations and the neighbourhood in general by the emission of noise, smoke, dust, fumes, grit,
vibration, smell, vapour, steam, soot, ash, waste water, waste products, oil, electrical interference
or otherwise.
Reason: To protect existing and future amenity of the adjoining occupations from excessive waste
emissions.
ADDITIONAL NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS
Construction Noise
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and guidelines contained in the New South
Wales Environment Protection Authority Environmental Noise Control Manual, and Construction
Noise Guideline.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and to prevent disturbance to the surrounding
community.
Health premises register
Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the owner of the premises is to complete and
submit Council’s Health Premises Registration form which can be obtained from Council.
Reason: To comply with legislation.
Page 44
20 MARCH 2014
Outdoor Lighting
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority must be satisfied that all
outdoor lighting is designed and positioned to minimise any detrimental impact upon the amenity of
other premises and adjacent dwellings and that the outdoor lighting complies with the relevant
provisions of Australian Standard 1558.3:2005 Pedestrian area (Category P) lighting –
Performance and design requirements and Australian Standard 4282:1997 Control of the
obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.
Air-conditioner noise
Any air conditioning unit on the site must be installed and operated at all times so as not to cause
‘offensive noise’ as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Domestic
air-conditioners must not be audible in nearby dwellings between 10:00PM to 7:00AM Monday to
Friday, and 10:00PM to 8:00AM on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and to protect the acoustic amenity of neighbouring
properties.
Ongoing Operation of Boarding House
The ongoing operation of the boarding house premises must comply with the following:
- Local Government Act 1993
- Local Government (General) Regulation 2005
- Public Health Regulation 2012
- Boarding Houses Act 2012
Asbestos Removal
Anyone who removes, repairs, or disturbs bonded or friable asbestos material must hold a current
removal licence from WorkCover NSW. Before starting work, a work site-specific permit approving
each asbestos project must be obtained from WorkCover NSW. All removal, repair or disturbance
of or to asbestos material must comply with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and with the
following:
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011;
- Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011; and
- How to Safely Remove Asbestos Code of Practice [WorkCover NSW (2011)].
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and protect the health and safety of site workers
and of the public.
Management Plan
A Management Plan must be prepared in accordance with the requirements outlined within the
Manly Development Control Plan 2013 section 2.1.17. The on-going use and operation of the
boarding house premises must comply with the approved site-specific Management Plan.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 and to protect
public health and safety.’
The comments were considered by the assessing officer who notes the issues raised and has
recommended the refusal of the application.
Waste
Council's Waste Officer has commented on the proposal as follows:
" Additional information required:
1) Amended plans showing separate waste storage area for residential)boarding
house) and commercial use;
2) Confirmation that commercial space will only be for offices’ waste storage;
3) Amended plans should show waste storage areas large enough to accommodate:
a) residential – 3 x 240L garbage bins for general waste, 1 x 120L for paper, 1 x
120L bin container recycling (at minimum);
Page 45
20 MARCH 2014
b) commercial – 1 x 120L general waste, 1 x 120L container and 1 x 120L paper
recycling;
4) Waste Management Plan – showing where bins will be presented for collection."
This information was not sought because the application has been recommended for refusal and
the requirements could be included in conditions (possibly ‘deferred commencement’) where the
application was to be approved by MIAP.
Access
The Council’s Access Officer offered the following comments on the proposal further to the
application being referred to the Access Team on 06.11.2013:
‘The amenity of the accessible room is questionable given it is dark, facing to the south and
adjoining the garbage area. It would be preferable to face north, but this might result in the loss of
one room. The committee considers the ramp to be narrow but accessible, even though it does
not comply with the Standard. The Committee understands there might be heritage restrictions on
the existing building.
Recommended condition:
ANS0The main access into the building, internal ramps, access ways, lifts, sanitary facilities, circulation
spaces around relevant equipment, lighting and signage within the building must be compliant with
the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, the Australian Standards AS1428
- 2009 , AS1739 -1999 and the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to ensure
dignified access to, and use of the building for people with a disability.
Provision of car parking spaces for disabled persons must comply with AS 2890.6 -2009. (At least
one car parking space complying with AS 2890.6 is required in any car park covered by the
Premises Standards.)
Compliant disability access provisions are to be clearly shown on the drawings and submitted to
Council/Accredited Certifier for approval with the Construction Certificate. All details and
construction must be in accordance with these requirements.
Reason: To provide equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability
discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.’
The assessing officer notes these comments, however, has recommended that the application be
refused due to non-compliances with both state and local planning requirements.
Traffic Engineer
Council's Traffic Engineer has commented on the proposal as follows:
"The parking requirements for a Boarding House with ten (10) rooms to be provided as
follows:
- 2 vehicles parking spaces (0.2 x 10 = 2)"
- 2 bicycle parking spaces
- 2 motorcycle parking spaces’
In this case, the application has been recommended for refusal.
Page 46
20 MARCH 2014
External Referrals
The application was referred to the Balgowlah Precinct – Ivanhoe Park on 06.11.13 with comments
received as follows from North Harbour and Fairlight Precincts as they had requested to receive
and consider this application:
1.
No comment received from Balgowlah Precinct;
2.
The April meeting of Fairlight Precinct Community Forum Comments were as follows:
‘DA 44/2013 27 Fairlight Street Fairlight. Demolition of existing, construct all new three
story 2 unit development, garages and decks.
 FSR 0.6:1 allowed proposed 0.67:1 this is non complying
 No set back from the street the site is very steep and it is not evident that the building is 3
stories height and none for the side of the property
 Soft space complies
 Height of the building is lower by 3 meters which is below the existing roofline.
 Terraces have privacy screens
 No setback for the entry
Comment although the development includes good quality architecture and the property will
appear lower and less intrusive from the street this Precinct cannot recommend this for approval
due to excessive height from the ground level and is over the FSR.’
3. The following comments from the North Harbour Precinct were received on 22.11.2013:
‘DA219/2013 for a Boarding House at 402 Sydney Road: Submission by North
Harbour Precinct
The property does not fall within the boundary of North Harbour Precinct, but on the
border and the proposed new development will have an impact on residents on
Sydney Road which fall within the precinct.
Our objections to the DA are on the following grounds:
1. There is no on-site parking for the residents. There is a requirement in the Affordable
Housing State Environment Planning Policy (AH SEPP) for a minimum number of on-site
parking spaces, including one for disabled parking.
2. The provision for disabled residents is inadequate – as commented in the Disability
Access Report of Lindsay Perry: The minimum width of the accessible path of travel as
described by AS1428 is 1000mm. Therefore, the proposal does not strictly comply with
AS1428 or BCA which requires an accessible path of travel from the street footpath to the
common areas. This deficiency has obvious implications for the risks associated with
evacuating disabled residents in the event of a fire.
3. There is no Management Plan available for review by interested parties.
4. There is no on-site manager who can be contacted in the event that one needs to be
contacted due to problems caused by residents. It is appreciated that for a boarding
house with ten rooms there is no requirement under the AH SEPP for a manager, but it is
important for residents living close to the boarding house to know whom they should
contact in the event of problems.
There is a concern that the building might have not be fully compliant with all the codes relating to
Fire Safety – as detailed in the report of RAW Fire Safety Engineering
The forum objected to the proposal.’
Page 47
20 MARCH 2014
The objections from both the North Harbour and Fairlight Precincts are noted along with the public
submissions received as considered at the end of this report and the assessing officer has
recommended that the application be refused.
Planning Comments
application:
(a)
the provisions of:
(i)
any environmental planning instrument, and
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) (deemed SEPP) 2005:
The subject property is partly located (see plan below) within the Sydney Harbour Catchment
therefore the provisions of this plan apply to this development.
Figure 2: Plan showing boundary of Sydney Harbour SREP (deemed SEPP) area.
An assessment of the proposal against the aims of the SREP at Part 1, Clause 2 reveal that the
proposal does not meet (b) & (c) below:
‘(b) to ensure a healthy, sustainable environment on land and water,
(c) to achieve a high quality and ecologically sustainable urban environment,’
This is because of the visual and localized impacts from the proposed development that will
effectively dominate the rear garden area to the adjoining property to the east and introduce an
unreasonably high level of bulk to an area of visual relief (gap) in the built form. In effect the
proposal will effectively fill an existing ‘green’ area with a building and include virtually no
landscaped area to absorb runoff or provide for visual and environmental amenity for occupants
and users of surrounding properties.
The proposal is also not considered to be consistent with Part 2, Clause 13 (c) (shown below)
(nominated planning principles) because the proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of
the subject property and the cumulative impacts too great:
‘(c) decisions with respect to the development of land are to take account of the cumulative
environmental impact of development within the catchment,’
Given the works proposed, referral to the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development
Advisory Committee was neither considered necessary nor required under the relevant provisions
of the SREP.
Page 48
20 MARCH 2014
State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Infrastructure) 2007
The provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the
development application. The proposed development, does not constitute traffic-generating
development as defined within this SEPP. As such, it was not necessary to refer the proposal to
Roads and Maritime Services.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
A BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the development application. The BASIX certificate
lists measures to satisfy BASIX requirements which have been incorporated in the proposal. A
condition would be recommended ensuring the measures detailed in the BASIX certificate are
implemented where the application was found favourable. However, in this case, the application
has been recommended for refusal.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land
The aim of SEPP 55 is to ensure that a change of land use will not increase the risk to health due
to the excavation of management of land.
Clause 7(1) requires that consent not be granted until Council has considered whether the land is
contaminated. If the land is contaminated, the Council needs to be 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.
In this case, the front section of the property is previously disturbed and the land is unlikely to be
contaminated according to Councils records. While this SEPP has been considered, the
application has been recommended for refusal.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
The aims of this SEPP include:
‘3 Aims of Policy
The aims of this Policy are as follows:
(a) to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,
(b) to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives
by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary
development standards,
(c) to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,
(d) to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss
of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable
rental housing,
(e) to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,
(f) to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close
to places of work,
(g) to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people
who may require support services, including group homes and supportive
accommodation.’
Within this SEPP, the controls and requirements for the assessment of Boarding Houses are found
at Division 3, Part 2 and within the SEPP, boarding rooms are defined below:
‘boarding room means a room or suite of rooms within a boarding house occupied or so
constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied by one or more lodgers.’
Clause 25 of Division 3 also defines communal living room as follows:
‘communal living room means a room within a boarding house or on site that is available to
all lodgers for recreational purposes, such as a lounge room, dining room, recreation room or
games room.’
Page 49
20 MARCH 2014
This application includes ten (10) boarding rooms and one (1) common room and the level of
compliance has been considered against the specific performance requirements (standards) of the
SEPP below:
ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSAL AGAINST (ARH)SEPP REQUIREMENTS
Clause
No.
Title
Requirements
29
Standards
that
cannot be used to
refuse consent
“
“
“
“
“
“
(1) A consent authority must not
refuse consent to development to
which this Division applies on the
grounds of density or scale if the
density and scale of the buildings
when expressed as a floor space
ratio are not more than:
(a) the existing maximum floor space
ratio for any form of residential
accommodation permitted on the land,
or
(b) if the development is on land within
a zone in which no residential
accommodation
is
permitted—the
existing maximum floor space ratio for
any form of development permitted on
the land, or
(c) if the development is on land within
a zone in which residential flat
buildings are permitted and the land
does not contain a heritage item that is
identified in an environmental planning
instrument or an interim heritage order
or on the State Heritage Register—the
existing maximum floor space ratio for
any form of residential accommodation
permitted on the land, plus:
(i) 0.5:1, if the existing maximum
floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or
less, or
Proposal – Complies (Y/N)
YES
The application includes 395.17m2
gross floor area which is an FSR of
1.04:1, below the maximum local
FSR provision of 1.5:1 despite any
‘bonus’ referred to in this Sub
clause.
(ii) 20% of the existing maximum
floor space ratio, if the existing
maximum floor space ratio is
greater than 2.5:1.
“
“
“
“
(2) A consent authority must not refuse
consent to development to which this
Division applies on any of the following
grounds:
(a) building height
if the building height of all proposed
buildings is not more than the
maximum building height permitted
under another environmental planning
instrument for any building on the land,
YES
The Building Height Development
Standard within MLEP 2013 for this
property is 12.5m.
The proposed Boarding House
reaches a height of 11.9m and
complies
with
the
local
Development Standard for Building
Height.
Page 50
20 MARCH 2014
“
“
“
“
“
“
(b) landscaped area
if the landscape treatment of the front
setback area is compatible with the
streetscape in which the building is
located,
(c) solar access
where the development provides for
one or more communal living rooms, if
at least one of those rooms receives a
minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight
between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,
(d) private open space
if at least the following private open
space areas are provided (other than
the front setback area):
(i) one area of at least 20 square
metres with a minimum dimension of
3 metres is provided for the use of
the lodgers,
(ii) if accommodation is provided on
site for a boarding house manager—
one area of at least 8 square metres
with a minimum dimension of 2.5
metres is provided adjacent to that
accommodation,
“
“
(e) parking
if:
(i) in the case of development in an
accessible area—at least 0.2 parking
spaces are provided for each
boarding room, and
(ii) in the case of development not in
an accessible area—at least 0.4
parking spaces are provided for each
boarding room, and
(iii) in the case of any development—
not more than 1 parking space is
provided for each person employed in
connection with the development and
who is resident on site,
“
“
(f) accommodation size
if each boarding room has a gross
floor area (excluding any area used
for the purposes of private kitchen or
bathroom facilities) of at least:
(i) 12 square metres in the case of a
boarding room intended to be used by
a single lodger, or
(ii) 16 square metres in any other
case.
YES
There is no front setback area to
provide any landscape treatment
for. Accordingly, this requirement
cannot be applied. There is no
change proposed to the front
building that would affect the
streetscape other than changing the
side accessway to a ramp.
YES
North facing communal living area.
This area receiving light is,
however, dependent on the removal
of the trees towards the end of this
property.
NO
(i)The proposal provides for 17.1m2
of external private open space for
the use of the lodgers to the rear
setback area accessed through the
proposed common room.
(ii) The proposal does not nominate
an on-site managers room nor does
it include the private open space
that should accompany it as part of
the application.
NO
The proposed development is
located within an ‘accessible area’
being in close proximity to a main
bus route and having a bus stop
located directly opposite the
frontage and another on the same
side of Sydney Road as the site in
close proximity.
Accordingly, two (2) parking spaces
are required for the boarders and
one (1) space is required for the
Manager employed.
The proposed development does
not meet the minimum requirement
of three (3) car parking spaces as it
is
effectively
inaccessible
to
vehicles due to the location of the
existing building to the front of the
subject property.
YES
The boarding rooms proposed meet
the minimum sizing and therefore
this AHSEPP requirement.
Page 51
20 MARCH 2014
“
“
30
“
“
Standards
for
Boarding Houses
(3) A boarding house may have private
kitchen or bathroom facilities in each
boarding room but is not required to
have those facilities in any boarding
room.
(4) A consent authority may consent to
development to which this Division
applies
whether
or
not
the
development
complies
with
the
standards set out in subclause (1) or
(2).
(1) A consent authority must not
consent to development to which
this Division applies unless it is
satisfied of each of the following:
(a) if a boarding house has 5 or more
boarding rooms, at least one
communal living room will be provided,
(b) no boarding room will have a gross
floor area (excluding any area used for
the purposes of private kitchen or
bathroom facilities) of more than 25
square metres,
(c) no boarding room will be occupied
by more than 2 adult lodgers,
(d) adequate bathroom and kitchen
facilities will be available within the
boarding house for the use of each
lodger,
(e) if the boarding house has capacity
to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a
boarding room or on site dwelling will
be provided for a boarding house
manager,
(f) (Repealed)
(g) if the boarding house is on land
zoned
primarily
for
commercial
purposes, no part of the ground floor of
the boarding house that fronts a street
will be used for residential purposes
unless another environmental planning
instrument permits such a use,
(h) at least one parking space will be
provided for a bicycle, and one will be
provided for a motorcycle, for every 5
boarding rooms.
(2) Subclause (1) does not apply to
development for the purposes of minor
alterations or additions to an existing
boarding house.
YES
Every boarding room proposed
includes
a
bathroom
and
kitchenette thereby satisfying this
AHSEPP requirement.
For consideration by MIAP.
The
assessing
officer
recommended refusal.
has
YES
One (1) communal room has been
provided, however, the assessing
officer is concerned that the room is
too small for potential use by up to
20 boarders.
YES
The rooms meet the sizing
requirement in this sub clause.
YES
This is required to be complied with
as stated in the Plan of
Management / Boarding House
Rules.
YES
Bathroom and Kitchen facilities
have been provided but do not
meet minimum requirements of
local controls- however it is noted
that the AHSEPP prevails.
NO
The proposal does not include a
room for the use of boarding house
manager
and
the
document
submitted in support argues that the
number of occupants does not
warrant such a manager.
N/A
N/A
NO
No such areas provided due to
nature of site.
N/A
Page 52
20 MARCH 2014
30A
Character of local
area
A consent authority must not consent to
development to which this Division
applies unless it has taken into
consideration whether the design of the
development is compatible with the
character of the local area.
NO
The design includes a high level of
visual bulk and is not considered to
be compatible with the character of
the local area.
The subject site is located in Zone B2 Local Centre under Manly LEP, 2013 the proposed
development is considered to be a Boarding house and is defined below:
‘boarding house means a building that:
(a) is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and
(b) provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and
(c) may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry,
and
(d) has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that
accommodate one or more lodgers,
but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation,
seniors housing or a serviced apartment.
Note. Boarding houses are a type of residential accommodation—see the definition of that term
in this Dictionary.’
The proposed is considered to be permissible within the zone and is recommended for refusal for
reasons given at the beginning of this report.
Zone B2 Local Centre
Objectives of zone
• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the
needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.
The proposal retains the existing commercial use to the front section of the property, however, the
application is not supported because the use proposed does not meet state requirements for the
use and therefore the works would not adequately meet the needs of the community who have
raised concerns in regard to boarding houses with inadequate parking facilities.
• To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.
The proposal includes a ramp for access and would employ, at maximum, one (1) manager. The
proposal is for a predominantly residential use, being a boarding house.
• To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.
The proposal relies upon the use of public transport for its occupants as no spaces for the parking
of bicycles / motorbikes or cars are included on the plans as submitted. While this meets the
above objectives, it does not meet the requirements of the AHSEPP and the application is
recommended for refusal.
4.
Proposed
4.3
Principal Development Requirement
Standards
Height of buildings
12.5m
4.4
Floor Space Ratio
1.04:1
Yes
(395.17m2)
1.5:1
(571.2m2)
11.9m
Complies
Yes/No
Yes
Comments
Proposal complies
with the clause.
Proposal complies
with the clause.
Page 53
20 MARCH 2014
5.
5.5
5.9
5.10
Miscellaneous Provisions Applies
Development within the
No
coastal zone
Yes
vegetation
Heritage Conservation
No
Complies
N/A
No
N/A
Comments
There are five trees located within
the rear garden area. The proposal
implies the removal of the trees and
the application is supported by a
landscape plan that does not include
any tree planting of endemic species
and does not meet the relevant local
requirements.
N/A
6.
6.1
Local Provisions
Acid Sulphate Soils
6.2
6.4
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.16
Earthworks
Stormwater Management
Active street frontages
Essential services
Design Excellence
Gross floor area in Zone B2
Applies
Yes
Complies
Yes/No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes
No
No
No
Comments
Proposal complies with the clause or
Refer to Planning comments
Refer to Planning comments below
Refer to Planning comments below
Refer to Planning comments below.
Comments:
Clause 6.12 Essential Services
This Clause states:
‘(1)
(2)
Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is
satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are
available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when
required:
(a) the supply of water,
(b) the supply of electricity,
(c) the disposal and management of sewage,
(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,
(e) suitable vehicular access.
This clause does not apply to development for the purpose of providing, extending,
augmenting, maintaining or repairing any essential service referred to in this clause.’
In this case, the proposed development does not include comply with (1)(e) shown above because
it does not provide for ‘suitable vehicular access’. The proposal provides for no vehicular access
due, primarily, to its location.
Clause 6.13 Design Excellence
This Clause requires that the proposal comprise design excellence and includes the following
specific requirements:
‘(4)
In considering whether development exhibits design excellence, the consent authority must
give consideration to whether the development:
Page 54
20 MARCH 2014
(a) contains buildings that consist of a form, bulk, massing and modulation that are likely to
overshadow public open spaces, and
(b) is likely to protect and enhance the streetscape and quality of the public realm, and
(c) clearly defines the edge of public places, streets, lanes and plazas through separation,
setbacks, amenity, and boundary treatments, and
(d) minimises street clutter and provides ease of movement and circulation of pedestrian,
cycle, vehicular and service access, and
(e) encourages casual surveillance and social activity in public places, streets, laneways and
plazas, and
(f) is sympathetic to its setting, including neighbouring sites and existing or proposed
buildings, and
(g) protects and enhances the natural topography and vegetation including trees,
escarpments or other significant natural features, and
(h) promotes vistas from public places to prominent natural and built landmarks, and
(i) uses high standards of architectural design, materials and detailing appropriate to the
building type and location, and
(j) responds to environmental factors such as wind, reflectivity and permeability of surfaces,
and
(k) coordinates shared utility infrastructure to minimise disruption at street level in public
spaces.’
The assessing officer does not consider the proposal to be of an architectural standard that
comprises design excellence and does not meet the above due to the visual bulk which is not
sympathetic to its setting.
Clause 6.16 Gross floor area in Zone B2
This Clause states:
‘(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The objective of this clause is to provide for the viability of Zone B2 Local Centre and
encourage the development, expansion and diversity of business activities, that will
contribute to economic growth, retention of local services and employment opportunities in
local centres.
This clause applies to land in Zone B2 Local Centre.
Development consent must not be granted to the erection of a building on land in Zone B2
Local Centre unless the consent authority is satisfied that at least 25% of the gross floor area
of the building will be used as commercial premises.
Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause
applies if the gross floor area of any retail premises on the land would exceed 1,000 square
metres.’
In this case, the proposed Boarding House includes no (0%) commercial floorspace as the use is
considered to be a residential use. The existing use is retained, however, this is not considered
to be strictly part of any new works (new boarding house building), as required by this Clause.
Accordingly, the application is not supported for this and other reasons given within this report
including non-compliance with the requirements of the AHSEPP.
There is no applicable Draft Planning Instrument.
Page 55
20 MARCH 2014
Issues
Townscape

Sunlight Access and
Overshadowing




Sustainability
Accessibility



Waste Management

Boarding houses

Comment:
Sustainability
The proposal does not include excellent design or sustainable credentials.
Waste Management
The waste areas proposed are inadequate as evidenced by Councils Waste Team in their referral
comments.
Boarding Houses
This proposal for a boarding house is considered to be insufficient in that the Plan of Management
& Boarding House rules have been considered and found to be inadequate insofar as:
The Plan of management considerations include reference to the potential twenty (20) lodgers and
their intention to avoid having an on-site manager (due to their interpretation of the ‘requirement’
for a boarding room and on-site manager as per Clause 30 (1)(e)) as below:
‘(e) if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on
site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager,’
I disagree with this interpretation as the requirement clearly states the requirement above. Due to
the public concern in regard to this application and non-compliance with this and other AHSEPP
requirements I cannot support a recommendation for approval.
Page 56
20 MARCH 2014
The plan of management is inconsistent with Clause 2.1.17.1 ‘Preparing a Management Plan’ of
the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 – Amendment 2 because the details such as weekly
cleaning (b)(iii) and door signage / notices (b)(vi) are not included;
The plan of management is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 4.4.9 ‘Boarding houses’ of
the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 – Amendment 2 and the requirements at Clause
2.1.17.1 ‘Preparing a management Plan’ because the proposal to allow the Plan and House Rules
to be varied without ‘the need to amend the development consent’ is not acceptable or reasonable
and does not provide for certainty;
The plan of management is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 4.4.9 ‘Boarding houses’ of
the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 – Amendment 2 and the requirements at Clause
2.1.17.1 ‘Preparing a management Plan’ because the proposed management of noise at times
when the manager is not on-site is considered to be inadequate and details on the methodology for
the receipt and resolution of complaints has not been detailed;
It is also noted that the sizing of the internal spaces and uses proposed does not meet the
requirements of Clause 4.4.9 Boarding Houses and Schedule 7, Part A -Specific Design Standards
for Boarding houses as found within the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 – Amendment 2
because the communal living area is undersized, the number of washing machines is inadequate,
the communal kitchen area is undersized and does not include adequate cooking or refrigeration /
freezer capacity for the number of boarders proposed and the kitchenette areas within some of the
boarding rooms are undersized.
Site Area:
380.80m²
Setbacks
Car Parking
Complies
Yes/No
Permitted/
Required
Proposed
To side boundaries
To side boundaries
YES
Rear setback 8m
2.3m
NO
2 spaces for boarders
No spaces
NO
N/A
1 space for manager
Loading bay
N/A
None
Signage - Number of signs
N/A
N/A –AHSEPP prevails
& Boarding House
controls
N/A
Front proposed
-Size of signs
Awnings
No details
with
application
NO
requires
RMS
consent –
Roads Act
Excavation
Boarding Houses
Minimise
Refer to consideration
below.
Minor
10 room boarding
house;
No parking for any
vehicles onsite.
YES
NO
Page 57
20 MARCH 2014
Comment:
Boarding Houses
The proposal does not meet the key sections of the DCP in regard to requirements for Boarding
Houses being Part 2, Clause 2.1.17 (preparation of management plans) and Part 4, Clause 4.4.9
(Boarding Houses), Schedule 7, Part A (Boarding Houses - Specific Design Standards) as detailed
earlier in this report. The proposal also does not meet the parking requirements as detailed
previously.
Applicable
Not Applicable
Conservation Area



Flood Control Lots


Road Widening

Comment:
n/a
Consideration of relevant Planning Principles
1.
Development in adjoining different zones
Figure 3: LEP Zoning Map Extracts (shows B2 bordering R1)
In this case, the relevant Planning principle Seaside Property Developments Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire
Council [2004] NSWLEC 117 in regard to the proximity (borders) of different zones.
The Principle requires that ‘any design for a proposed new development, whilst it need not be
subservient it must nevertheless take into account and be sensitive to this existing and likely future
character and development on these close-by lands’. This application, by way of the excessive
visual bulk and privacy impacts to surrounding properties, does not take into account the objectives
of the adjoining R1 zone which refer to residential housing. The B2 zone includes a specific zone
objective as follows which goes to the issue:
Page 58
20 MARCH 2014
‘To minimise conflict between land uses in the zone and adjoining zones and ensure amenity for
the people who live in the local centre in relation to noise, odour, delivery of materials and use of
machinery.’
In this case the issue of noise and localized impacts is appurtenant and the application is not
considered to meet the Planning Principle and is not supported.
2.
Compatibility in the urban environment
In this case, another relevant Planning Principle Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council
[2005] NSWLEC 191 requires that the physical impacts upon surrounding development be
acceptable in terms of height, setbacks, landscaping and architectural style, In this, the assessing
officer does not believe that the proposal is acceptable and has recommended refusal.
3.
Assessment of height and bulk
In this case, another relevant Planning Principle Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428
requires that the application be considered in terms of the local controls and the way it will ‘look in
context’. In this case, the assessing officer does not believe that the proposal is acceptable as it
does not include a reasonable rear setback and will present as a bulky structure with no
articulation or visual relief having negative localized impacts and accordingly does not meet this
Planning Principle.
These three Planning Principles have been included as recommended reasons for refusal within
this assessment report.
No such agreement is proposed.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires the consent authority to
consider the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Accordingly, appropriate conditions of
consent are recommended for imposition should this application be considered worthy of approval.
Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires Consent
Authority to consider AS 2601 - 1991: The Demolition of Structures. Accordingly, appropriate
conditions of consent are recommended for imposition should this application be considered
worthy of approval.
In this case, the application is recommended for refusal for myriad reasons given throughout this
report.
The proposed rear addition comprising an additional three storey building to the rear of the existing
two storey front commercial section will dwarf the front building and surrounding buildings and
areas. The proposal is considered to be excessively bulky and does not meet the minimum
requirements for a boarding house under both State and local planning controls as considered
throughout this report. The application is not supported and is recommended for refusal because
of the unreasonable localised environmental impacts that it would have and because it will not
provide for a housing solution of a reasonable quality and design standard for occupants under the
relevant controls. The assessing officer is also concerned about the potential social impacts that
such a development could have in the context of the bottle shop to the adjoining property.
Page 59
20 MARCH 2014
The site currently includes a large garden area with trees which acts as visual and environmental
relief between the commercial built forms and the proposal includes the development of the entire
rear setback area and the majority of the site with a three storey building. While the height meets
the local control, the length of the building i.e. its bulk and scale, does, in my opinion, not meet the
objectives of that control and accordingly the site is not suitable for the scale of development as
proposed.
‘4.3 Height of buildings
(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:
(a) to provide for building heights and roof forms that are consistent with the topographic
landscape, prevailing building height and desired future streetscape character in the
locality,
(b) to control the bulk and scale of buildings,..’
The proposal includes a high level of visual bulk including a building height that is close to the
maximum height allowable and yet does not meet the required rear setback. This results in the
high level of visual bulk as the proposed building includes three storeys and has little articulation
having no side windows or any other visual articulation proposed to walls reaching 11.5m in height.
As such the proposed building will dwarf the existing commercial building to be retained at the front
of the property and surrounding properties.
The type of development is permissible in this area but again, the scale of the proposal does not
meet the controls within the AHSEPP as detailed throughout this assessment report as no
vehicular parking is available or readily possible due to the constrained nature of this site.
The assessing officer is also concerned about the potential social impacts that such a development
could have in the context of the bottle shop to the adjoining property and accordingly, for this and
other reasons, believes that this site is not suitable for this type of development.
Development Control Plan 2013 Section 2.2 with ten (10) submissions received from the following
objectors raising the following concerns:
1.
B.Haynes (on behalf of Nicki Garrett), 164B Woodland Street, Balgowlah
 Inadequate DA documentation;
 Inadequate rear setback;
 Non-complying earthworks;
 Bulk and scale;
 Adverse privacy impacts;
 Failure to provide managers residence;
 Insufficient car parking (none).
 I note the suggested inadequacy of the site plan and the application has been
recommended for refusal;
 The rear setback is inadequate and this is one of the recommended reasons for refusal;
 The issue of excavation is not a reason as recommended for refusal;
 The bulk and scale are considered to be unreasonable and this is one of the reasons for
refusal as recommended;
 The privacy impacts from the northern end will be unreasonable due to the proximity to
the rear boundary, this is one of the reasons for refusal as recommended;
 The lack of a managers unit is a reason for refusal as recommended;
 The lack of parking for any vehicle is a reason for refusal as recommended.
Page 60
20 MARCH 2014
2.
M.Verhoeven, D.Gordon, 162C Woodland Street, Balgowlah
 Too close to rear boundary;
 Impact on visual and acoustic privacy;
 No room for on-site manager;
 Excessive visual bulk;
 No parking provided;
 No assessment of issues in SEE;
 No recognition of zone boundary and sympathetic treatments (see Planning principle:
development in adjoining different zones);
 Non-compliance with AHSEPP controls and requirements;
 Does not meet Planning Principle (compatibility with context) in regard to context.
 The proximity to the rear boundary is not supported and this is one of the reasons for
 The proposals bulk and scale and visual impacts are considered to be unreasonable and
included as reasons for refusal as recommended;
 The lack of on-site manager accommodation is considered to be non-compliant and
 Refer to previous comment in regard to bulk;
 The lack of parking is considered to be a non-compliance and included as reasons for
 The lack of assessment of issues within the SEE is noted;
 The proposal fails three (3) key planning principles as detailed in this report including the
two (2) listed in the submission (and is not limited to failing these);
 The proposal does not meet the requirements of the AHSEPP as included within the
reasons for refusal as recommended;
 Please refer to previous comments in regard to Planning Principles.
3.
M.Staunton, 164A Woodland Street, Balgowlah
 Impact on visual and acoustic privacy;
 No room for on-site manager;
 Excessive visual bulk;
 No assessment of issues in SEE;
 No recognition of zone boundary and sympathetic treatments (see Planning principle:
development in adjoining different zones);
 Non-compliance with AHSEPP controls and requirements;
 Does not meet Planning Principle (compatibility with context) in regard to context.
 The lack of on-site manager accommodation is considered to be non-compliant and
 Refer to previous comment in regard to bulk;
 The proposal fails three (3) key planning principles as detailed in this report including the
two (2) listed in the submission (and is not limited to failing these);
Page 61
20 MARCH 2014
 Please refer to previous comments in regard to Planning Principles.
4.
D & L White, 411 Sydney Road, Balgowlah
 Non-compliance with AHSEPP in regard to lack of Parking;
 Non-compliance with AHSEPP in regard provision for on-site manager.
reasons for refusal as recommended.
5.
M. Ford, Sydney Road
 Concern in regard to potential fire hazard.
 A fire report was submitted in support of the application and no issues raised by Council’s
Building Team. However, the application is recommended for refusal.
6.
D Milton, 166A & 164C Woodland Street, Balgowlah
 Privacy and overlooking;
 Setbacks;
 Intent of height control (sloping sites);
 Noise;
 Character incompatible under 30A AHSEPP;
 Requested amendments.
 The rear setback is inadequate and this is one of the recommended reasons for refusal;
 The potential acoustic and other impacts are considered to be unreasonable and included
as reasons for refusal as recommended;
 The proposal is recommended for refusal making such a request redundant.
7.
G & C Smith, 9 West Street, Balgowlah
 No planning controls considered but reserve right to comment at a later date;
 Concern in regard to access and egress, in particular during any construction.
 Noted;
 The assessing officer understands the concern and must advise that MIAP will consider
this matter on its merits. The construction of buildings is not an easy process and is
controlled by legislation and conditions as recommended under circumstances where
approval is achieved. In this case, the proposal is recommended for refusal.
8.
P. Harkess – no address supplied.
 Adjoins liquor shop.
Page 62
20 MARCH 2014
 The assessing officer shares the concern in regard to the proximity the bottle shop in
terms of potential social planning impacts.
9.
D. Ferguson & L. Montforte, 162A Woodland Street, Balgowlah
 Concerns in regard to setbacks, levels, privacy parking.
 The application has been recommended for refusal due to the assessing officers concerns
and myriad non-compliances with controls relating to the issues listed above.
In addition to the joint submission Council also received the following from the occupier at this
address:
9a. D.Ferguson, 162A Woodland Street, Balgowlah
 Visual bulk;
 Privacy issues for property in terms of impact on private open space;
 Non-compliances with AHSEPP;
 No assessment of impacts in SEE;
 Request for amendments/changes.
 The proposal is recommended for refusal making such a request redundant.
10.
Confidential
 Inappropriate development;
 Transience of occupants;
 Poor quality design.
 The assessing officer shares this concern and has recommended that this application be
refused for myriad reasons;
 The social impacts have not been considered in this application which is considered to be
inadequate;
 The design is bulky and unsuitable and is not supported. This is one of the reasons as
recommended for the refusal of this application.
79C(1)(e) - the public interest.
The submissions received indicate the level of public concern in regard to this proposal. The
assessing officer is of the opinion that due to non-compliances with State and local controls
pertaining to this type of development, that this proposed boarding house is not in the public
interest and that the public interest would be best protected by the refusal of this application for
reasons given throughout this report.
Page 63
20 MARCH 2014
‘(1)
(2)
or both.
Comments:
In this case, the application is recommended for refusal.
CONCLUSION:
Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be unsatisfactory.
RECOMMENDATION
That Development Application No. 219/2013 for Partial demolition of existing building, construction
of an attached 3 storey building to the rear for the purposes of a Boarding House including ten (10)
rooms, common room, balconies, courtyards and common outdoor area at 402 Sydney Road,
Balgowlah be Refused for the following reasons:1.
Pursuant to Part 1, Section 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the
proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the proper management or
development of land for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the
community and a better environment;
2.
Pursuant to Part 9, Division 3, Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993, the proposed awning over
the Road Reserve is not supported and does not have owners consent (concurrence from
RMS);
3.
Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
the proposal is not considered to be consistent with a nominated planning principle at Part 2,
Clause 13 (c) within the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)
2005 (deemed SEPP) because the proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the
subject property and the cumulative localised environmental impacts are unreasonable;
4.
the proposal is not considered to be consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy
(Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Division 3, Clause 29 (2)(d)(i) because the works do not
comply with requirement for Private Open Space for the use of the lodgers because ‘one area
of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres’ is not provided for the
use of the lodgers within the proposal;
5.
(Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Division 3, Clause 29 (2)(d)(ii) because the works do not
comply with requirement for Private Open Space for the use of the on-site manager;
Page 64
20 MARCH 2014
6.
(Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Division 3, Clause 30(1)(e) because the proposal does not
include ‘a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager’
7.
(Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Division 3, Clause 30(1)(h) because the proposal does not
include ‘at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for
a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms’;
8.
(Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Division 3, Clause 30A because the proposed design
includes a high level of visual bulk and is not considered to be ‘compatible with the character
of the local area’;
9.
the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the intent of controls within State
Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 because the proposed
common area provided is considered too small for the number of residents planned to occupy
the building.
10.
Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,
the proposal is considered inconsistent with the aims at Part 1 of Manly Local Environmental
Plan 2013 Clause 1.2 (2)(a)(i) because the proposal includes an unreasonable level of visual
bulk and is not of a high standard of urban design that responds to the desired future
character of the area nor does it meet (2)(b)(ii) because the landscaped areas are inadequate
in size and design;
11.
the proposal is considered to be inconsistent Part 6, Clause 6.12 (Essential Services) of
Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 because the application does not include any parking
provision;
12.
the proposal is considered to be inconsistent Part 6, Clause 6.13 (3) & (4) of Manly Local
Environmental Plan 2013 because the application does not exhibit design excellence;
the proposal is considered to be inconsistent Part 6, Clause 6.16 of Manly Local
Environmental Plan 2013 because the application, being a new rear addition (Boarding
House), does not meet the requirement that ‘at least 25% of the gross floor area of the
building will be used as commercial premises’;
13.
14.
Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the
proposed development is inconsistent with Part 4, Clause 4.1.4 of the Manly Development
Control Plan 2013 – Amendment 2 because the proposal does not include an adequate rear
setback nor does it meet the relevant objectives for such setbacks;
15.
proposed development is inconsistent with Part 3, Clause 3.4.2 (privacy and security) of the
Manly Development Control Plan 2013 – Amendment 2 because the proposal includes the
common open space and private open space in close proximity to the rear boundary and
surrounding developments and properties;
Page 65
20 MARCH 2014
16.
proposed development is inconsistent with Part 2, Clause 2.1.17.1 ‘Preparing a Management
Plan’ of the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 – Amendment 2 because the details such
as weekly cleaning (b)(iii) and door signage / notices (b)(vi) are not included;
17.
proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of Part 4, Clause 4.4.9 ‘Boarding
houses’ of the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 – Amendment 2 and the requirements
at Part 2, Clause 2.1.17.1 ‘Preparing a management Plan’ because the proposal to allow the
Plan and House Rules to be varied without ‘the need to amend the development consent’ is
not acceptable or reasonable and does not provide for certainty;
18.
proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of Part 4, Clause 4.4.9 ‘Boarding
houses’ of the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 – Amendment 2 and the requirements
at Part 2, Clause 2.1.17.1 ‘Preparing a management Plan’ because the proposed
management of noise at times when the manager is not on-site is considered to be
inadequate and details on the methodology for the receipt and resolution of complaints has
not been detailed;
19.
proposed development does not meet the requirements of Part 4, Clause 4.4.9 Boarding
Houses and Schedule 7, Part A -Specific Design Standards for Boarding houses as found
within the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 – Amendment 2 because the communal
living area is undersized, the number of washing machines is inadequate, the communal
kitchen area is undersized and does not include adequate cooking or refrigeration / freezer
capacity for the number of boarders proposed and the kitchenette areas within some of the
boarding rooms are undersized;
20.
Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the
increased intensity of Boarding House use is considered to be a use that will have excessive
localised negative environmental impacts including social impacts and the proposed building
will have a negative localised visual impact upon the built environment being inconsistent with
the surrounding streetscape and general form of development. The proposal also includes
the removal of a number of trees from the property and includes an insufficient number of
replacement trees and a landscape plan that does not comply with relevant local controls;
21.
Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the
application is not supported due to potential localised impacts upon the adjoining zone and
does not meet the Planning Principle (development in adjoining different zones) in that ‘any
design for a proposed new development, whilst it need not be subservient it must
nevertheless take into account and be sensitive to this existing and likely future character and
development on these close-by lands.’.
22.
application is not supported due to potential localised impacts and does not meet the
Planning Principle (compatibility in the urban environment) Project Venture Developments v
Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 requires that the physical impacts upon surrounding
development be acceptable in terms of height, setbacks, landscaping and architectural style,
In this, the assessing officer does not believe that the proposal is acceptable and does not
meet this Planning Principle;
23.
application is not supported due to potential localised impacts and does not meet the
Planning Principle (assessment of height and bulk) Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007]
NSWLEC 428 requires that the application be considered in terms of the local controls and
the way it will ‘look in context’.
Page 66
20 MARCH 2014
In this case, the assessing officer does not believe that the proposal is acceptable as it does
not include a reasonable rear setback and will present as a bulky structure with no
articulation or visual relief having negative localised impacts and accordingly does not meet
this Planning Principle;
24.
Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the
site is not suitable for the proposed form of the development due to its size and scale and
due to the level of internal amenity that would be afforded to boarders and lack of any type of
parking spaces as part of the development;
25.
Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the
works are not considered to be in the public interest due to the concerns of local residents
indicated in submissions received by Council and potential negative environmental impacts of
the proposal;
26.
Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the
works are not considered to be in the public interest due to the inconsistencies with key State
controls pertaining to the use as proposed and potential negative environmental impacts of
the proposal.
ATTACHMENTS
AT- Plans for MIAP - DA0219/2013 - 402 Sydney Road,
Balgowlah - MIAP 20/03/14
1
8
Pages
Circulated in Attachments
document
Page 67
TO:
REPORT:
MIAP Report No. 14
20 MARCH 2014
SUBJECT: 27 Fairlight Street, Fairlight - DA0044/2013
FILE NO:
MC/14/27572
Application Lodged:
Applicant:
Owner:
Estimated Cost:
Zoning:
Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.
settings.
Heritage:
Officer:
06 March 2013
J.Buda
J.Buda & K Lester
$1.2 million
Manly Local Environmental Plan, 1988 – Residential in
Single dwellings and multi unit developments in landscaped
In the vicinity of Items (25 Fairlight Street & others)
Nancy Sample
SUMMARY:
1.
DEVELOPMENT CONSENT IS SOUGHT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
STRUCTURES, CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE (3) STOREY MULTI DWELLING
DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING TWO (2) UNITS, TWO DOUBLE GARAGES, FRONT COURTYARD
AND REAR DECKS.
2.
THE APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO ALL ADJOINING AND NEARBY OWNERS AND
EIGHT (8) SUBMISSIONS WERE RECEIVED.
3.
DAU CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION AND DEFERRED DETERMINATION ON 03.10.13.
4.
FURTHER TO THE SUBMISSION OF AMENDED PLANS, THE APPLICATION WAS RENOTIFIED TO ALL ADJOINING AND NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS AND ONE (1)
SUBMISSION RECEIVED.
5.
THE APPLICATION WAS NOT REFERRED AGAIN TO THE FAIRLIGHT PRECINCT FOR
COMMENTS IN REGARD TO THE RE-NOTIFICATION OF PLANS - THEIR ORIGINAL
OBJECTION IS NOTED.
6.
MEETING ON THE 05 MARCH 2014 WHERE IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
7.
8.
THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
LOCALITY PLAN
Shaded area is subject site.
Page 68
20 MARCH 2014
Report
Introduction
Additional supporting documentation referred to in this assessment:The proposal was supported with shadow diagrams produced by the architect / owner and with a
survey prepared by Stutchbury Jacques Pty Ltd dated 19.12.06. The assessment was supported
with photographs and the assessing officer undertook a detailed site inspection evidencing that the
survey was akin to what is in situ at the property.
Plans were amended twice further to discussions with the assessing officer due to concerns about
size and scale and view impacts and visual impact to the streetscape. The amended plans were
received on 25.06.13 & 22/08/13.
Further to this, the assessing officer prepared her assessment report and it was considered on
03.10.13 with DAU resolving as follows:
‘Resolved: Deferred for applicant to provide the following:
(i)
Stormwater Management Plans
(ii)
Elevation Shadow Diagrams (including equinox for adjoining rear yard)
(iii)
Landscape Plans, including provision of native trees on site as per DCP
(iv)
Sections through each storage area
and following receipt of the above, the application is to be re-notified (re-notification fee
required).’
The applicant submitted further amended plans on 23.10.13 which were re-notified on 20.11.13.
One (1) submission was received in regard to the amended plans and updated information.
The applicant also submitted the following on the following dates:

Stormwater Management Plan – 23 October 2013;

Elevational shadow diagrams – 23 October 2013 (no labels);

Landscape Plan – 23 October 2013;

Sectional plans through storage areas – 23 October 2013 – Sections EE & FF.
Further amended plans were received on 10 December 2013 (two floor plans and side elevations)
and these are included as recommended for approval subject to conditions.
The subject property is commonly known as 27 Fairlight Street, Fairlight and legally known as Lot
12, Section B in DP3742. The site is located on the southern side of the street. The property is
rectangular in shape and has a frontage of 15.24m to the street and a depth of 40.235m and an
overall site area of 613.2m2. The property currently contains a three (3) storey dwelling with a
pitched roof and a mix of varying period features. The property includes vehicular access via an
existing driveway from the street to an existing single garage to the front of the existing dwelling.
The property slopes from front to rear (7m fall) and includes a crossfall of approximately 1.5m.
The surrounding area includes single dwellings, multi unit developments and residential flat
buildings and a number of heritage listed properties to the east of the subject property.
The area is characterised by multi dwelling developments and single dwellings in landscaped
settings and residential flat buildings across the street to its northern side. The character is mixed;
however, this development is in the vicinity of a large cluster of heritage listed dwellings that
characterise the local streetscape.
Council’s GIS system indicates that the property is crossed by two (2) sewer lines, one across the
top section of the property from east to west and one across the lower area (garden). There are no
other easements recorded on Council’s system.
Page 69
20 MARCH 2014
The proposal includes the demolition of the existing three storey dwelling and erection of a three
storey multi unit development including two apartments (2) (apartment 1 is the larger of the two)
including the following elements:
Basement level (R.L.42.35)Apartment 1 includes access to rainwater storage tank area and large storage area, laundry and
bathroom.
Apartment 2 includes access to rainwater storage tank area and large storage area, Bedrooms A1 to A-3 including ensuite wardrobe and bathroom to A-1. This level also includes linen cupboards
and a bathroom and laundry and access to a rear deck accessing the garden.
Ground floor level (R.L.45.65)Apartment 1 includes bedrooms B-2 and B-3 both having ensuite bathrooms and B-3 including
walk-in-wardrobe, bathroom and home office/study and accessing rear deck and front courtyard
area and carport with bin storage.
Apartment 2 includes open plan kitchen/dining/lounge area accessing outdoor front courtyard and
carport with bin storage and main secured access from street. This level also includes a rear deck
area and toilet.
First floor level (R.L.48.95)Apartment 1 includes an open plan dining/kitchen/lounge area accessing rear deck and front
deck.
The applicant provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by prepared by Jim Buda
Architects dated 10.10.13 received by Council on 06.03.13.
The assessing officer met with the architect/applicant on a number of occasions to discuss
revisions of the plans as proposed.
The application was referred to the Fairlight Precinct Community Forum for comments on 12 March
2013 and comments were received from their April 2013 meeting and were as follows:
 ‘FSR 0.6:1 allowed proposed 0.67:1 this is non-complying
 No set back from the street the site is very steep and it is not evident that the building is 3
stories height and none for the side of the property
 Soft space complies
 Height of the building is lower by 3 meters which is below the existing roofline
 Terraces have privacy screens
 No setback for the entry
Comment: although the development includes good quality architecture and the property will
appear lower and less intrusive from the street this Precinct cannot recommend this for approval
due to excessive height from the ground level and is over the FSR.’
During assessment of plans:
The planner notes the non-compliances with local controls and also notes that the proposed ridge
height is below the existing ridge height. The planner also notes that the Forum have objected to
the proposal.
Page 70
20 MARCH 2014
DAU consideration:
The application was considered by DAU on 03.10.13 and additional information was requested
with any determination deferred. The amended information including landscape plan and
stormwater plan was not referred to the Precinct due to the scheme being very similar to that which
had previously been considered (same footprint and general building envelope).
Engineering & Traffic & Driveway Comments
Council’s Engineers originally raised no objections to the proposal subject to the plans being
amended to include one driveway (as consolidated for both carports - shared). A stormwater plan
was requested and received and considered by Councils Engineers who raised no objection
subject to the inclusion of conditions as recommended.
The assessing planner has not required the consolidation of driveways because this will result in a
poor planning outcome for the streetscape and a poor architectural rhythm to the development
itself which has been modified several times to improve the planning outcome for the street and
residents. The resulting design does not meet parking requirements, however, this is considered
reasonable in the context of the proximity of public transport links such as the ferry wharf and local
bus routes.
Please refer to Clause 4.1.6.1(c) of MDCP 2013 which allows for the variation to the requirement
for two (2) parking spaces where the outcome would be detrimental to the streetscape. The
assessing officer believes this to be pertinent to this application and requests that DAU consider
this matter.
Building Comments
Councils building team raised no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of
Landscape Architects Comments
Council’s landscape architect raised no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of
recommended conditions of consent and request for landscape plan which is included as a
condition of the deferred commencement approval as recommended.
Further to receipt of the landscape plan the team requested that any landscape plan comply with
the requirements of Section 2.1.3 of MDCP 2013. The assessing officer has recommended a
condition of consent to this effect.
Waste Comments
Council’s waste team raised no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of
Planning Comments
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 – Section 79C(a)(i)
application:
(i)
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land
Clause 7(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land is relevant to
the assessment of this Development Application.
Clause 7(1) requires that consent not be granted until Council has considered whether the land is
contaminated. If the land is contaminated, the Council needs to be 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.
Page 71
20 MARCH 2014
In this instance, the excavation proposed is already partially undertaken as the existing dwelling
includes a partial sub-floor level and the footprint of the proposed building is similar to the existing.
As the site has been used only for residential purposes, it is unlikely that if any contaminants exist
that would render the site unsuitable for the proposed development.
A copy of the required completed BASIX certificate accepted as part of this Development Consent
with respect to the proposed residential building works must be lodged with an application for a
construction certificate and the items nominated as part of the subject BASIX certificate must be
specified on the plans submitted with the construction certificate application.
Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988:
The site is in zone No 2 – The Residential Zone which permits dwelling houses with the consent of
Council. The proposed multi unit development (two dwellings) is permissible with consent from
Council.
Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 Clause 10 Objectives
The following comments are made in regard to the objectives for the Residential Zone as stated in
Clause 10 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988;
(a)
to set aside land to be used for purposes of housing and associated facilities;
The land is residential and no change is proposed to this use.
(b)
to delineate, by means of development control in the supporting material, the nature and
intended future of the residential areas within the Municipality;
The proposed works are located within the Residential Zone and considered under the
Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone in this report which concludes that the
objectives of that document are met subject to the imposition of conditions (including deferred
commencement) as recommended.
(c)
to allow a variety of housing types while maintaining the existing character of residential
areas throughout the Manly Council area;
The proposed alterations and additions are considered to be consistent with the surrounding
character of the area and as such are supportable subject to the imposition of conditions (including
deferred commencement) as recommended.
(d)
to ensure that building form, including alterations and additions, does not degrade the
amenity of surrounding residents or the existing quality of the environment;
The proposed alterations and additions would not reduce the amenity of the surrounding area and
have a negative impact upon neighbouring residents as the works are reasonable in size and scale
and considered to be sympathetic to the streetscape subject to the imposition of conditions
(including deferred commencement) as recommended. The proposal has been modified to include
carports and landscaping to the front setback to step the development back from the streetfront
thereby achieving higher consistency with surrounding dwellings and reducing the impact of the
massing of the building.
(e)
to improve the quality of the residential areas by encouraging landscaping and permitting
greater flexibility of design in both new development and renovations;
The proposal has included changes to reduce the visual impact of the works to the street and
conditions as recommended reduce the overall size and scale of the proposal.
(f)
to allow development for purposes other than housing within the zone only if it is compatible
with the character and amenity of the locality;
The above objective is not applicable to this assessment.
Page 72
20 MARCH 2014
(g)
to ensure full and efficient use of existing social and physical infrastructure and the future
provisions of service and facilities to meet any increased demand;
The proposal will have an additional impact upon surrounding social and physical infrastructure
and will not increase demand for such services and facilities and accordingly a S94 contribution
charge has been calculated and required by condition as per local policy.
(h)
to encourage the revitalisation of residential areas by rehabilitation and suitable
redevelopment.
The proposed development is considered to be reasonable in the context of this part of the
streetscape which is mixed in character. The proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions
(including deferred commencement) as recommended is considered to comprise suitable
development and is supported.
(i)
to encourage the provision and retention of tourist accommodation that enhances the role
of Manly as an international tourist destination, and particularly in relation to the land to which
Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 (Amendment No 57) applies.
The above objective is not relevant to this assessment as the subject site is not within the Tourist
Area.
Clause 33 – Development on land identified on Acid Sulphate Soils Planning Map
The subject site is located on Class 5 land as identified on the Acid Sulphate Soils Planning Map
within the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988. The subject site is not located within 500m from
Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 lands which is likely to lower the watertable below 1 metre in Class 1, 2, 3 or 4
lands (due to the existing level of excavation). Accordingly, the proposed works are not likely to
impact upon Acid Sulphate Soils as thus considered satisfactory.
The draft Manly LEP 2011 was published on the NSW Legislation website as “Manly LEP 2013” on
5 April 2013 and became operational from the 19th April 2013. Clause 1.8A – Savings provision
relating to development applications of the Manly LEP 2013 states as follows: “If a development
application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this
Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the
application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.”
Notwithstanding the above, an assessment of the subject application has been carried out as per
the provisions of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 as follows:
Manly LEP 2013
Under the Manly LEP 2013, the site is: Zone R1 Residential. The proposal is permissible with the
consent as it is a dual occupancy.
‘dual occupancy (attached) means 2 dwellings on one lot of land that are attached to each other,
but does not include a secondary dwelling.
Note. Dual occupancies (attached) are a type of dual occupancy—see the definition of that term
in this Dictionary.’
The provisions of the Manly LEP 2013 have been referred to as part of the assessment and the
following comments are made in relation to particular principal development standards:
Page 73
20 MARCH 2014
Standards
Minimum subdivision lot
250m2
size
Proposed
4.3
Height of buildings
8.5m
4.4
Floor Space Ratio
0.6:1
(367.8m2)
11.1m to No
solar panel
ridge
0.7:1
No
(433.66m2)
4.
4.1
306.6m2
Complies
Yes/No
Yes
Comments
Proposal
complies with
the clause.
Refer to Clause
4.6 / Planning
comments
Refer to Clause
4.6 / Planning
comments
4.6 Exceptions to development standards
Council/Consent Authority may consider a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify
contravention of a development standard, where that contravention would achieve a better
outcome.
The application is supported with documentation including (plans, Statement of Environmental
Effect, photos, survey). The submitted information is considered to justify the proposed variation.
The proposal has been considered and additional information is required. It has been considered
reasonable, in this case, to request the additional information as part of a deferred commencement
approval which has been recommended.
Further to re-notification of plans received on October 23rd 2013: It is noted that the height variation
and FSR exceeds the 10% trigger for consideration by the MIAP and has one (1) objection.
It is also noted that:
The proposed variation to the building height Development Standard is 30.5%
The proposed variation to the FSR Development Standard is 17.9%
In terms of the height variation, it is noted that the proposed maximum ridge height is 1.36m lower
than the existing ridge height and in almost the same location (300mm further to the rear).
Therefore views from behind and above this property will be improved and this is considered to be
a good planning outcome for neighbours.
It should be noted that the application was submitted prior to the implementation of the new MLEP
2013 and therefore the issue of Clause 4.6 variation is not applicable. The application does not
contravene any development standards contained in MLEP 1988.
following comments are made in relation to particular miscellaneous provisions:
5.
5.9
vegetation
Applies
Yes
Complies
Yes
Comments
Complies by condition and
landscape plan
following comments are made in relation to particular local provisions:
6.
6.1
6.2
Local Provisions
Acid Sulphate Soils
Earthworks
Applies
Yes
Yes
Complies
Yes
Yes
Comments
due to existing level of excavation
and house footprint
Page 74
20 MARCH 2014
6.4
Yes
Yes
6.9
Foreshore Scenic Protection
Area
Yes
Yes
Complies by condition as per
Engineers Proposal complies with the clause 79C(1)(a)(iii) - any development control plan, and
Manly Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2007 Amendment 2:
The following is an assessment of the proposal’s compliance with the numerical standards of the
Development Control Plan. Where a variation is proposed to the standards, an assessment is
Site Area:
613.2m²
Permitted/
Required
Proposed
Complies
Yes/No
1 unit per 250m2
2 units per 613.2m2
Yes
Floor space ratio
0.6:1 (367.8m2)
0.7:1 (433.66m2)
Wall height E side
7.7m
9.7m
8m
10.5m
Number of storeys
2
3
Roof height
3m
1.5m
6.0m or streetscape
Streetscape
Yes
8.0m
>8m
Yes
E setback side
1/f – 2.13m – 3.23m
g/f - 1.5m – 2.5m
b/f – 0m - 1.23m
1/f – 3m
g/f – 1.1m
b/f – 1.1m
No
partial
W setback side
1/f – 2.16m - 3.5m
g/f – 1.13m - 2.8m
b/f – 0m - 1.56m
Max. 35% of side
boundary
lengths
(14m each side);
1/f – 1.1m-2.3m
g/f – 0m – 1.1m
b/f – 0m – 1.1m
5.8m (E), 6.1m (W);
3m or less in height.
Max. 2.9m.
Density - Sub Zone 3
W side
Setback Front
Setback Rear
Wall on boundary
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Open space
- total
55% (337.26m²)
52% (317.875m²)
Open space
- soft
Open space
- above ground
35% of total open
space (214.62m²)
<40% of total open
space (245.28m²)
65% of total open Yes
space (218.695m²)
19% of total open Yes
space (65.28m²)
-
No - minor
Page 75
20 MARCH 2014
Site Area:
613.2m²
Proposed
Number of Endemic Trees
Permitted/
Required
3
3
Complies
Yes/No
Yes-see
landscape
plan.
Private Open Space
12m² per unit
>12m² per unit
Yes
Car Parking – Residents
3 spaces
2 spaces
No
1 spaces
0 spaces
No
Not eliminate more
than 1/3 existing
solar access at 9am,
12pm, 3pm.
2hrs to glazed doors,
windows to adjoining
property.
10m2 of nth facing
roof capable of
including solar water
heating panels.
Improvement to first
floor rear deck at 9am;
Additional impact to
rear garden to No.15
Woods Parade.
Yes
- Visitors
Shadow - adjacent open space
- adjoining EW orientation
- exist north facing roofs
Meets the control.
Meets the control.
Comments:
FSR
The proposal includes a variation to the permitted level of gross floor area. While the proposal
exceeds the local control, the scale of the development has been considered in the context of
surrounding development and the scale of the existing building in situ and found to be a
reasonable replacement with a ridge height that is less than that of the existing building. The
assessing officer has received amendments to the plans and discussed these with the applicant
that effectively improve privacy levels and the impact of the bulk of the building. Accordingly the
proposal is supported subject to the imposition of conditions as recommended.
Wall height
The wall height included breaches the maximum allowable control. However, the proposal also
includes an overall reduction in the maximum ridge height by 1.3m and the amended roof form
assists residents behind and above the subject property by increasing view opportunities. The
existing dwelling also includes wall heights that would breach current controls and therefore in
terms of the impacts of any bulk, the resulting situation will be similar to the existing building as the
massing of the building has been maintained in almost the same location with some protrusion to
the rear.
The proposed wall heights as considered in the context of surrounding development and in relation
to impacts to neigbouring properties are considered to be reasonable. The plans have also been
amended to include the removal of a section of side wall at ground floor level and relocating it 2.3m
from the boundary effectively increasing articulation to the southern and western sides of the
building and reducing overall wall heights. It is considered that the exceedance of wall heights
remaining will not cause excessive visual bulk and also will not be unreasonable in this context.
Page 76
20 MARCH 2014
Number of storeys
The proposal includes three (3) storeys and exceeds the local control. This exceedance is
consistent with surrounding development and results in a building that presents as two (2) storeys
to the street and three (3) to the rear. This built form is consistent with development in the area
and is considered to be acceptable.
Side setback
The proposed side setbacks are consistent with the existing setbacks to the existing dwelling and
the works proposed include an overall reduction in maximum ridge height. In terms of the level of
compliance included, the basement floor level and first floor levels to the eastern side include a
reasonable level of compliance. The variation proposed to the western side wall are greater,
however, the setback referenced in this design is an existing one and therefore the setback
maintains existing levels of privacy and building separation which is considered to be reasonable in
this case and assists to consolidate the massing of the building to the front section of the property
thereby reducing potential localized environmental impacts. The side setback has been increased
to the south western corner which has been ‘cut out’ of the design to allow for views across the
building and will improve the articulation to that side of the building.
Open Space
The total open space does not meet the requirement in technical terms due to the dimensions of
the terraces / balconies included (not 3m x 3m). Were such areas to be included, the proposal
would meet the requirements and this highlights the quality of the proposal which includes more
than adequate open space and a large garden area to the rear.
Car Parking
The proposed level of car parking has been considered during assessment and includes a
variation of 0.9 of a space (rounded up to one (1) space). The outcome for the streetscape due to
the minimisation of the structures i.e. two carports, courtyard and planter with a lightweight roof to
carport (in style only) will be better than it would have been with a larger garaged area or the entire
front setback dominated by parking. The resulting design does not meet parking requirements,
however, this is considered reasonable in the context of the proximity of public transport links such
as the ferry wharf and local bus routes. The assessing officer notes Clause 4.1.6.1(c) of MDCP
2013 and considers that it applies in this case.
Issues
Applicable
Views

Privacy

Not Applicable

Heritage – Actual Property
Heritage – In Vicinity

Aboriginal Heritage


Threatened Species

Excavation

Landslip and Subsidence

Page 77
20 MARCH 2014

Bushfire
BASIX

Comments:
Views
View sharing is considered in regard to side window to main living area at level 3 of 29 Fairlight
Street as follows:
Step 1- The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more
highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head)
are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial
views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable
than one in which it is obscured.
Comment
The view is of water and land water interface and highly valued under this test. The view is an
oblique view towards the south east. The extract below from as submission received shows the
existing views through the rear doors, from the terrace and through the side window.
Step 2- The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For
example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of
views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or
sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing
views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.
Page 78
20 MARCH 2014
Comment
The view being considered is across a side boundary and an oblique view that would be obscured
by the development as proposed.
Step 3- The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of
the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more
significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued
because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in
many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20%
if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss
qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.
Comment
The views retained from the rear stepped terrace areas are spectacular and extensive water and
land water interface views. However, the view impact to the side living room window as raised
within the ‘Blackwood submission’ has been considered and found to be unreasonable in the
context of the local requirements. The impact upon that window would be moderate.
Step 4- The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact.
A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than
one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one
or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a
complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the
applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of
neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development
would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.
Comment
The original design included a section of side wall and privacy screening that would obscure the
view from the side window breaches the wall height control. As such, the plans were amended by
the applicant who deleted this corner section of side wall effectively opening the corner and
allowing for oblique views through the development to be retained.
In terms of views over the property from behind and above it (towards the north), these will be
improved due to the reduction in overall ridge height proposed.
Page 79
20 MARCH 2014
In summary, the proposal will have minor view impacts to the closest affected property being No.
29 which retains views across rear and side boundaries and the proposal is considered to meet the
four step test detailed above.
Privacy
Privacy screening has been included and highlight and recessed windows have also been included
to protect the privacy of neighbours and residents and the proposal is not considered
unreasonable. In particular, the proposal is not considered to be unreasonable in the context of
the property at No. 29 which includes large tiered rear decks that overlook the subject property.
The subject property is located in the vicinity of 25 Fairlight Street and others in a large cluster of
heritage items to the East of the subject property. The proposal does not include any architectural
referencing to the heritage items and is an entirely new and modern building.
Aboriginal Heritage
The subject property is located on land identified as having ‘Low potential’ for aboriginal heritage.
The proposal will have no visual impact upon the foreshore area and subject to the imposition of
conditions as recommended will not include an unreasonable level of bulk.
BASIX
The proposal was submitted with the relevant BASIX certification and must comply with its
requirement as required by the relevant legislation.
No such agreement proposed.
79C(1)(a) (iv)- the regulation
Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires Consent
Authority to consider AS 2601 - 1991: The Demolition of Structures. Accordingly, appropriate
conditions of consent are recommended for imposition should this application be considered
worthy of approval.
79C(1)(a) (v)- any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal
Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates
There is no such plan that requires consideration.
79C(1) (b)- the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both
the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality
The impacts from this proposal have been considered throughout this report and included negative
privacy, bulk and amenity impacts. These have been considered and where practicable the
localised environmental impacts have been reduced through the drafting of a set of recommended
conditions that reduce impacts upon views, privacy and increase the articulation of the building.
The conditions will also effectively reduce gross floor area and increase open space provided to
the development.
There are no burdens or constraints that would preclude the development as proposed as
considered via Council’s GIS system.
Page 80
20 MARCH 2014
FIRST NOTIFICATION
Notification Policy with eight (8) submissions {including one (1) confidential} received from the
following raising the following concerns;
1.
A & L Moore, 2 Clifford Avenue, Fairlight.
 Water dispersal concerns – runoff;
 No landscape plan;
 Refer to large fenced area?;
 What parking proposed and impact for them?;
 Stability of soil in regard to their property located below No.27 to rear;
 Foliage/trees proposed?
 A deferred commencement condition requires a stormwater plan as previously requested;
 A deferred commencement condition requires a landscape plan as previously requested;
 Current plans (as amended) show no large fenced area;
 The current plans include two carports to the front setback that will have no impact on the
property at 2 Clifford Avenue;
 The assessing officer has discussed landscaping works and advised that any plan
submitted should not seek to change levels or the stability of land to the rear of the subject
property. He has agreed in principle to this and to complying with the local requirement for
endemic trees;

The landscape plan will be submitted further to consideration of this application and
there may be an opportunity to make comment at that stage.
2.
CG & IB Koutsos, 2/29 Fairlight Street, Fairlight
 Impact upon solar access and stormwater runoff;
Further submission prepared by Blackwood Architects dated 27.03.13:
 Loss of privacy (Unit 1 master bedroom Level 4 & rear terraces to levels 3 & 4);
 Loss of views (Unit 1 side window level 3, eastern views to level 4);
 Loss of natural light/solar access (reduce solar access to living room window level 3 &
lower level unit 2 entrance);
 Stormwater impacts.
 The assessing officer has discussed the issue of privacy with the applicant and drafted
a detailed deferred commencement condition to reduce the length of the first floor rear
deck area and include solid privacy screening to its western side and push the side
wall to the western ground floor deck area into the building and ‘open up’ the SW
corner of the development at ground floor level thereby allowing for oblique views
through the development for the living room window at level 3 to be retained and
increased privacy for that room and rear terrace. The terrace at first floor level is also
to be reduced in size and a more effective privacy screen included as agreed with the
applicant;
 In terms of the view issue raised, the rear terraces will maintain spectacular views
towards the south east and south including water and land water interface. The
impact upon the living room window has been considered and found to be
unreasonable due to the non-compliant wall height causing it despite this being a view
across a side boundary (not as easy to protect under the relevant planning principle).
Accordingly the design is recommended to be changed as stated previously and the
oblique views through the NW corner of the proposed building will be achieved
through the elective removal of that section of the building;
 The impacts upon solar / daylight access will be reduced through the imposition o
conditions as recommended and a reasonable level of access achieved;
Page 81
20 MARCH 2014
 The deferred commencement conditions include the requirement for a stormwater
management plan to be submitted.
3.
Strata Real Estate Services, Strata Plan 71349- 29 Fairlight Street
 Endorsement of the Blackwood submission as commissioned by them.
 Please refer to previous comments on the Blackwood report.
4.
J & R Avakian, 1/29 Fairlight Street
 Impacts upon privacy, sunlight and views – please refer to Blackwood report as endorsed
by this submission.
 Comment on submissions:
 Please refer to earlier detailed comments in response to the Blackwood submission
that relate to privacy, solar access and views.
5.
J. Dent, 19 Woods Parade
 Request to ensure that their property is not damaged during construction and that the
retaining wall between the two properties is not damaged and remains an effective
structure.
 The works proposed currently do not include any works that would affect the retaining
wall and conditions as recommended require that standard construction site
management techniques are employed to protect structures that are not part of this
consent. Please contact the Certifier (contact details should be on signage to
construction fencing) during works if you are concerned that the consent is being
breached or call us and leave a message for the matter to be investigated by Council’s
compliance team.
6.
G. Gandy, PO Box 430-no address supplied
 Concern from No.44 Fairlight Street that the double garages proposed will increase noise
and light pollution from car headlights beaming into their property;
 Refers to S94 policy and notes that monetary contribution is required;
 Excessive FSR;
 Roof should be lowered if needed to ensure views are shared (policy);
 The finish of the building is out of character with the area and would like to see the
existing building retained due to its character and age;
 Please ensure that the removal if hazardous materials during construction is undertaken
properly.
 The proposal now includes two single carports to reduce the impact upon the
streetscape. The issue car headlights is not considered to be an issue that would
preclude the development as proposed as there are many driveway / garage
entrances at street level in this area and the proposal is consistent with them in terms
of access.
 A condition requiring a S94 Contribution of $20,000 has been recommended because
the proposal includes an additional ‘dwelling’;
 The FSR has been reduce by recommended conditions of consent as agreed with the
applicant;
 The ridgeline as proposed is 1.36m below the existing ridge line thereby increasing
view sharing for properties above and behind it;
 The finish of the building is an aesthetic matter that the assessing planner has not
contested because the area has a mixed character and the building is not located
within a heritage conservation area, nor is it a heritage item. However, the assessing
officer has recommended that a photographic record of the period features of this
house be prepared and submitted to the Local Studies centre at Manly Council Library
to preserve historical information about Manly’ streetscapes;
Page 82
20 MARCH 2014

The standard conditions require compliance with the BCA including meeting the many
AS/NZ Standards including the one pertaining to the removal of asbestos. Please
contact the Certifier (contact details should be on signage to construction fencing)
during works if you are concerned that the consent is being breached or call us and
leave a message for the matter to be investigated by Council’s compliance team.
7.
CONFIDENTIAL
 Exceedance of maximum wall height & bulk impacts;
 Impact on views.
 The assessing planner has sought amended plans and reduced the visual bulk of the
work to the streetscape by working with the applicant. The final plans include carports
and landscape works to the front setback which will be a better planning outcome for
neighbouring properties. The wall heights have been reduced through recommended
conditions of consent where they will have an excessive adverse environmental
impact-please see response above to Blackwood Report;
 The views across the ridgeline of this property will be improved by this proposal
because the ridge height is being lowered by 1.36m.
8.
I. Stedman, 4 Clifford Avenue, Fairlight
 Statement that a formal submission in regard to the issues below could not be prepared in
time for close of notification;
 Statement that the objector had meet with Manager, Development assessment in regard
to concerns;
 No stormwater management plans included in support of the application;
 No landscape plans included in support of the application;
 Concern in regard to structural stability of cliff to end of No.27 that could impact their
property;
 Potential for increased water flowing from the property at No.27 due to works;
 Loss of privacy from works at No.27;
 Potential overshadowing and impact on solar access.
 The Manager, Development Assessment met with this objector on 27.03.2013 to
discuss issues initially and this submission was received further to that and refers to
that meeting;
 The assessing officer and the Manager, Development Assessment then met with this
objector to consider their concerns on 03.12.13;
 A landscape Plan and stormwater management plan were requested by DAU who
deferred their consideration of this application until these were submitted;
 Council’s Engineers were contacted by both officers from Council who have been
working with the objectors to resolve any drainage or cliff stability issues that may be
caused by any development at no.27;
 The works at No.27 are located more than the required distance away from the
objectors property (complies with rear setback of 8m and far exceeds it) to achieve a
reasonable level of privacy under relevant planning controls;
 There will not be an overshadowing issue due to size and location of the structures in
question as evidenced in report and on shadow diagrams. The height of the new
building will be less than the existing and will therefore cast shorter shadows towards
the property at No.4 Clifford Avenue given the relative orientation of the properties.
Further to the consideration of the submissions above and amended plans and information as
requested by DAU who deferred their determination of the matter on 03.10.2013. DAU sought
information as follows:
‘Resolved: Deferred for applicant to provide the following:
Page 83
20 MARCH 2014
(i) Stormwater Management Plans;
(ii) Elevation Shadow Diagrams (including equinox for adjoining rear yard);
(iii) Landscape Plans, including provision of native trees on site as per DCP;
(iv) Sections through each storage area and following receipt of the above, the application is to be
re-notified (re-notification fee required).’
SECOND NOTIFICATION
The amended application and documentation was notified to nearby and adjoining property owners
in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy with one (1) submission received from the following
raising the following concerns;
1.
G.Gandy, no address supplied.
 Residents at No. 44 Fairlight Street feel they are losing due to this proposal;
 Concern that car headlights will shine into the property opposite and cause amenity issue
due to light pollution due to increased number of cars parked to front of No. 27;
 Concern about increased noise from the increased number of cars;
 S94 contributions raised as applicable due to increased demand for local services;
 Concern that the FSR exceeds the DCP and that height exceeds the DCP;
 Impact upon solar access to neighbouring properties;
 If height of proposal is not lowered then the objector feels that view sharing has not been
proposed;
 Solar panels interrupt views across property. Request for roof to be flattened further;
 Concern in regard to drainage issues raised;
 Property within FSPA;
 Proposal is out of character with streetscape;
 It does not reference the heritage properties in area and therefore is out of character;
 One of a handful of houses left from this era and feel it would be a shame to lose it;
 Concerns in regard to demolition and removal of any hazardous materials.
 The concern is noted;
 The assessing officer considerers that the likelyhood of this infrequent and intermittent
headlight use will not cause unreasonable impact upon amenity for neighbours and is
consistent with other developments in the locality;
 The noise that would be generated is not considered to be unreasonable in a
residential setting;
 The proposal has been considered and S94 for the additional dwelling proposed has
been included in recommended conditions of consent at the current rate of $20,000;
 The proposed variations have been considered in context and in light of an overall
reduction in height when compared to the existing dwelling in situ;
 The solar access has been considered and found to be reasonable in the context of
the orientation and surrounding development;
 The height has been reduced through the assessment process to enhance views
across the property;
 The inclusion of solar panels is supported by the assessing officer who notes that they
will not exceed the ridge height of the existing dwelling;
 The proponent has submitted a stormwater management plan for the consideration of
Council’s Engineers and standard conditions have been recommended from Council’s
Development Engineers in regard to the management of stormwater;
 The proposal has been considered in the context of the FSPA and found to be
consistent with the relevant objectives;
 The character of the area is considered to be mixed and the proposal not inconsistent
with a mixed character. The dwelling is not heritage listed, nor in close proximity to
other heritage items;
 Standard requirements (conditions) have been recommended in regard to demolition
and the management of resulting hazardous substances including asbestos.
Page 84
20 MARCH 2014
79C(1) (e) the public interest.
The public interest is served through the detailed assessment of this development application
under the relevant local planning controls and legislation and consideration of any submissions
received relating to it by Council, which is considered to have been achieved in this instance.
‘(1) If a consent authority is satisfied that development for which development consent is sought
or both.
(2) A condition referred to in subsection (1) may be imposed only to require a reasonable
Comments: The proposal includes the development of an additional dwelling and accordingly a
condition requiring the payment of the relevant S94 contribution being $20,000 has been
recommended.
CONCLUSION:
and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988 and Draft Manly Local
Environmental Plan 2011 and the Development Control Plan for the Residential Zone 2007
Amendment 2 and is considered favourable subject to the imposition of recommended conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
That Development Application No. DA0044/2013 for demolition of existing structures, construction
of a three (3) storey multi dwelling development including two (2) units, two double garages, front
courtyard and rear decks at 27 Fairlight Street, Fairlight be approved subject to the following
conditions:DA1
Documents relating to consent.
The development, except where modified by the conditions of this consent, is to be carried out
in accordance with the following plans and documentation.
Plans affixed with Council’s stamp relating to Development Consent No.44/2013:
Plan No. / Title
A01 Site Plan
prepared by Jim Buda Architects Pty Ltd
A02 Basement Plan
A03 Ground floor plan
A04 First Floor plan
A05 Roof Plan
A06 North & South elevations
Issue/
Revision & Date
G, 21.10.13
Date Received
by Council
23.10.13
H, 09.12.2013
10.12.13
H, 09.12.2013
10.12.13
G, 21.10.13
23.10.13
G, 21.10.13
23.10.13
G, 21.10.13
23.10.13
Page 85
20 MARCH 2014
A07 East elevation
A08 West elevation
A09 Section AA
A10 Section BB
A11 Section CC
A12 Section DD
A13 Section EE & FF
A21 Landscape Plan
repared by Jim Buda Architects Pty Ltd
H, 09.12.2013
10.12.13
H, 09.12.2013
10.12.13
G, 21.10.13
23.10.13
G, 21.10.13
23.10.13
G, 21.10.13
23.10.13
G, 21.10.13
23.10.13
F, 21.08.13
23.10.13
G, 16.10.13
23.10.13
Documentation affixed with Council’s stamp relating to Development Consent No.44/2013:
 Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Jim Buda Architects dated 10.10.13
received by Council on 06.03.13;
 BASIX Certificate No.473258M dated 28 May 2013.
NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS
ANS01
The materials to be recycled and reused on site further to the demolition of the existing
dwelling are listed below:
 Sandstone blocks;
 Slate tiles;
 Any other stone as required for re-development;
 Letter boxes (can be sold & not reused on site).
Reason: To reduce waste and improve sustainability of development
ANS02
A photographic record of the dwelling and its historical details is to be supplied to the
Manly Council Library Local Studies Centre to retain architectural information on the Manly
area. The photographs should include details of each face of the dwelling and any relevant
feature from the rear garden area.
Reason: To preserve historic details of the Manly area and its architectural heritage
ANS03
The party wall shown on plans that divides the two apartments (dwellings) is subject to the
creation of an easement relating to the owners to either side by way of either:
 a dealing (by means of cross-easements for support or an application under s.48
Real Property Act 1900), or
 a deposited plan (pursuant to either s.88BB or s.181B Conveyancing Act 1919).
The application for the relevant legal instrument must be lodged with the processing
authority e.g. NSW Government Land and Property Information Services (Division of the
Department of Finance and Services) prior to the occupation of the dwellings.
Reason: To protect the owners and provide for certainty
Page 86
20 MARCH 2014
ANS04
Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of any construction certificate to include: The eastern and western ends of the ‘ground’ floor level rear decks are to include
full length vertical louvers fixed at a 45 degree angle that would effectively protect
the privacy of the occupants and allow for views through and light penetration for
the deck areas;
 The planter box proposed to the southwesternmost corner of the building at ground
floor level is to be deleted with the corner cut-out section retained in the design.
Reason: To protect the privacy of residents and allow for views through the development
ANS05
The Landscape plan is to be reproduced by a qualified landscape architect (signed, dated)
for approval as part of any construction certificate and meet all relevant requirements of
MDCP 2007 Amendment 2 including compliance with tree requirements.
Reason: To meet requirements of MDCP 2007 Amendment 2.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
CERTIFICATE
1 (2AP01)
2 (2CD01)
Trust Fund Deposit of $14,400 The Deposit is required as security against damage to Council
Council’s property damaged during the course of this development.
All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of
Australia.
Note:
will be used to resolve any dispute over damage to infrastructure. It is in the applicant’s
3 (2CD05)
4 (2DS01)
Page 87
20 MARCH 2014
5 (2DS02)
A system of Onsite Stormwater Detention (OSD) or Onsite Stormwater Retention (OSR) is to be
provided within the property in accordance with Council's Specification for On-site Stormwater
Management 2003. The design and details must be submitted to Council and be approved by
Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The stormwater management plan and
designs must be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer with experience in hydrology and
hydraulics.
generated by the development, and to ensure public infrastructure in Council’s care and control is
not overloaded.
6 (2DS07)
The design of rainwater tanks must be in accordance with the following:
 Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500:2003,
 NSW Code of Practice Plumbing and Drainage, 2006 produced by Committee on
Uniformity of Plumbing and Drainage Regulations in NSW (CUPDR).
 Council's rainwater tank policy.
7 (2FP02)
Detailed drawings and specifications of all works (including but not limited to structures, road
works, driveway crossings, footpaths and stormwater drainage) within existing roads, must be
submitted to and approved by Council under the Roads Act 1993, before the issue of any
Construction Certificate. Specific works include:
1) Full width vehicular crossings having a maximum width, at the back of layback, of 3m, and
in accordance with the current policy of Council and Specifications for the construction of
vehicle crossings; and
2) Longitudinal sections for both sides of the vehicular crossing and driveway commencing at
the centre line of the road carriageway must be provided for assessment. Gradients and
transitions must be in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 – 2004, Part 1 –
Off-Street Car Parking. The driveway profile submitted to Council must be to scale at 1:25
(for template checking purposes) and contain all relevant details: reduced levels, proposed
grades and distances.
Driveway to be designed to provide for existing or future footpaths across driveway, in accordance
with Council’s Specification for Civil Infrastructure Works, Developments & Subdivisions 2003 and
Australian Standard AS 1428.1:2001 - Design for access and mobility.
Reason: To facilitate suitable vehicular access to private sites.
8 (2FR01)
A Fire Safety Schedule specifying the fire safety measures (both current and proposed) which
should be implemented in the building premises must be submitted with the Construction Certificate
application, in accordance with Part 9 Clause 168 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulation 2000.
Note: A Construction Certificate cannot be issued until a Fire Safety Schedule is received.
Reason: Compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
9 (2MS01)
Page 88
20 MARCH 2014
development sites.
10 (2PT01)
The driveway/access ramp grades, access and car parking facilities must comply with the
Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking.
Reason: To ensure compliance with Australian Standards relating to manoeuvring, access and
parking of vehicles.
11 (2US01)
A Section 94 contribution is to be paid for the provision of or increase the demand for public
amenities and public services as a consequence of the development in the area. The total
contribution for this development of an additional dwelling is $20,000, being $20,000.00 per
additional dwelling. This contribution shall be paid to Council prior to the release of the
Note: The Section 94 Contribution fees are indexed annually in accordance with movements in the
Consumer Price Index (All Groups Index) for Sydney issued by the Australian Statistician.
Reason: To enable the provision of public amenities and services required/anticipated as a
consequence of increased demand resulting from the development.
12 (2WM01)
Details of waste management facilities are to be submitted with the application for a Construction
Certificate in accordance with the Manly Development Control Plan 2013.
Reason: To ensure appropriate management of waste.
13 (2WM02)
management.
Page 89
20 MARCH 2014
14 (3BM01)
The floor surfaces of bathrooms, shower rooms, laundries and WC compartments are to be of an
approved impervious material properly graded and drained and waterproofed in accordance with
Australian Standard AS 3740. Certification is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority
from a licensed applicator prior to the fixing of any wall or floor tiles.
Reason: To prevent the penetration of dampness through walls and floors.
15 (3CD01)
been issued.
16 (3CD03)
17 (3FP01)
The applicant must complete an application form and pay applicable fees for an application to
Council for the construction of a Vehicular Crossing, for the design, specification and inspection by
Council. Applications are to be made a minimum of two (2) working days prior to commencement
of proposed works on Council's property.
Reason: To provide suitable vehicular access to private sites, without disruption to pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
18 (3PT01)
19 (4AP02)
20 (4CD01)
site works:
Page 90
20 MARCH 2014
legislation.
recycling.
drainage system.
21 (4CD02)
works.
22 (4CD03)
23 (4CD07)
Page 91
20 MARCH 2014
 The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000,
 The Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001,
 The Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos [NOHSC: 2002 (1998)],
 The Guide to the Control of Asbestos Hazards in Buildings and Structures [NOHSC: 3002
 The Workcover NSW Guidelines for Licensed Asbestos Removal Contractors.
Note:
further advice.
24 (4DS03)
Rainwater tanks must be installed on residential properties by a suitably qualified and licensed
plumber and in accordance with the following:
 Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500:2003,
 NSW Code of Practice Plumbing and Drainage, 2006 produced by Committee on
 Council's rainwater tank policy
25 (4FP01)
The existing footpath level and grade at the street alignment of the property must be maintained.
Reason: To ensure appropriate access and infrastructure protection.
26 (4HT04)
Should any potentially historic relics be discovered on the site during excavation, all excavation or
disturbance to the area is to stop immediately and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage of
NSW should be contacted for advice.
Should any potentially significant Aboriginal material be discovered on the site, all excavation or
disturbance of the area is to stop immediately and the NSW Office of environment and Heritage is
to be contacted for advice.
Reason: To ensure the proper management and preservation of potentially significant
archaeological material.
27 (4MS01)
 Wet area moisture barrier,
 Drainage inspection,
 Final inspection.
The cost of these inspections by Council is $885 (being $295 per inspection inclusive of GST).
Page 92
20 MARCH 2014
28 (4MS04)
development sites.
29 (5DS02)
A copy of the approved Onsite Stormwater Detention (OSD) or Onsite Stormwater Retention (OSR)
drawing showing Works as Executed (WAE) details must be submitted to Council for approval prior
to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. The WAE drawing is to be in accordance with Council's
standards and Specification for Stormwater Drainage 2003 and Specification for On-site
Stormwater Management 2003.
Reason: Compliance with the consent and Council standards and specifications.
30 (5DS03)
A restriction on the use of land and a positive covenant in respect of the installation and
maintenance of onsite detention works is required to be imposed over the area of the site affected
by onsite detention and/or pump system prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate for the
building and prior to the release of the trust fund deposit. The detailed information for a restriction
on the use of land and a positive covenant is shown in Council's Specification for On-site Storm
Water Management 2003.
Reason: To ensure the on-site detention and/or pump system is maintained to an appropriate
operational standard.
31 (5FP01)
All surplus vehicular crossings and/or kerb laybacks must be removed and the kerb and nature strip
reinstated prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To provide on-street parking, suitable vehicular access to private sites, and infrastructure
protection.
32 (5US01)
Any adjustment to a public utility service is to be carried out in compliance with its standards; where
consent is required, with its concurrence; and with the full cost being borne by the applicant. Full
documents of adjustments to any public utility service should be submitted to Council.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the terms of this consent.
DEVELOPMENT
33 (6DS01)
The ongoing use and operation of the rainwater tank(s) must be maintained in accordance with:
• Sydney Water Guidelines for Rainwater Tanks on Residential Properties, 2003.
• Australian Government EnHealth Council publication Guidance on the use of Rainwater
Tanks, 2004.
Page 93
20 MARCH 2014
35 (6MS02)
No person shall use or occupy the building or alteration which is the subject of this approval without
the prior issue of an Occupation Certificate.
Reason: Statutory requirement, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Note: PRIVATE COVENANTS, etc. Irrespective of and notwithstanding the terms of this
development consent, you must make sure that covenants on the title of the property are complied
with in respect of the proposed development. This consent does not derogate from any such
covenants. For more details contact Land and Property Information, NSW Department of Lands www.lands.nsw.gov.au or call 9228 6713 or contact your solicitor or licensed conveyancer.
ATTACHMENTS
AT- Plans for MIAP - DA0044/2013 - 27 Fairlight Street,
Fairlight - MIAP 20/03/14
1
14
Pages
document
Page 94
TO:
REPORT:
MIAP Report No. 15
20 MARCH 2014
SUBJECT: 7 Harvey Street, Seaforth - DA0212/2013
FILE NO:
MC/14/28081
Application Lodged:
Applicant:
Owner:
Estimated Cost:
Zoning:
Heritage:
NSW LEC:
Officer:
18 October 2013
Pamela and Ronald Thomson
Pamela and Ronald Thomson
$1,152,790.00
Manly Local Environmental Plan, 2013 – R2 Low Density
Residential
Residential development
Not applicable
Not applicable
Philippa Frecklington
SUMMARY:
1.
DEVELOPMENT CONSENT IS SOUGHT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO (2)
STOREY DWELLING INCLUDING DOUBLE GARAGE WITH STORAGE AREA, REAR
DECKS, FIRST FLOOR BALCONIES, SWIMMING POOL AND SPA WITHIN THE FRONT
SETBACK, ALFRESCO AREA, NEW DRIVEWAY, NEW CROSSOVER AND
LANDSCAPING.
2.
OWNERS WITH FIVE (5) SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED.
3.
THE APPLICATION WAS NOT REFERRED TO THE SEAFORTH PRECINCT COMMUNITY
FORUM FOR COMMENTS AS THE PRECINCT IS CURRENTLY NOT OPERATIONAL.
4.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 4.6 OF THE MLEP 2013, A VARIATION TO THE BUILDING
HEIGHT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD UNDER CLAUSE 4.3(2) OF THE MLEP 2013 IS
SOUGHT ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE FIRST FLOOR LEVEL WITH A MAXIMUM
VARIATION OF 44.12% PROPOSED AT THE NORTH-EAST CORNER TO THE FIRST
FLOOR MASTER SUITE. A VARIATION OF 9.42% IS ALSO SOUGHT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER TO THE GROUND FLOOR RUMPUS ROOM.
5.
6.
SITE INSPECTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT ON 24 DECEMBER 2013, 3 MARCH 2014 AND
4 MARCH 2014. PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ON FILE.
7.
HEIGHT POLES WERE ERECTED ON 3 MARCH 2014. CERTIFICATION BY ADAM
CLERKE SURVEYORS PTY LTD DATED 3 MARCH 2014 AND RECEIVED BY COUNCIL
ON 4 MARCH 2013 IS INCLUDED ON FILE.
8.
Locality Map
Page 95
20 MARCH 2014
Report
The subject site is legally described as Lot A within Deposited Plan (DP) No. 156960 and is also
known as 7 Harvey Street, Seaforth. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with an area of
869.5m². The site has a wide frontage of 35.68m to Harvey Street to the north, corresponding
boundary length to the south at the rear, and respective side boundary length of 24.385m to the
east and west. The land is presently vacant except for a steel framed and metal roofed carport at
the front, north-west corner of the site. The site has a cross fall along the front boundary from west
to east and comprises a sandstone shelf traversing the middle of the site from the north-east
corner to the south-west corner. The ground level is irregular and there is a drop off of
approximately 5m at the rear in the south-east corner of the site to a number of rocky outcrops and
scrubby vegetation.
The adjoining property to the east, below the site at No. 5 Harvey Street is developed with a single
storey dwelling house with a pitched tiled roof. The adjoining property to the west at No. 11 Harvey
Street is developed with a two (2) storey dwelling house with a pitched tiled roof. The adjoining
property to the south (battle axe lot) at No. 9 Harvey Street is developed with a two (2) storey
dwelling house with a pitched tiled roof. Development in this section of Harvey Street West
consists of a variety of single storey and mostly two (2) storey dwelling houses and some more
recently constructed modern, three (3) storey dwelling houses on the northern side of Harvey
Street at No. 8 and No. 8A Harvey Street.
Council’s mapping system indicates that there are no Council easements across the property.
The proposal is for the construction of a new two (2) storey dwelling encompassing the following:
Ground Floor Level
 Demolition of the existing carport.
 Construction of a new driveway offset from the western boundary for direct access along
the western side of the site to a new double garage and storage at the western end of the
ground floor of the house.
 Ground floor floor plan (FFL 79.900) includes an entry foyer, coat room, pantry, stair to
access first floor level, combined kitchen/living/dining room opening to a south-facing
deck, central alfresco area, rumpus room, bathroom, covered deck, swimming pool and
spa. A vergola awning is proposed for a cover to the spa and eastern end of the pool.
 Landscaping works including new front fence.
First Floor Level (FFL 83.300)
 Master suite with walk-in-robe, ensuite and private south-facing balcony; guest bedroom,
bedroom 2, bedroom 3, study and play room all opening onto a north facing balcony;
bathroom; internal stair to access the ground floor; living room with south-facing balcony;
hallway and linen cupboard.
The applicant has submitted the following supporting documentation:
 Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Longitude Planning Pty Ltd dated 15
October 2013 and received by Council on 18 October 2013. Clause 4.6 Exception to a
Development Standard of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 is included as
Appendix 1.
 Geotechnical Report prepared by Crozier Geotechnical Consultants dated October 2013
and received by Council on 18 October 2013.
 BASIX Certificate No. 497956S dated 16 October 2013 and received by Council on 18
October 2013.
Page 96
20 MARCH 2014
 Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Bluegum Tree Care and Consultancy
dated October 2013 and received by Council on 18 October 2013.
 Stormwater Design Certificate prepared by Bruce Lewis of Peninsula Consulting
Engineers dated 9 October 2013 and received by Council on 18 October 2013.
 Amended Shadow diagrams prepared by All Australian Architecture being Drawing Nos
DA.27, DA.28 and DA.29 and Sheet 1 all dated 28 February 2014 and received by
Council on 28 February 2014.
 Angle of View Loss prepared by All Australian Architecture being Drawing No. DA.30
dated 3 March 2014 and received by Council on 3 March 2014.
 Height Poles Certification prepared by Adam Clerke Surveyors Pty Ltd dated 3 March
2014 (Ref 6613B) and received by Council on 4 March 2014.
The assessing officer met with the applicant/owner’s on site on 24 December 2013. Site
inspections of the adjoining properties were carried out on 3 March and 4 March 2014. The officer
has been in regular contact with the applicant/owner’s throughout the assessment process.
Internal Referrals
Engineers Comments
Council’s Engineer has provided the following comments:
“1. 2SP01(2) to be applied.
2. A rainwater tank volume 10,000 litres must be installed as per BASIX Report.
3. A Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared and certified by a Chartered
Professional Engineer with NPER number, name, and date of signature.
4. Developer’s Chartered Professional Engineer’s responsibilities as part of the Stormwater
Management Plan to investigate and provide controls if required for any surface runoff
from the street”.
Recommended standard conditions of consent advised.
Note: Points 3 and 4 above are included as part of standard condition 2DS01.
Building Comments
Council’s Building Surveyor has no objections to the proposed development, subject to the
inclusion of recommended standard conditions of consent.
Council’s Landscape Officer has provided the following comments:
“1. All work is to be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Report by Bluegum Tree Care and Consultancy dated October 2013 and details provided
to the Certifying Authority.
2. Trees 1, 2, and 10 must be retained and protected in accordance with AS4970-2009
Protection of Trees on Development Sites to be endorsed by the Project Arborist and
Certification provided to the Certifying Authority”.
Recommended standard conditions of consent advised.
Waste
Council's Waste Officer has no objections to the proposed development, subject to the inclusion of
recommended standard conditions of consent.
Traffic Engineer
Council's Traffic Engineer has no objections to the proposed development, subject to the inclusion
of recommended standard conditions of consent.
Page 97
20 MARCH 2014
Driveway
Council's Driveway Engineer has no objections to the proposed development, subject to the
inclusion of recommended standard conditions of consent.
External Referrals
The application was not referred to the Seaforth Precinct Community Forum for comments as the
Precinct is currently not operational.
Planning Comments
application:
(i)
The subject site is located within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone, which permits dwelling
houses with the consent of Council. The proposed construction of a new two (2) storey dwelling
including double garage with storage area, rear decks, first floor balconies, swimming pool and spa
within the front setback, alfresco area, new driveway, new crossover and landscaping is
permissible within the Zone with Council’s Consent.
Zone R2 Low Density Residential Objectives
Objectives of zone
• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential
environment.
The proposed development is for a single residential dwelling.
•
To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs
of residents.
As above.
4.
4.1
Principal
Development
Standards
Minimum
subdivision lot size
Requirement Proposed
Complies Comments
Yes/No
950m2
No
– In accordance with
8.47%
the Lot Size Map, a
Variation. minimum lot size of
950m² is required for
the subdivision of
land. No subdivision
is proposed. The
existing lot size of
869.5m² is existing
and
therefore
acceptable.
No
variation pursuant to
Clause 4.6 of the
MLEP
2013
is
required
to
be
sought.
869.5m2
Page 98
20 MARCH 2014
4.3(2) Height of buildings
4.4(2) Floor Space Ratio
8.5m
0.4:1
347.8m2
9.4m
(eastern end
of blade wall
to first floor
guest
bedroom
–
refer
East
Elevation
drawing)
12.25m
(north-east
corner to the
first
floor
Master Suite
–
refer
Section AA
drawing).
9.3m (southeast corner
of the ground
floor rumpus)
0.4:1
343.7m2
No
– Refer Clause 4.6
10.59%
assessment
–
variation. Variation
to
the
height development
standard.
No
44.12%
variation.
No
–
9.41%
variation.
Yes
The
proposed
development
is
considered to comply
with the objectives of
the
FSR
development
standard
set
out
under Clause 4.4(1)
of the MLEP 2013.
An application to vary the building height development standard has been made pursuant to the
provisions of Clause 4.6 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2013. This is included as
Appendix 1 within the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE). Pursuant to clause 4.6 of the
MLEP 2013, a variation to the building height development standard under clause 4.3(2) of the
MLEP 2013 is sought along the eastern side of the first floor level with a maximum variation of
44.12% proposed at the north-east corner to the first floor master suite. A variation of 9.42% is also
sought at the south-east corner to the ground floor rumpus room.
The reasons given as to why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and
unnecessary are as follows:
 The building height is due to a drop in natural ground levels by approximately 5.0m and
variation in levels in the south eastern part of the site. This is evidenced on the submitted
Survey Plan.
 The design of the new dwelling has taken into account the irregular ground levels across
the site.
 The height of the building at the eastern end is essentially single storey and the main part
of the house on the level part of the site contains a maximum of two storeys in accordance
with the two (2) storey height restriction under Clause 4.1.2.2(a) of the MDCP 2013
(Amendment 2).
 The proposed development is consistent with the objectives for the building height
development standard under Clause 4.3(1) of the MLEP 2013.
 The non-complying portion of the development will not impact on existing views from
nearby properties or detract from the scenic amenity of the area when viewed from the
nearby Harbour and Foreshores area.
Page 99
20 MARCH 2014
 The overall height, bulk and two storey presentation to Harvey Street is consistent with the
prevailing two (2) and three (3) storey development in the immediate locality.
 The proposal incorporates a combination of flat roofs and skillion roof elements over the
rear half of the house to reduce the actual and perceived bulk of the development and
minimise overshadowing to the properties down slope.
 Compliance with the building height development standard is difficult on a site such as 7
Harvey Street, which is characterised by irregular and varied ground levels and rocky
outcrops. The section of the dwelling, which is non-compliant in height, occurs in the
location of a significant drop off in topography. To account for this, the first floor has been
setback considerable from the eastern boundary.
 The design of the proposed development incorporates a stepped building form at the
eastern end and steel column supporting structure in order to preserve the natural
sandstone features in this part of the site.
 The proposed development will be of a scale and design that compliments the varied
character of the dwelling house development in the locality. It will also maintain the
amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of views, privacy and solar access.
 The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density
Residential Zone.
In relation to the variation sought to the building height development standard at the south-east
corner to the ground floor rumpus room, the applicant is considered to have adequately addressed
the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) of Clause 4.6(4) of the MLEP 2013 , that
is, that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the
circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify
contravening the development standard; and that the proposed development will be in the public
interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the building height development standard
and the objectives for development within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone. Therefore, the
variation of 9.42% to the building height development standard at the south-east corner to the
ground floor rumpus room is considered to be well founded in this instance and is accordingly
supported for approval.
In relation to the variation sought to the building height development standard along the eastern
side of the first floor level, the applicant is not considered to have adequately addressed the
matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6(4)(3) of the MLEP 2013. The variation ranging
from 10.59% at the eastern end of the blade wall to the first floor guest bedroom to 44.12% at the
north-east corner to the first floor Master Suite is not supported for the following reasons:
 The variation is not considered to be consistent with the objectives for the building height
development standard under Clause 4.3(1) of the MLEP 2013 as required by Clause
4.6(4)(a)(ii) of the MLEP 2013.
 The variation is not considered to be in the public interest due to excessive visual bulk and
adverse amenity impacts in terms of views and overshadowing.
In drawing upon the submissions and the relevant planning legislation, the two (2) main issues
concerning the development are its visual bulk and view impacts to No 8 and No. 8a Harvey Street.
It is considered that the most effective and desirable planning outcome is to lower the Ridge RL by
1.5m to RL 86.215 in order to reduce the height variation along the eastern side of the first floor
level and satisfactorily meet the objectives for the building height development standard under
Clause 4.3(1) of the MLEP 2013. This will reduce the maximum variation to 26.47%This outcome
is the preferred option to minimise view loss to the adjoining properties to the north and reduce the
actual and perceived bulk of the development. Only deleting the areas of height non-compliance
would result in loss of views through the remaining portion of the first floor addition and reduce the
aesthetic quality of the development on the streetscape.
Page 100
20 MARCH 2014
Therefore, pursuant to Clause 4.6(4) of the MLEP 2013, the variation to the building height
development standard under Clause 4.3(2) of the MLEP 2013 along the eastern side of the first
floor level with a maximum variation of 26.47% at the north-east corner to the first floor Master
Suite is considered to be well founded in this instance and is accordingly supported for approval.
There are no relevant miscellaneous provisions under Part 5 of the MLEP 2013 to take into
consideration as part of this assessment.
Clause 6.8 – Landslide Risk
The subject site is identified as “Landslide Risk” on the Landslide Risk Map. Accordingly, a
Geotechnical Report has been submitted as part of the application. It is recommended that all
recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report prepared by Crozier Geotechnical
Consultants dated October 2013 and received by Council on 18 October 2013 be fully complied
with in order to minimise the risk of landslip and subsidence on the site. The Report is considered
to satisfactorily address the objectives and matters for consideration set out under Clause 6 of the
MLEP 2013 in relation to Landslide risk.
Clause 6.9 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area
Clause 6.9 of the LEP sets out the considerations for development on land that is identified as
Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA). Clause 6.9 is applicable in this instance. The proposed
development is not considered to detract from the scenic amenity of the FSPA when viewed from
its immediate environs, subject to conditions included within the Recommendation, specifically the
reduction in the Ridge RL by 1.5m.
Clause 6.13 – Design Excellence
The objective of Clause 6.13 of the MLEP 2013 is to ensure the highest standard of architectural
and urban design of buildings is delivered. The proposed development as modified by the
conditions of consent is considered to be contextually appropriate having regard to the built form
characteristics established by adjoining development. The proposed development, subject to
conditions is considered to satisfactorily respond to the matters for consideration prescribed under
Clause 6.13(4) of the MLEP 2013 in relation to design excellence.
Clause 3.1 – Streetscape and Townscapes
Clause 3.1 of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2) sets out the principles for streetscape and
townscape. The new dwelling house will have a deep front setback of 10.6m. The existing
landscaping along the street edge, some of which is within the road reserve is to be retained so as
to maintain a buffer and natural screen between the street and the front setback area.
Page 101
20 MARCH 2014
In order to minimise any adverse impact on the streetscape, the following recommendations are
made:
 the storage space to the north of the swimming pool and spa is to be deleted and replaced
with suitable plantings; and
 the vergola over the eastern end of the swimming pool is to be deleted.
Conditions to the above effect are included within the Recommendation.
Clause 3.4.1 - Sunlight Access and Overshadowing
Shadow diagrams have been prepared for the winter solstice (21 June) and are included as part of
the application. Amended shadow diagrams were submitted to Council on 28 to include
overshadowing impacts to No. 13 Harvey Street at the Owner’s request. Analysis of the shadow
diagrams confirms the following:
 The proposal will involve an increase in overshadowing of the adjoining house to the
south of the site. The extent of the increased overshadowing relates primarily to the
morning and midday shadow and is largely onto the roof of the adjoining house.
 The house at No. 9 Harvey Street is positioned approximately 7.0m below the level part of
the subject site and is already significantly overshadowed by an existing cliff along the
southern side of the subject site.
 At 9am, the proposed development casts shadow over the north-east corner of No. 13
Harvey Street, Seaforth and the entire northern/rear facade of No. 9 Harvey Street.
 At 12 noon, the shadow cast by the proposed development falls on the majority of the
north-facing facade at No. 9 Harvey Street.
 At 3pm, the proposed development casts a shadow on the east facing room adjoining the
tiled patio at the rear of No. 9 Harvey Street.
Pursuant to Clause 3.4.1.2(b) of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2), the proposed development is not
considered to satisfy the requirement to provide at least 4 hours solar access to the windows or
glazed doors of living room of adjacent buildings with a north-south orientation from 9am to 3pm on
21 June. The recommendation to reduce the Ridge RL by 1.5m will improve overshadowing to the
properties below. Furthermore, the reduction in height is considered to satisfactorily respond to the
objectives and performance criteria for sunlight access and overshadowing set out under Clause
3.4.1 of the DCP 2013 (Amendment 2).
Clause 3.4.2 - Privacy and Security
The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives and performance
criteria for privacy and security under Clause 3.4.2 of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2). There is
considered to be sufficient separation between the house and the adjoining dwelling houses. The
new house has an elevated position on the rock shelf at street level relative to the adjoining houses
to the east and south, which are positioned several metres below the rock shelf. Consequently,
there will be no direct overlooking from the windows and narrows balconies at the rear of the
house. On the western side the houses are separated by an existing access handle servicing the
battle-axe allotment at No. 9 Harvey Street and the existing vegetation.
Page 102
20 MARCH 2014
Clause 3.4.3 - Maintenance of Views
Photograph of view from standing position to the south-west from the roof top terrace at No. 8
Harvey Street. Height poles indicate the eastern and western ends of the proposed first floor
addition.
View from standing position to the south-west from the first floor kitchen window at No. 8 Harvey
Street, Seaforth.
Page 103
20 MARCH 2014
Clause 3.4.3(d) of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2) sets out the Land and Environment Court
Planning Principles for View Assessment. The proposed development is assessed having regard
to these principles as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. The subject view is water views of
Middle Harbour and of the land/water interface and escarpment. A district view of
development and vegetation can also be seen.
The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. The
subject view is obtained from the roof top deck at No. 8 Harvey Street, Seaforth to the southwest. Access was not available to No. 8a Harvey Street; however the submission states
potential view loss of views to Middle Harbour to the south-west from the first floor and roof
top deck at No. 8a Harvey Street. Potential view loss is also raised by the Owner of No. 2
Dalwood Avenue, which adjoins No. 8a Harvey Street. For the purpose of this assessment,
the view impacts to No 8 and No. 8a Harvey Street are considered to be fairly comparable.
No. 8 and No. 8a Harvey Street are located in close proximity to one another on the northern
side of Harvey Street and have approximately corresponding floor levels. A district view of
development and vegetation can also be seen from the first floor level kitchen window at No.
8 Harvey Street. It is noted that the more valuable water view is not obtained from first floor
level, but from the roof top terraces at No. 8 and No. 8a Harvey Street. Whilst these areas do
not adjoin a principal living area, they are still deemed to be moderately valuable.
The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. The proposed development will obliterate
all water views within the envelope of the first floor in a south-westerly direction from the roof
top deck at No. 8 Harvey Street and also from those properties to the east of No. 8 Harvey
Street (No. 8a Harvey Street and No. 2 Dalwood Avenue. The proposed development will
also result in a loss of district views from first floor level within the envelope of the proposed
first floor.
The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal. The view loss resulting from
the proposed development is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary for the
following reasons:
 The view loss at the eastern end of the first floor addition is due to a height noncompliance.
 The proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives and
performance criteria set out under 3.4.3 of the MDCP 2013 in relation to the maintenance
of views.
 There is a 700mm void between the two (2) levels that is considered to be excessive.
 The additional height created by the clerestory glazing is considered to be unreasonable
and unnecessary.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Ridge RL be reduced by 1.5m from RL 87.715 to RL
86.215. There is considered to be sufficient scope to reduce the height through minimizing the
height between the floor levels, reducing the floor to ceiling heights and reducing/deleting the
clerestory glazing. The intent of this condition is to preserve views to the neighbouring properties to
the north in accordance with Clause 3.4.3 of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2), reduce visual bulk
and lessen overshadowing impacts. A revised BASIX Certificate will be required in order to
address the changes to the solar access/cross ventilation as a result of amendments/deletion of
the clerestory glazing.
Clause 3.7 – Stormwater Management
In accordance with Clause 3.7 of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2) a Stormwater Design Certificate
prepared by Bruce Lewis of Peninsula Consulting Engineers dated 9 October 2013 and received
by Council on 18 October 2013 confirms that the proposed works comply with SAA Codes and
Standards (AS3500) and Council’s Stormwater Specifications. Council’s Engineer has no
objections to the proposed development, subject to conditions.
Page 104
20 MARCH 2014
Clause 3.8 - Waste Management
In accordance with Clause 3.8 of the MDCP 2014 (Amendment 2), a Waste Management Plan has
been submitted as part of the application, which details environmental management measures in
relation to construction waste and the ongoing management of waste and recycling. Council’s
Waste Officer has no objections to the proposed development, subject to conditions.
Clause
4.1.1.1(a)
4.1.2.1(a)
Site Area:
869.5m²
Permitted/
Required
Residential Density – Area 950m²
D8
Wall height East side
7.6m
West side
4.1.2.2(a)
4.1.2.3(a)
4.1.2.3(c)
Number of Storeys
Roof height
Roof pitch
4.1.4.1
Setback Front
8m
Proposed
Complies
Yes/No
2
869.5m
No
Existing
9.2m (north-east corner No
to ground floor rumpus)
6.6m
(south-east Yes
corner to ground floor
rumpus)
5.2m
(south-east Yes
living room)
8.9m
(south-east No
corner to first floor
master suite)
11.4m
(north-east No
blade wall to guest
bedroom)
11.05m
(clerestory No
glazing above first floor
guest bedroom)
3.05m
(north-west Yes
garage)
3.4m
(south-west Yes
garage)
6.5m
(north-west
blade wall to play room)
7.05m
(south-west
living room)
2
2 maximum
2.5m
1.45m
35º
0° - skillion roofs
10° - Roof above
Clerestory glazing
22° - D.16
6.0m
or
front 10.6m (to wall)
building line of 9.35m (to balcony)
adjoining
properties
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Page 105
20 MARCH 2014
4.1.4.2(a)
East setback side
3.07m (north-east
corner to ground
floor rumpus)
2.2m (south-east
corner to ground
floor rumpus)
1.73m (south-east
corner to ground
floor living room)
2.97m (south-east
master suite)
3.8m
(north-east
blade wall to guest
bedroom)
3.68m (clerestory
glazing above first
floor
guest
bedroom)
1.02m (north-west
corner to ground
floor garage)
1.13m (south-west
corner to ground
floor garage)
2.17m (north-west
blade wall to play
room)
2.35m (south-west
living room)
0.9m (ground-floor
eastern side deck)
8.0m
West setback side
4.1.4.4(a)
4.1.5.1(a)
4.1.5.1(a)
4.1.5.1(c)
(i)
4.1.5.2(c)
4.1.5.3(a)
Schedule
3
4.1.8
4.1.9.1(a)
Setback Rear
3.1m
Yes
3.1m
Yes
13.8m
Yes
13.8m
Yes
9.3m
Yes
13.8m
Yes
2.2m
Yes
2.2m
Yes
2.216m
Yes
2.216m
No
1.25m
Yes
4.0m (garage wall and No
kitchen)
2.79m (deck)
No
Open space - total
60% (521.7m²)
61% (531.4m²)
Yes
Open space - soft
40% (208.68m²)
73% (387.9m²)
Yes
Open space above 25%
maximum m²
Yes
ground
(130.43)m²
Number of Endemic Trees 3
>3
Yes
Private Open Space
18m²
264.2m²
Yes
Car Parking – Residents
2 spaces
2 spaces
Yes
Development on sloping Geotechnical
sites
assessment
required.
Geotechnical
Assessment
submitted.
Swimming pool
0m
height
1m
Yes
Report Condition
requiring
compliance
with
recommend
ations of the
Report.
Yes
Page 106
20 MARCH 2014
4.1.9.2(b)
4.1.10.1
Swimming pool setbacks
water’s edge
Swimming pool setbacks
pool concourse / deck
Swimming
pool
–
percentage of total open
space
Fence height
4.4.5.2.(a)
Excavation
4.1.9.2(b)
4.1.9.3
1.5m
1.3m (north side)
3.65m (east side)
1.0m
1.1m (north side)
3m (east side)
No more than 30% 48m² (9.03%)
(156.51m²)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1m generally. Up 1.0m to 2.4m (1.0m to
to1.5m
if
30% 1.2m above road level.
transparent above
1m.
Generally 1m
Geotechnical
Report
submitted.
Geotechnical
Report required.
No – refer
comments
below.
Yes
–
recommend
ations to be
complied
with.
Comment
Swimming Pool
It is proposed to locate the swimming pool and spa in the front north-east corner of the site.
Pursuant to Clause 4.1.9.2 of the Manly DCP 2013 (Amendment 2):
“(a) swimming pools and spas must not be located within the front setback i.e. between the front
boundary of the lot and the building line. Consideration of any exception to the required
location must demonstrate that any swimming pools and/or spa and their curtilage and/or
concourse:
(i) does not detract from the amenity or character of the neighbourhood; and
(ii) is a minimum distance from the front boundary equivalent to at least twice the height of
the swimming pools and/or spa and their curtilage and/or concourse at any point above
existing ground level.”
The proposed swimming pool is rectangular in shape with a length of 8.0m and a width of 5.5m. It
will be sited 3.2m from the eastern boundary and 1.3m from the front boundary to the street. The
location of the swimming pool and spa within the front setback is supported for the following
reasons:
 The swimming pool does not extend above natural ground level at any point, thereby
satisfying subclause (ii) of Clause 4.1.9.2(a) of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2).
 The swimming pool and spa is not considered to detract from the amenity or character of
the neighbourhood, thereby satisfying subclause (i) of Clause 4.1.9.2(a) of the MDCP
2013 (Amendment 2).
 The location of the swimming pool and spa does not contravene the objectives for
swimming pools and spas set out under Clause 4.1.9 of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2).
 The location of the swimming pool and spa within the front setback is consistent with the
prevailing streetscape character.
Standard condition 2SP04 ensures that the pool filter is centrally located and away from any
boundaries and acoustically treated to ensure the noise from the filter is not audible for the
adjoining residents.
The swimming pool and spa is generally consistent with the setback requirements under Clause
4.1.9.2(b) of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2). It is recommended the setback of the water line from
the northern boundary be at least 1.5m in accordance with Clause 4.1.9.2(b) of the DCP 2013
(Amendment 2). A condition to this effect is included within the Recommendation.
Page 107
20 MARCH 2014
Front Fence
Pursuant to Clause 4.1.10(a) of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2), “freestanding walls and fences
between the front street boundary and the building are to be no more than 1m high above ground
level at any point”. The proposed front fence is to be approximately 1.0m in height for the western
half of the frontage and stepped up to 1.2m in height to 2.4m at the eastern end. The fencing
height has been stepped to take into account the slope of the land from west to east. The height of
the higher section of front fencing varies from 1.0m to 1.2m in height relative to the level of the
road. In this regard it will not be highly visible when viewed from the street due to the way the site
slopes down from the street and the cross fall from west to east. The front fence includes
landscaping on both sides including the existing street planting that is to be retained where
possible.
Setbacks
The proposed development complies with the side setback requirements under Clause 4.1.4.2(a)
of the DCP with the exception of the south-west corner to the first floor living room. The variation of
0.134m at this point is considered to be well founded in this instance and is accordingly supported
for approval.
Setbacks – Rear
The proposed development does not satisfy the 8m rear setback requirement under Clause
4.1.4.4(a) of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2). The proposed rear setback of 4m to the rear building
line is considered to be reasonable and acceptable in this instance for the following reasons:
 Existing rock outcrops and vegetation are to be retained in the rear setback area, thereby
satisfying Clause 4.1.4.4(b) of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2).
 The proposed development is consistent with Clause 3.3.1(a) of the MDCP 2013
(Amendment 2), with respect to the design, quantity and quality of open space.
 The rear setback maintains the sites natural features in accordance with objective 4 for
setbacks (side and rear) under Clause 4.1.4 of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2).
 The rear setback is not considered to give rise to any adverse amenity impacts to
neighbouring development in terms of views, privacy and solar access.
 There is a substantial difference in level between the subject property and the property at
the rear, thereby mitigating any unacceptable amenity impacts in terms of privacy and
solar access. It is considered that strict compliance with the 8m rear setback requirement
is more relevant where the adjoining property is located at the same level.
 The constraints of the site topography have influenced the siting of the dwelling on this
wide but relatively narrow block. The front setback has been maximised for landscaping
and open space and the existing landscape features including the naturally occurring
rocky outcrop/escarpment and vegetation within the rear setback will be retained.
Car Parking
The proposed development satisfies the car parking requirement for two (2) cars under Schedule 3
of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2). Council’s traffic and driveway engineers have no objections to
the proposed car parking access, subject to conditions. The location of the garage adjacent the
western boundary to the west of the ground floor addition ensures that there will be no adverse
impact on the streetscape.
Open Space
A comprehensive Landscape Plan has been submitted as part of the application. The majority of
the natural rock outcrops and cliff ledges at the rear of the site will be maintained and
supplementary planting suited to the shady natural environment is proposed on the southern side
of the site and below the house.
Council’s Landscape Officer has no objections to the proposed development, subject to conditions
including the retention of Trees identified as 1, 2, and 10 on the submitted Landscape Plan. The
applicant has confirmed that there are no objections to this requirement. A condition to this effect is
included within the Recommendation.
Page 108
20 MARCH 2014
Roof Form
The proposed development will have a combination of flat roofs and skillion roof elements over the
rear half of the hose and the single storey rumpus room wing on the eastern end of the house. The
roof will be less than 2.5m in height and spring off the southern wall to allow for clerestory windows
to capture northern sunlight and provide cross ventilation. The roof form has also been designed to
minimise the actual and perceived building bulk and overshadowing impacts. The recommendation
to reduce the overall height of the development will require the roof form to be modified.
Additionally, a revised BASIX Certificate will be required in order to address the changes to the
solar access/cross ventilation as a result of amendments/deletion of the clerestory glazing.
Wall Height
The proposed development complies with the wall height development standard under Clause
4.1.2.1(a) of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2) along the western elevation. The proposed
development does not comply with the wall height development standard along the eastern
elevation between the north-east corner to the blade wall to the first floor guest bedroom and the
south-east corner to the master suite and at the south-east corner to the ground floor rumpus
room. The wall height of the clerestory glazing above the first floor guest bedroom is also well in
excess of the 7.6m wall height restriction. The eastern side wall height non-compliances are
discussed in detail previously in this report having regard to Section 79(C)(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act,
1979 and Clause 4.6 of the MLEP 2013.
In summary, the wall height variation at the south-east corner to the rumpus room is considered to
be well founded in this instance and is accordingly supported for approval. The wall height noncompliance along the eastern extent of the building at first floor level is supported, subject to
reducing the Ridge RL by 1.5m. The intent of this recommendation is to preserve views from the
properties to the north, reduce visual bulk and decrease overshadowing impacts.
5.8 – Development in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area
The proposed development as modified by the conditions of consent is not considered to detract
from the scenic amenity of the area when viewed from the waterway and its immediate environs in
accordance with Clause 5.8 of the MDCP 2013 (Amendment 2).
No planning agreement has been entered into.
The proposal has been assessed having regard to the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 and
the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 (Amendment 2) and is considered to be satisfactory,
subject to conditions.
The proposed development as modified by the conditions of this consent is not considered to have
any detrimental impact on the natural and built environments and is accordingly recommended for
approval.
The proposed development as modified by the conditions of this consent is considered to be
suitable to the site. The design seeks to preserve the existing natural rocky outcrops and
landscape features, which is to be commended.
Page 109
20 MARCH 2014
The application was notified to all adjoining and nearby property owners in accordance with
Section 2.2 of Council’s Development Control Plan 2013, with five (5) submissions received from
the following objectors raising the following concerns:
No.
1
Name
Lionel
Busquets
Prestige on
behalf of
Mr. and
Mrs.
Kritsotakis
(8a Harvey
Street)
2
Susan
Wasson (5
Harvey
Street,
Seaforth)
Issues Raised
 The height of the proposed
residence is not in keeping
with the current height
restrictions.
 The bulk of the proposed
residence will impact on the
views from 8a Harvey Street,
Seaforth.
 The bulk of the proposed
residence will impact on the
natural sunlight into the
property of 8a Harvey Street,
Seaforth.
 Excavation of the rock
platform for house, pool and
spa.
 Concerns about proposed
excavation at the north
eastern section of the property
where the pool/spa is to be
located and potential
instability.
 Overlooking from the balcony
and staircase to the kitchen,
dining and lounge room areas
at No. 5 Harvey Street,
Seaforth.
 Methods to ensure
Stormwater runoff is captured
on the site.
 The wall to the proposed
Rumpus Room should be
such that the visual impact is
reduced. Muted natural
colouring and non reflective
surfaces should be
considered.
 It is unacceptable that the
proposal will cause all
afternoon sun to be lost to No.
5 Harvey Street mid winter.
 Heritage impact. Potential
middens (shell fragments)
contained within mounds at
the base of the rock face.
 Adverse impact on the
streetscape due to it overhang
and imposing bulk.
Comments
 In relation to concerns about
building height and bulk, it is
recommended the overall height
be lowered to reduce the actual
and perceived bulk of the
development and associated
amenity impacts in terms of
views and overshadowing.
 The excavation associated with
the swimming pool is supported.
A Geotechnical Report has been
prepared and submitted. A
condition requiring compliance
with the recommendations of the
report is included within the
Recommendation.
 The location of the ground floor
deck and stair adjoining the
rumpus room is not considered
to give rise to any unacceptable
privacy impacts to No. 5 Harvey
Street.
 In relation to suggestions that
middens may exist in the rocky
outcrops at the rear of the site,
the subject site is identified as
having ‘moderate potential’ for
aboriginal heritage. Accordingly,
standard Condition 4HT04 is
included within the
Recommendation in the event
any relics are found.
 Stormwater certification that the
proposed works comply with
Council’s Stormwater
Specifications has been
provided.
 The recommendation to reduce
the Ridge RL, and delete the
vergola structure within the front
setback are intended to reduce
any adverse impact on the
streetscape.
Page 110
20 MARCH 2014
3
Lawrence
Winnacott
&
Associates
Pty Limited
on behalf of
Mr. and
Mrs.
Cantafio
(8a Harvey
Street,
Seaforth)
 Non-compliance with the
height development standard
under the LEP.
following development
standards under the DCP:
Clause 4.1.2.1 – Wall
Height
Clause 4.1.4.1 – Front
Setbacks. The proposed
swimming pool and
vergola encroach into the
front setback area.
Clause 4.1.4.4 - Rear
setback.
Clause 4.1.9.2. The
proposed swimming pool
is to be located within the
front setback. The
proposed privacy wall for
the swimming pool along
the front boundary of the
property is out of character
with the neighbourhood of
Harvey Street.
Clause 4.1.10 – The
proposed front fence
height of between 1m –
2.4m exceeds the
requirement.
Clause 3.4.3 –
Maintenance of views.
Potential view impacts.
 It is recommended height
poles be erected to enable an
accurate assessment of the
potential view impact. Views
are presently available from
the roof terrace and first floor
of the dwelling of Sydney
Harbour and Middle Harbour
to the south east, the City
skyline, Upper Middle
Harbour to the south west
and surrounding districts.
 A number of elements of the
design of the proposed
dwelling contribute to the
significant non-compliance
with the LEP and DCP height
standards, including:
The being on one (1)
level extending from
the front boundary as
shown on the east
 There are no objections to the
building height/wall height noncompliance at the eastern end of
the single storey ground floor
rumpus room. The height noncompliance at the eastern end of
the first floor addition is not
supported. In order to preserve
views from the properties to the
north and reduce visual bulk and
overshadowing impacts, it is
recommended the Ridge RL be
reduced by 1.5m. A condition to
this effect is included within the
Recommendation.
 Height poles were erected on 3
March 2014. Certification has
been provided by a practising
structural engineer.
Page 111
20 MARCH 2014
4
Jill Quinn
(13 Harvey
Street)
5
A.Martyres
(2 Dalwood
Avenue,
Seaforth)
elevation, rather than
a stepped design.
The generous ceiling
height of both the
ground and first floor
levels.
The 700mm
separation between
the ground floor
ceiling and first floor
level.
The incorporation of a
roof top skylight and
angled solar panels.
 The applicant’s request to
vary the height development
standard does not address
the impact on views from
neighbouring properties.
 Overshadowing
 Loss of privacy
building height development
standard under the Manly
Local Environmental Plan,
2013.
 Non-compliance with
provisions of the DCP relating
to wall height, front and rear
setbacks.
 Loss of views.
 The proposed development is
not considered to give rise to
any adverse privacy impacts to
No. 13 Harvey Street.
 Amended shadow diagrams
taking into account the
overshadowing impact to No. 13
Harvey Street have been
submitted. The proposed
development as modified by the
conditions of consent is
considered to satisfactorily
address the objectives and
performance criteria regarding
sunlight access and
overshadowing under Clause
3.4.1 of the DCP.
 As stated previously, it is
recommended the maximum
ridge RL is reduced by 1.5m.
 The non-compliances with the
DCP provisions concerning the
location of swimming pools
within the front setback, wall
height and rear setbacks are
discussed in the planning
comments section of this
Report.
 The subject views are of Middle
Harbour through the upper level
of the proposed dwelling. It is
considered that view sharing will
be achieved in accordance with
Clause 3.4.3 of the MDCP 2013
by reducing the Ridge RL of the
property.
Page 112
20 MARCH 2014
The proposed development as modified by the conditions contained within the Recommendation is
not considered to have adverse impact on the public interest.
‘(1)
(2)
or both.
Comments:
The proposed development involves the construction of a new dwelling on a vacant site. The
development is likely to increase the demand for public amenities and public services within the
area and therefore requires the payment of a monetary contribution of $20,000.00 A section 94
Contribution Calculation Sheet is included on file. CONCLUSION:
Control Plan 2013 (Amendment 2) and is considered to be satisfactory.
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan, 2013 (MLEP 2013), the variation to
the building height development standard under Clause 4.3(2) of the MLEP 2013 along the eastern
side of the first floor level with a maximum variation of 26.47% at the north-east corner to the first
floor Master Suite is considered to be well founded in this instance and is accordingly supported for
approval.
The variation of 9.42% to the building height development standard at the south-east corner to the
ground floor Rumpus Room is also considered to be well founded in this instance and is
accordingly supported for approval.
That Development Application No. 212/13 for construction of new two (2) storey dwelling including
double garage with storage area, rear decks, first floor balconies, swimming pool and spa within the
front setback, alfresco area, new driveway, new crossover and landscaping at 7 Harvey Street,
Seaforth be Approved, subject to the following conditions:
ANS01
All recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report prepared by Crozier
Geotechnical Consultants dated October 2013 and received by Council on 18 October 2013
are to be fully complied. Compliance shall be demonstrated to the Council/Accredited
Certifier, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To minimise the risk of landslip and subsidence on the site.
Page 113
20 MARCH 2014
ANS02
All work is to be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Report prepared by Bluegum Tree Care and Consultancy dated October 2013 and received
by Council on 18 October 2013 are to be fully complied with and compliance demonstrated
to the Council/Accredited Certifier, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure necessary construction methods and tree protection measures are taken
to limit adverse impacts on trees recommended for retention.
ANS03
Trees identified as T1, T2 and T10 on the Landscape Plan prepared by Space Landscape
Designs (Drawing No’s L-01 Revision C and Drawing No. L-02 Revision A both dated 16
October 2013 and received by Council on 18 October 2013) must be retained and protected
in accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. Plans are to be
amended accordingly, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To retain important landscape features on the site.
ANS04
A rainwater tank with minimum capacity of 10,000 litres must be installed on the site in
accordance with BASIX Certificate No. 497956S dated 16 October 2013 and received by
Council on 18 October 2013.
Reason: To ensure compliance with BASIX commitments.
ANS05
The ridge RL is to be reduced by 1.5m from RL 87.715 to RL 86.215. Plans are to be
amended accordingly, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To reduce the bulk and height of the development and reduce view impacts and
overshadowing impacts to the adjoining properties.
ANS06
A revised BASIX Certificate consistent with the development consent and associated
conditions is to be submitted to the Council/Accredited Certifier prior to the issue of the
Reason: To comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
ANS07
The vergola over the eastern end of the swimming pool and spa/patio area is to be deleted.
Plans are to be amended accordingly, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To minimise any negative visual impact on the streetscape.
ANS08
The storage space to the north of the swimming pool and spa is to be deleted and replaced
with suitable screen plantings. Plans are to be amended accordingly, prior to the issue of
the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To reduce any adverse impact on the streetscape and promote landscaping on the
site.
ANS09
The setback of the outer edge of the swimming pool and spa from the northern boundary is
to be at least 1.5m. Plans are to be amended accordingly, prior to the issue of the
Reason: To comply with Clause 4.1.9.2(b) of the Manly Development Control Plan 2013
(Amendment 2).
DA1
in accordance with the following plans and documentation
Page 114
20 MARCH 2014
Plan No. / Title
DA.02 / Site/Roof Plan
DA.03 / Ground Floor Plan
DA.04 / Level 1 Floor Plan
DA.05 / Street Elevation
DA.06 / North Elevation
DA.07 / South Elevation
DA.08 / West Elevation
DA.09 / East Elevation
DA.10 / Section AA
DA.11 / Section BB
DA.18 / Vehicle Crossing / Driveway Section
L-01 / Landscape Plan
L-02 / Details and Specifications
Issue/
Revision & Date
Issue F / 15 October 2013
Revision C / 16 October 2013
Revision A / 16 October 2013
Date Received
by Council
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
18 October 2013
Documentation affixed with Council’s stamp relating to Development Consent No. 212/13:
 Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Longitude Planning Pty Ltd dated 15
October 2013 and received by Council on 18 October 2013. Clause 4.6 Exception to a
Development Standard of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 is included as
Appendix 1.
 Geotechnical Report prepared by Crozier Geotechnical Consultants dated October 2013
and received by Council on 18 October 2013.
 BASIX Certificate No. 497956S dated 16 October 2013 and received by Council on 18
October 2013.
 Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Bluegum Tree Care and Consultancy dated
October 2013 and received by Council on 18 October 2013.
CERTIFICATE
1 (2AP01)
2 (2CD01)
Trust Fund Deposit of $12,000.00. The Deposit is required as security against damage to Council
Page 115
20 MARCH 2014
Note:
3 (2CD02)
A Dilapidation Report is required for this development. A photographic survey of adjoining property
No. 5 Harvey Street detailing the physical condition of those properties, both internally and
externally, including walls, ceilings, roof, structural members and other such items, is to be
submitted to Council and the Accredited Certifier (where Council does not issue the Construction
Certificate) prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. This survey is to be prepared by an
appropriately qualified person agreed to by both the applicant and the owner of the adjoining
property.
All costs incurred in achieving compliance with this condition must be borne by the person entitled
to act on this Consent.
If access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied by an adjoining owner, the applicant
must demonstrate, in writing, to Council’s satisfaction attempts have been made to obtain access
and/or advise the affected property owner of the reason for the survey and these attempts have
been unsuccessful. Written concurrence must be obtained from Council in such circumstances.
Note:
This documentation is for record keeping purposes only, and may be used by an applicant
or affected property owner to assist in any action required to resolve any dispute over
damage to adjoining properties arising from the works. It is in the applicant’s and adjoining
owner’s interest for it to be as full and detailed as possible.
Reason: To maintain proper records in relation to the proposed development.
4 (2CD05)
5 (2CD08)
A Geotechnical Survey, on the stability of the subject site, is to be prepared by a suitably qualified
geotechnical engineer in accordance with the guidelines contained in the current Manly
Development Control Plan 2013. All recommendations of the report are to be complied with during
the construction process. The report is to be submitted to the Council/Accredited Certifier prior to
the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure structural integrity of the works maintained.
6 (2DS01)
The stormwater management plan is to be prepared and certified by a Chartered Professional
Engineer with NPER Number, name and date of signature included. The stormwater management
plan and designs are to be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer with experience in hydrology
and hydraulics.
Page 116
20 MARCH 2014
Note:
It is the Developer’s Chartered Professional Engineer’s responsibilities as part of the
Stormwater Management Plan to investigate and provide controls if required for any
surface runoff from the street.
7 (2DS02)
A system of Onsite Stormwater Detention (OSD) or Onsite Stormwater Retention (OSR) is to be
provided within the property in accordance with Council's Specification for On-site Stormwater
Management 2003. The design and details must be submitted to Council and be approved by
Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The stormwater management plan and
designs must be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer with experience in hydrology and
hydraulics.
generated by the development, and to ensure public infrastructure in Council’s care and control is
not overloaded.
8 (2DS07)
The design of rainwater tanks must be in accordance with the following:
 Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500:2003,
 NSW Code of Practice Plumbing and Drainage, 2006 produced by Committee on
 Council's rainwater tank policy.
Internal Note: This condition is to be imposed in conjunction with 4DS03 and 6DS01.
9 (2FP02)
Detailed drawings and specifications of all works (including but not limited to structures, road
works, driveway crossings, footpaths and stormwater drainage) within existing roads, must be
submitted to and approved by Council under the Roads Act 1993, before the issue of any
Construction Certificate. Specific works include:
1) Full width vehicular crossings having a maximum width, at the back of layback, of 5.3m,
and in accordance with the current policy of Council and Specifications for the construction
of vehicle crossings; and
2) Longitudinal sections for both sides of the vehicular crossing and driveway commencing at
the centre line of the road carriageway must be provided for assessment. Gradients and
transitions must be in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 – 2004, Part 1 –
Off-Street Car Parking. The driveway profile submitted to Council must be to scale at 1:25
(for template checking purposes) and contain all relevant details: reduced levels, proposed
grades and distances.
Driveway to be designed to provide for existing or future footpaths across driveway, in accordance
with Council’s Specification for Civil Infrastructure Works, Developments & Subdivisions 2003 and
Australian Standard AS 1428.1:2001 - Design for access and mobility.
Reason: To facilitate suitable vehicular access to private sites.
Internal Note: This condition is to be imposed in conjunction with 3FP01, 4FP01 and 5FP01.
10 (2FP03)
No portion of the proposed building or works, as approved within the subject site, are to encroach
upon any road reserve or other public land except as may be permitted by the Local Government
Act 1993. This includes the opening and closing of gates and doors which must open and close
within the subject site.
Reason: To ensure structures are contained within the site.
Page 117
20 MARCH 2014
11 (2MS01)
development sites.
Internal Note: This condition is be imposed in conjunction with 4MS04.
12 (2PT01)
The driveway/access ramp grades, access and car parking facilities must comply with the
Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking.
Reason: To ensure compliance with Australian Standards relating to manoeuvring, access and
parking of vehicles.
13 (2PT02)
All driveways, car parking areas and pedestrian paths are to be surfaced and sealed. Details of
treatment to these areas are to be submitted to the Council/Accredited Certifier prior to issue of the
Reason: To provide suitable stormwater disposal and to prevent soil erosion and runoff.
14 (2PT03)
The dimensions of car parking bays and aisle widths in the car park are to comply with
Australian/New Zealand Standard for Off-Street Parking AS/NZS 2890.1-2004.
Reason: To ensure compliance with this consent and Australian Standards relating to
manoeuvring, access and parking of vehicles.
15 (2SP01)
All of the following are to be satisfied in relation to the proposed swimming pool:
1) The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a child-resistant barrier in accordance with the
Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2009 and Regulations 2008 which:
• separates the swimming pool from any residential building situated on the property
and from any place adjoining the property, and
• is designed, constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with the standards
prescribed by the Regulations and appropriate Australian Standards.
2) All surface waters from non-pervious areas surrounding the swimming pool must be
collected and disposed of to the stormwater system.
3) Windows giving access to the pool areas must be made child safe and comply with the
following:
• Window opening is to be restricted by an approved means so that a round bar 105mm
in diameter cannot be passed through the opening or the window is to be protected by
a child safe grille.
Page 118
20 MARCH 2014
However if the restricted opening of such windows means that they will no longer meet the
natural ventilation requirements of the Building Code of Australia, then only a child safe
grille is permissible.
4) The proposed pool gates are to be mounted so that:
• they are clear of any obstruction that could hold the gate open, and
• when lifted upward or pulled downward, movement of the gate does not release the
latching device, unhinge the gate or provide a ground clearance greater than 100mm;
and
• they open outwards from the pool.
Reason: To comply with Australian Standard AS 1926 and provide a reasonable level of child
safety
16 (2SP02)
A railing or other safety measures or devices are to be erected around the sides of the pool
surround structure where height above natural ground level exceeds 900mm. All details of the
necessary device are to be submitted to and approved by the Council/Accredited Certifier prior to
issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure the safety of persons using those walkways.
17 (2SP03)
The Construction Certificate drawings and specification required to be submitted pursuant to
Clause 139 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must detail the
connection of backwash to Sydney Waters sewer in compliance with Australian/New Zealand
Standard AS/NZS 3500.
Note: The drawings must show the location of Sydney Water’s sewer, the yard gully or any new
connection to the sewer system including a detailed cross section of the connection complying with
Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.
The discharge of backwash water to any stormwater system is water pollution and an offence
under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The connection of any backwash
pipe to any stormwater system is an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations
Act 1997.
Reason: To ensure compliance with legislation and Australian Standards and to protect public
health and amenity.
18 (2SP04)
The pool filter is to be centrally located within the site, away from any boundaries and acoustically
treated so the noise from the machinery is not audible for the adjoining residents. Details are to be
submitted to the Council/Accredited Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure the acoustic amenity of the neighbouring residents.
19 (2SP05)
Spa pools or the like are to be provided with approved-type safety outlet covers in accordance with
Australian Standard AS 2610 (Spa Pools), and details of the outlet areas are to be submitted to the
Council/Accredited Certifier prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To comply with Australian Standards and provide a reasonably level of child safety.
20 (2TC01)
Details of the method of termite protection which will provide whole of building protection, inclusive
of structural and non-structural elements must be submitted to the Council / Accredited Certifier
prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. Attention is drawn to the provisions of Australian
Standard AS 3660.1 - 2000 Termite management – New building work, and to the Manly Code for
the Protection of Buildings Against Termite Attack 1996.
Reason: To protect the building from possible termite damage.
Page 119
20 MARCH 2014
21 (2US01)
A Section 94 contribution is to be paid for the provision of or increase the demand for public
amenities and public services as a consequence of the development in the area. The total
contribution for this development involving construction of a new two (2) storey dwelling including
double garage with storage area, rear decks, first floor balconies, swimming pool and spa within the
front setback, alfresco area, new driveway, new crossover and landscaping is $20,000 being
$20,000.00 per additional dwelling. This contribution shall be paid to Council prior to the release of
the Construction Certificate.
Note:
The Section 94 Contribution fees are indexed annually in accordance with movements in
the Consumer Price Index (All Groups Index) for Sydney issued by the Australian
Statistician.
22 (2WM01)
Details of waste management facilities are to be submitted with the application for a Construction
Certificate in accordance with the Manly Development Control Plan 2013.
Reason: To ensure appropriate management of waste.
23 (2WM02)
management.
Internal Note: The requirement for a Waste Management Plan is included in the Department of
Environment and Climate change (DECC) Waste Service Performance Improvement Payment
Criteria (WSPIP).
24 (3BM01)
25 (3CD01)
been issued.
26 (3CD02)
Page 120
20 MARCH 2014
27 (3CD03)
28 (3FP01)
The applicant must complete an application form and pay applicable fees for an application to
Council for the construction of a Vehicular Crossing, for the design, specification and inspection by
Council. Applications are to be made a minimum of two (2) working days prior to commencement
of proposed works on Council's property.
Reason: To provide suitable vehicular access to private sites, without disruption to pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
Internal Note: This condition is to be imposed with 2FP02, 4FP01 AND 5FP01.
29 (3LD01)
All healthy trees and shrubs identified for retention on the submitted landscape drawing are to be
suitably marked for protection before any construction works start.
Reason: To ensure the trees conditioned to stay on the site are suitably protected during any
construction works .
Internal Note: This condition is to be imposed with 4LD02.
30 (3LD02)
removed.
protected.
31 (3LD03)
32 (3PT01)
33 (4AP02)
Page 121
20 MARCH 2014
34 (4CD01)
site works:
legislation.
recycling.
drainage system.
35 (4CD02)
works.
Page 122
20 MARCH 2014
36 (4CD03)
37 (4CD05)
Retaining walls being constructed in conjunction with excavations must be in accordance with
structural engineer's details. Certification by a suitably qualified structural engineer that the
constructed works comply with the structural detail must be submitted to the Principal Certifying
Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To ensure the structural adequacy of the retaining walls.
38 (4CD06)
All construction works must be strictly in accordance with the Reduced Levels (RLs) as shown on
the approved drawings. A copy of approved drawings should be kept at site. Certification from a
registered surveyor is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority during construction to
confirm floor and finished ridge levels.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the consent.
39 (4CD07)
Note:
further advice.
40 (4DS03)
Rainwater tanks must be installed on residential properties by a suitably qualified and licensed
plumber and in accordance with the following:
 Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500:2003,
 NSW Code of Practice Plumbing and Drainage, 2006 produced by Committee on
 Council's rainwater tank policy
Page 123
20 MARCH 2014
41 (4FP01)
The existing footpath level and grade at the street alignment of the property must be maintained.
Reason: To ensure appropriate access and infrastructure protection.
Internal Note: This condition is to be imposed with 2FP02, 3FP01 and 5FP01.
42 (4HT04)
Should any potentially historic relics be discovered on the site during excavation, all excavation or
disturbance to the area is to stop immediately and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage of
NSW should be contacted for advice.
Should any potentially significant Aboriginal material be discovered on the site, all excavation or
disturbance of the area is to stop immediately and the NSW Office of environment and Heritage is
to be contacted for advice.
Reason: To ensure the proper management and preservation of potentially significant
archeological material.
43 (4LD01)
Landscaping is to be carried out in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan prepared by
Space Landscape Designs being Drawing No’s L-01 Revision C and Drawing No. L-02 Revision A
both dated 16 October 2013 and received by Council on 18 October 2013.
Reason: To ensure appropriate landscaping is carried out on the development site.
44 (4LD02)
All healthy trees and shrubs identified for retention on the drawing are to be:
(a) suitably protected from damage during the construction process, and
(b) retained unless their removal has been approved by Council.
Reason: This is to ensure that the trees on the site which do not have approval to be removed on
the site are suitably protected during any construction works.
45 (4LD03)
46 (4LD04)
47 (4LD05)
Page 124
20 MARCH 2014
48 (4LD06)
49 (4LD07)
50 (4MS01)
 Footing inspection - trench and steel,
 Reinforced concrete slab,
 Swimming pool reinforcing steel inspection,
 Swimming pool safety fence inspection,
The cost of these inspections by Council is $2065.00 (being $295 per inspection inclusive of GST).
51 (4MS04)
development sites.
Internal Note: This condition is to be imposed with 2MS01.
52 (5DS02)
A copy of the approved Onsite Stormwater Detention (OSD) or Onsite Stormwater Retention (OSR)
drawing showing Works as Executed (WAE) details must be submitted to Council for approval prior
to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. The WAE drawing is to be in accordance with Council's
standards and Specification for Stormwater Drainage 2003 and Specification for On-site
Stormwater Management 2003.
Reason: Compliance with the consent and Council standards and specifications.
Page 125
20 MARCH 2014
53 (5DS03)
A restriction on the use of land and a positive covenant in respect of the installation and
maintenance of onsite detention works is required to be imposed over the area of the site affected
by onsite detention and/or pump system prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate for the
building and prior to the release of the trust fund deposit. The detailed information for a restriction
on the use of land and a positive covenant is shown in Council's Specification for On-site Storm
Water Management 2003.
Reason: To ensure the on-site detention and/or pump system is maintained to an appropriate
operational standard.
54 (5FP01)
All surplus vehicular crossings and/or kerb laybacks must be removed and the kerb and nature strip
reinstated prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To provide on-street parking, suitable vehicular access to private sites, and infrastructure
protection.
Internal Note: this condition is to be imposed in conjunction with 2FP02, 3FP01 and 4FP01.
55 (5FR01)
An automatic fire detection and alarm system must be installed in the proposed dwelling in
accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.
56 (5LD01)
A qualified Landscape Consultant is to submit a Certificate of Practical Completion to the Principal
Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, stating the work has been
carried out in accordance with the approved Landscape Drawing and a maintenance program has
been established.
Reason: This is to ensure the landscaping is planted in accordance with the drawing and
maintained appropriately
57 (5LD02)
Evidence of an agreement for the maintenance of all plants for a period of twelve (12) months from
the date of practical completion of the building is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority
prior to issue of the final Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To ensure landscaping will be appropriately maintained.
Internal Note: this condition is to be imposed in conjunction with 4LD01.
58 (5SP01)
All protective fencing and gates are to be in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1926 prior to
the pool being filled with water. The fence is to be a minimum of 1200mm in height and posts
and/or supports are to be firmly fixed or encased in such a way that the posts/support are unable to
be removed easily. The fence is not to be removed or altered at any time without the prior approval
of Council.
No water can be in the swimming pool until the required protective fencing has been inspected and
approved by Council.
Reason: To comply with Australian Standard AS1926 and provide a reasonable level of child
safety.
59 (5TC01)
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, a durable termite protection notice must be
permanently fixed to the building in a prominent location detailing the form of termite protection
which has been used in accordance with the Manly Code for the protection of Buildings against
Termite Attack.
Reason: To inform owners and future owners of the type of termite protection installed and of the
need for regular inspections.
Page 126
20 MARCH 2014
60 (5US01)
Any adjustment to a public utility service is to be carried out in compliance with its standards; where
consent is required, with its concurrence; and with the full cost being borne by the applicant. Full
documents of adjustments to any public utility service should be submitted to Council.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the terms of this consent.
DEVELOPMENT
61 (6DS01)
The ongoing use and operation of the rainwater tank(s) must be maintained in accordance with:
• Sydney Water Guidelines for Rainwater Tanks on Residential Properties, 2003.
• Australian Government EnHealth Council publication Guidance on the use of Rainwater
Tanks, 2004.
62 (6FC01)
The erection of dividing fences under this consent does not affect the provisions of the Dividing
Fences Act 1991. Council does not adjudicate civil disputes relating to the provision of, or payment
for, the erection of dividing fences.
Note:
Further information can be obtained from the NSW Department of Lands. Community
Justice Centres provide a free mediation service to the community to help people resolve
a wide range of disputes, including dividing fences matters. Their service is free,
confidential, voluntary, timely and easy to use. Mediation sessions are conducted by two
impartial, trained mediators who help people work together to reach an agreement. More
than 85% of mediations result in an agreement being reached. Mediation sessions can be
arranged at convenient times during the day, evening or weekends. Contact the
Community Justice Centre either by phone on 1 800 990 777
or at
http://www.cjc.nsw.gov.au/.
Reason: To ensure the applicant is aware the Dividing Fences Act 1991 may be used to resolve
disputes about dividing fences.
63 (6LP01)
64 (6LP02)
65 (6LP03)
Landscaping is to be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscaping Drawing.
Reason: This is to ensure that landscaping is maintained appropriately.
66 (6LP04)
inconsistency.
Page 127
20 MARCH 2014
67 (6MS02)
68 (6NL01)
Glare from internal lighting is not permitted to extend beyond the limits of the building authorised by
this approval.
Reason: To ensure there is no glare from internal lighting to neighbouring properties and land.
ATTACHMENTS
MIAP Plans - DA0212/2013 - 7 Harvey Street,
ATSeaforth - MIAP 20/03/14
1
20
Pages
document
Page 128
TO:
REPORT:
MIAP Report No. 16
20 MARCH 2014
SUBJECT: 16 Moore Street, Clontarf - DA0260/2013
FILE NO:
MC/14/27620
Application Lodged:
Applicant:
Owner:
Estimated Cost:
Zoning:
Heritage:
Planning Officer:
19 December 2013
Mr RC Bridges & Ms M Harris
Mr R. Bridges and Ms. M Harris
$275,000
Manly Local Environmental Plan, 2013 – Zone R2 Low
Density Residential
Detached residential dwellings
No Heritage
Ellise Mangion
SUMMARY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
DEVELOPMENT CONSENT IS SOUGHT FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN
EXISTING DWELLING INCLUDING NEW BALCONY, REAR FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION
AND NEW REAR GLASS DOORS.
OWNERS AND TWO SUBMISSIONS WERE RECEIVED.
THE APPLICATION WAS REFERRED TO THE CLONTARF PRECINCT COMMUNITY
FORUM FOR COMMENTS, WHO DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO VARY FLOOR SPACE RATIO DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
BY 16%.
Locality MAP
Report
The subject property is commonly known as 16 Moore Street, Clontarf and legally known as Lot 26
in DP 2610. The site is located on the northern side of Moore Street. The property is rectangular in
shape and has a frontage of 12.19m to Moore Street and an average depth of 61.33m and an
overall site area of 520.2m2. The property currently contains a three storey dwelling with vehicular
access via an existing driveway from Moore Street to an existing double garage to the front of the
existing dwelling. The property slopes from rear to front.
Page 129
20 MARCH 2014
The surrounding area includes detached residential dwellings. The property is afforded views to
the front boundary to Port Jackson and Middle Harbour.
No burdens or constraints preclude the proposed development.
The proposal includes alterations to and existing dwelling as follows:
Lower Ground Floor
 Modification to the internal configuration to accommodate a water bathroom.
Ground Floor
 Alter the internal configuration of the level including the removal of the existing powder
room
 Remove existing fireplace
 Replace existing rear doors with new glass doors
 Construction of a detached water closet adjacent to the pool area.
First floor
 Addition to the rear for a walk-in-robe.
 Construction of a new balcony and
 Construction of a front balcony with privacy screens to the east and west sides of the
balcony for privacy.
 Removal of existing windows and installation of glass sliding doors to front bedrooms to
access new balcony.
The applicant provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Symons Goodyer dated
12 December 2013 received by Council on 19 December 2013 in support of the application.
The officer has been in regular contact with the applicant throughout the assessment process.
Internal Referrals
Engineers Comments
Building Comments
Waste
External Referrals
The proposal was referred to the Balgowlah Heights and Clontarf Precinct Community Forums for
comment on the 7 January 2014. No comments were received from the Precinct. The forum did not
object to the proposal.
Page 130
20 MARCH 2014
Planning Comments
application:
(i)
The proposed development is subject to compliance with SEPP (BASIX) 2004. The applicant has
submitted a BASIX Certificate of compliance and is considered to comply. The Certification is part
of the consent documents to ensure compliance.
The subject site is located in Zone R2 Low Density Residential under Manly LEP, 2013 the
proposed development is considered to be ancillary to the existing residential use of the property.
The proposed is considered to be permissible within the zone subject to development consent.
Zone R2 Low Density Residential
Objectives of zone
• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential
environment.
The proposed development is minor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and is
considered to satisfy the above objective.
•
of residents.
The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling and the above objective is
considered to be not applicable.
4.
4.3
4.4
Principal Development Requirement Proposed Complies
Comments
Standards
Yes/No
Minimum lot size
950m²
520.2m² No
Existing
Height of buildings
8.5m
8.4m
Yes
0.46:1
No
16% variation
Floor Space Ratio
0.4:1
242.37m2
208.8m2
Council/Consent Authority may consider a variation, where that variation would achieve a better
outcome for and from the development.
(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.
Page 131
20 MARCH 2014
The applicant’s written request is considered to be satisfactory for the proposed
development/modification of the consent, considering the streetscape/topography of the site/crossfall of the site/additional area is contained within the existing envelope/bulk is satisfactory and no
adverse impact to neighbours etc.
Variation to Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio
The proposed variation is to Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio development standard of the Manly
Local Environmental Plan 2013. The required Floor Space Ratio is 0.4:1, the proposal is for a
maximum floor space ratio of 0.46. The proposed variation to the development standard is a 16%
variation to the floor space ratio development standard. The submitted request for Clause 4.6
variation is considered to be well founded and supported.
The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest as it satisfies the objectives of
the floor space ratio clause as listed below:
Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio
(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows
(a) to ensure the bulk and scale of development is consistent with the existing and desired
streetscape character,
The proposed addition is to the rear of the property and is not considered to detract from the
existing and desired streetscape area of the surrounding area.
(b)
to control building density and bulk in relation to a site area to ensure that development
does not obscure important landscape and townscape features,
The proposed development is considered to remain consistent with the existing bulk of the
building and is not considered to obscure important landscape and townscape features.
(c)
to maintain an appropriate visual relationship between new development and the
existing character and landscape of the area,
The proposed addition is considered to maintain an appropriate visual relationship between
the new addition and the existing character of the area.
(d)
to minimise adverse environmental impacts on the use or enjoyment of adjoining land
and the public domain,
The proposed addition is considered to have minor environmental impacts on the use and
enjoyment of adjoining land.
(e)
to provide for the viability of business zones and encourage the development,
expansion and diversity of business activities that will contribute to economic growth,
the retention of local services and employment opportunities in local centres.
The proposal is to vary the development standard within the R1 general residential zone and
the above objective is considered to be not applicable in this instance.
The proposed variation to the Floor Space ratio development standard is considered to satisfy the
objectives and is also considered to be in the public interest considering the circumstances of the
case. The proposed variation is considered to be acceptable and justify contravening the
development standard.
5.
5.4
Miscellaneous Permissible uses
(1) Bed & Breakfast Accommodation
(2) Home Businesses
(3) Home Industries
(6) Kiosks
Applies
No
Complies
N/A
Comments
Page 132
20 MARCH 2014
5.5
5.9
5.10
(7) Neighbourhood Shops
(9) Secondary Dwellings
Preservation of trees or vegetation
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.
6.1
6.4
6.9
Local Provisions
Acid Sulphate Soils
Applies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Complies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comments
Manly Development Control Plan 2013, Amendment 2:
Issues
Streetscape
Yes
Sunlight Assess and
Overshadowing
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comment
The proposed development is considered to be minor in nature and is considered to comply with
the general principles of development for the subject property.
The applicant has provided privacy screens to either side of the proposed balcony to a height of
1.5m and is considered to be satisfactory with a revised height of 1.6m conditioned to ensure
privacy between neighbours. The assessing officer has recommended a condition of consent
relating to the construction of the privacy screen.
Page 133
20 MARCH 2014
Site Area:
520.2m²
Permitted/
Required
1/950m²
Proposed
Wall height E side
7.3m
5.8m
W side
7.3m
7.7m
380m²
242.37
6.0m or streetscape
12m
E setback side
1.93m
1.075m
W setback side
2.6m
1.1m to balcony
No
1.1m to WIR
No
8.0m
16.9m
Yes
Residential Density
Undersized allotment FSR
Setback Front
Setback Rear
1/520.2m²
Complies
Yes/No
No
(existing)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Open space
- total
60% (312m²)
51% (267m²)
No
(existing)
Open space
- soft
40% (124.8m²)
20% (63.37m²)
No
(existing)
Open space
- above ground
78m²
84m²
No
(existing)
Comment
Wall height
The proposed development will provide and increased wall height to the top of the privacy screen
for the front balcony. The area is an open area and is considered to satisfy the objectives for
building height in accordance with the Manly DCP 2013, Amendment 2 and is supported.
Setbacks
The proposed rear addition of a walk-in-robe is non compliant with Council’s setback controls. The
addition does not include windows that would impact upon privacy and is within the footprint of the
existing building maintaining the existing ground floor setbacks. It is considered that the proposal
does not reduce the amenity of the adjoining neighbours and satisfies the objectives for setbacks
in accordance with the Manly DCP 2013, Amendment 2 and is therefore supported for approval.
Undersized allotment
The site is an undersized allotment within the density zone and has a reduced Floor Space Ratio
for the site due to the size of the allotment. The application for the 4.6 variation is supported as the
size is severely undersized for the area and has a restricted floor area.
Page 134
20 MARCH 2014
Open Space
The proposed development seeks to increase the level of open space in the front setback, the
proposal does not result in a reduction of open space of the existing allotment and is considered to
comply with the objectives for open space in accordance with the Manly DCP 2013, Amendment 2.
Outdoor W/C
The proposed outdoor water closer is attached to the pool equipment shed in the rear setback. The
area is to service the pool area and is a small outbuilding structure that is not considered to
significantly impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbours. The outbuilding structure is
detached from the dwelling and is considered to comply with the objectives for setbacks in
accordance with the Manly DCP 2013, Amendment 2.
Applicable

Conservation Area
Not Applicable


Flood Control Lots


Road Widening

Gurney Crescent and Clavering Road,
Seaforth

Comment:
The proposed development is considered to be minor in nature and is not considered to have a
significant impact on the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.
No planning agreement is proposed for the subject property.
The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the regulations and is supported for
approval.
The proposed development is considered to be minor in nature and the proposed are not
considered to have significant impact on the natural and built environment of the locality and is
therefore supported.
The proposal is for residential alterations and additions and is not considered to have a significant
social or economic impact on the locality.
Page 135
20 MARCH 2014
The subject property is considered to be suitable for the proposed works and is supported for
approval.
Development Control Plan 2013 Section 2.2 with two (2) submissions received from the following
1.
G. Liminos, 14 Moore Street, Clontarf
 No dust and debris to effect property
 Privacy screen to new balcony
Standard conditions of consent have been included to cover waste and debris, however the
proposal is for construction works and the standard conditions of consent are considered to be
sufficient.
The proposal includes the provision of two privacy screens to both the eastern and western
sides of the balcony.
2.
J. Pollaers, 18 Moore Street, Clontarf
 Extension to balcony will create privacy issues to adjoining first floor balcony, bathroom
and bedrooms.
 Wants extension limited to no further than adjoining second floor balcony
 Query regarding balcony to back of house appears to have increased in size.
Privacy screens have been provided to either side of the balcony and have been conditioned.
The proposed privacy screens are considered to mitigate privacy impacts.
The size and location of the balcony is considered to be acceptable and is supported by
Council.
The proposal does not include works to the rear balcony.
The proposed development is not considered to significantly impact the surrounding area and is
considered to be in the public interest and is therefore supported.
‘(1)
(2)
or both.
Comments:
In this case, the proposal is for minor alterations to an existing dwelling and no Section 94 is
considered to be applicable to the proposal. Manly Independent Assessment Panel Agenda
Page 136
20 MARCH 2014
CONCLUSION:
Control Plan 2013, Amendment 1 and is considered satisfactory for approval.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application to vary the development standard for floor space ratio pursuant to clause 4.6 of
the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 is well founded and supported.
That Development Application No. 260/2013 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling
including new balcony, rear first floor extension, new rear glass doors at 16 Moore Street, Clontarf
be Approved subject to the following conditions:ANS01
The privacy screens to the new balcony are to be a minimum height of 1600mm above the
balcony floor level and are to have a transparency of no greater than 30%. Plans are to be
amended accordingly prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.
Reason: To maintain the privacy of the adjoining neighbours.
DA1
Plan No. / Title
Drwg No A-01 Site & Drainage Plan
Drwg No A-02 Main Level
Drwg No A-03 Upper Level
Drwg No A-04 Lower Level
Drwg No A-05 Garage Level
Drwg No A-06 Sections
Drwg No A-07 Elevations
Drwg No A-08 Elevations
Issue/
Revision & Date
Issue 1, 05.12.2013
Issue 1, 05.12.2013
Issue 1, 05.12.2013
Issue 1, 05.12.2013
Issue 1, 05.12.2013
Issue 1, 05.12.2013
Issue 1, 05.12.2013
Issue 1, 05.12.2013
Date Received
by Council
19.12.2013
19.12.2013
19.12.2013
19.12.2013
19.12.2013
19.12.2013
19.12.2013
19.12.2013
 Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Symons Goodyer dated 12 December
2013 received by Council on 19 December 2013.
 BASIX Certificate No. A177598 dated 4 December 2013 received by Council on 19
December 2013.
CERTIFICATE
1 (2AP01)
Page 137
20 MARCH 2014
2 (2AP03)
owners.
3 (2CD01)
Trust Fund Deposit of $8,000.00. The Deposit is required as security against damage to Council
Note:
4 (2CD05)
5 (2CD07)
A Certificate of Adequacy signed by a practising structural engineer stating the existing structure is
capable of supporting the proposed additions, is to be submitted to the Council/Accredited Certifier
prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: The existing building must be able to support proposed additional loading.
6 (2WM02)
management.
Page 138
20 MARCH 2014
7 (3BM01)
8 (3CD01)
been issued.
9 (3CD02)
10 (3CD03)
11 (4AP02)
12 (4BM01)
All materials and finishes of the proposed additions are to match, as closely as possible the
material and finish of the existing building.
Reason: To enhance the visual quality of the development and the streetscape.
13 (4CD01)
site works:
Page 139
20 MARCH 2014
legislation.
recycling.
drainage system.
14 (4CD02)
works.
15 (4CD03)
16 (4CD06)
Page 140
20 MARCH 2014
17 (4CD07)
Note:
further advice.
18 (4MS01)
The cost of these inspections by Council is $885.00 (being $295 per inspection inclusive of GST).
19 (5DS01)
Page 141
20 MARCH 2014
20 (5FR01)
DEVELOPMENT
21 (6FC01)
The erection of dividing fences under this consent does not affect the provisions of the Dividing
Fences Act 1991. Council does not adjudicate civil disputes relating to the provision of, or payment
for, the erection of dividing fences.
Note:
Further information can be obtained from the NSW Department of Lands. Community
Justice Centres provide a free mediation service to the community to help people resolve
a wide range of disputes, including dividing fences matters. Their service is free,
confidential, voluntary, timely and easy to use. Mediation sessions are conducted by two
impartial, trained mediators who help people work together to reach an agreement. More
than 85% of mediations result in an agreement being reached. Mediation sessions can be
arranged at convenient times during the day, evening or weekends. Contact the
Community Justice Centre either by phone on 1 800 990 777
or at
http://www.cjc.nsw.gov.au/.
Reason: To ensure the applicant is aware the Dividing Fences Act 1991 may be used to resolve
disputes about dividing fences.
22 (6MS02)
23 (6NL01)
this approval.
24 (6NL03)
ATTACHMENTS
MIAP Plans - DA0260/2013 - 16 Moore Street,
ATClontarf - MIAP 20/03/14
1
9
Pages
document
Page 142
TO:
REPORT:
MIAP Report No. 81
20 MARCH 2014
SUBJECT: 374-378 Sydney Road, Balgowlah - DA277/2011
Section 96 (2) Modification
FILE NO:
MC/13/142818
Application Lodged:
Applicant:
Owner:
Estimated Cost:
Zoning:
Heritage:
Assessing Officer:
18 September 2013 (Revised plans 09 December 2013)
Blackmore Design Group Pty Ltd
Wellton Property Group
$4.524M
Manly Local Environmental Plan, 2013 – B2 Local Centre
The locality is commercial/retail in character with some mixed
use (including residential) and the Totem Shopping Centre at
the rear of the site.
No
Ritu Shankar
SUMMARY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
COUNCIL GRANTED CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO.
277/2011 – PROPOSING DEMOLITION OF A RETAIL BUILDING AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A RETAIL AREA
ON THE GROUND FLOOR, TWENTY ONE (21) RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS AND TWO
LEVELS OF BASEMENT CAR PARKING WITH TWENTY-FIVE (25) CAR PARKING
SPACES ON THE 15/11/2012.
THE APPROVAL INCLUDED CONDITIONS REQUIRING THE TWO RESIDENTIAL
APARTMENTS ON THE GROUND FLOOR LEVEL TO BE USED FOR BUSINESS
PURPOSES ONLY.
CURRENT APPLICATION IS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE CONSENT.
THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION WAS NOTIFIED TO ALL ADJOINING AND NEARBY
PROPERTY OWNERS AND TWO (2) SUBMISSIONS WERE RECEIVED.
THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION WAS REFERRED TO THE IVANHOE PARK
PRECINCT COMMUNITY FORUM FOR COMMENT. THE PRECINCT DID NOT OBJECT
TO THE PROPOSAL.
THE APPLICATION INVOLVES A VARIATION OF THE FSR DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
OF THE MLEP 2013.
THE APPLCIANT HAS SUBMITTED JUSTIFICATION TO THE VARIATION AND THE
VARIATION IS CONSIDERED TO BE WELL FOUNDED.
MEETING ON THE 04 DECEMBER 2013 WHERE IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL.
THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
Page 143
20 MARCH 2014
Locality Map
Report
The site, legally described as Lot 1, DP 500771, and known as Nos.374-378 Sydney Road,
Balgowlah, is on the northern side of Sydney Road. The site is located on the north-eastern corner
of the intersection between Sydney Road and an allotment of land that acts as a road connecting
Sydney Road to Totem Lane providing vehicular and pedestrian access to the Totem development
at the rear of the subject site. The site has rear access to Totem Lane.
The site is rectangular in shape and has a frontage of 14.28m to Sydney Road and 14.88m to
Totem Lane. The depth of the site is 35.64m.The area of the site is 513.6m2.
The current structures on the site consist of a single storey brick building with corrugated roof. A
café, clothing shop and a butcher shop occupies the building.A small outbuilding containing toilet
facilities and storage is attached to the building and extends along the eastern boundary. The
remaining rear portion of the site is a fully sealed open car park with access off Totem Lane.
The site has a cross fall of approximately 2.46m from the south (Sydney Road) to the north (Totem
Lane).
The locality is predominantly retail/ commercial in character being the Balgowlah Shopping Centre.
A four storey mixed use building, containing retail on the ground level and residential above
occupies the site to the immediate east.
To the immediate west is an existing walkway which provides disabled and pram access to the
rear. A garden bed is located between the walkway and the vehicular access. On the western side
of the access roads is a two storey commercial building.
To the north of the site is the Totem development which contains the Stockland Balgowlah
Shopping Centre and residential apartments. Across Sydney Road to the south are retail /
commercial and mixed use developments with heights ranging from 2 to 4 storeys.
A portion of the original allotment was dedicated to Council a number of years ago on the
understanding that development rights would include land dedicated to Council to provide the
original laneway access (now known as Lane 31 which adjoins to the rear of the subject site).
Page 144
20 MARCH 2014
The Section 96 application proposes;
 Revision to lift /stair core to achieve compliance with BCA.
 Ground floor 42.34 revised to RL42.20 to align with street level.
 Two ground floor units converted to retail 2 as required by DA Approval condition ANS01.
 Revision to Ground floor west footpath balustrade.
 Mechanical exhaust relocated to southern elevation.
 Enclose voids.
 Facade revised to reflect amended location of mechanical grille.
 Extension of north west boundary wall in compliance with BCA.
 Internal layout reconfigured.
 Revision to approved outline to internal western facade and revision of glass wall line unit
5 and 11.
 New skylights added to level 5 units 18 and 19.
 Revised location of bike racks in basement 1.
 Revised garbage room layout basement 1.
History
The subject Section 96 modification application was received on 18 September 2013. The proposal
is for a mixed use development containing two levels of basement car parking (total 22 spaces),
retail and commercial area on the ground floor and nineteen residential apartments above (levels
1, 2, 3 and 4).
During the assessment of the modification application the applicant submitted revised plans. The
application was presented to the December meeting of the Manly Independent Assessment Panel
where the matter was deferred. Additional information in regard to vehicle manoeuvring at
basement levels has now been submitted and Council’s Traffic Engineer has advised that there are
no further requirements.
The application is supported by Plans prepared by Blackmore Design Group, Section 96 (2)
Application - Statement of Environmental Effects dated September 2013 prepared by Blackmore
Design Group which is available for viewing in the file.
Internal Referrals
Engineers Comments
The Council’s Engineers offered no objections to the proposal and no additional conditions
recommended for inclusion in the conditions of consent.
Building Comments
The Council’s Building Surveyor offered no objections to the proposal and no additional conditions
recommended for inclusion in the conditions of consent.
Council’s Landscape Officer offered no objections to the proposal and no additional conditions
recommended for inclusion in the conditions of consent
Waste
External Referrals
The proposal was referred to the Ivanhoe Park Precinct Community Forums for comment on the
3/10/2013. The following comments were received
“No objection by precinct”.
Page 145
20 MARCH 2014
Planning Comments
application:
(i)
The subject site is located in Zone B2 – Local Centre under Manly LEP, 2013 the proposed
development is considered to be permissible within the zone.
Zone B2 Local Centre
Objectives of zone
• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the
needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.
The proposed development will provide both retail and residential use on site which will improve
the existing facilities and services available in the area.
• To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.
The proposed development provides increased employment opportunities within the locality by
providing additional retail/commercial space.
• To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.
The subject site is in close proximity to public transport, thus providing ample opportunity to
increase public transport patronage, and encourage walking and cycle use.
4.
4.3
Standards
Height of buildings
12.5m
4.4
Floor Space Ratio
2.0:1
1136.2m2
Proposed
15.14m –
16.5m
2.21:1
1255.2m2
Complies
Comments
Yes/No
No
No change to
approved height
No
No
22.2m2
increase
on
approved FSR.
Refer to Clause
4.6 / Planning
comments
outcome.
Assessing Planners Comment:
The applicant has submitted an Application to Vary a Development Standard with the modification
application. The Standard provides for a 2.0:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR), the approved
development exhibits a 2.17:1 FSR and the modification now proposes a 2.21:1 FSR, a variation of
10% (2.0% increase over the approved FSR).
Page 146
20 MARCH 2014
It is noted that the additional floor area is obtained by utilizing void spaces and internal
reconfiguration generally within the envelope of the approved building. The proposed modification
(with the exception of the extension of the fin wall on the east boundary) would not add any
perceptible visual bulk and scale to the building. The proposal maintains the approved footprint,
height and boundary setbacks. The applicant identifies improvements to the amenity of future
occupants as a better outcome whilst noting there are no negative external impacts.
The variation is considered to be well founded and is therefore recommended for approval subject
to conditions included in the recommendation requiring deletion of the proposed extension to the
fin wall on the eastern boundary.
5.
5.4
5.5
5.9
5.10
(2) Home Businesses
(3) Home Industries
(6) Kiosks
Applies
No
Complies
N/A
Comments
N/A for this S96
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
6.
6.1
Local Provisions
Acid Sulphate Soils
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
Earthworks
Flood Planning
Terrestrial Biodiversity
Riparian land and watercourses
Wetlands
Landslide Risk
Limited development on foreshore
area
Active street frontages
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
Essential services
Design Excellence
Requirement for development control
plans
Tourist and visitor accommodation
Applies
No
Complies
N/A
Comments
Proposal complies with
the clause or
Refer to Planning
comments
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
N/A
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
The proposed
development will
attract pedestrian
traffic along ground
floor street frontage.
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
No
N/A
N/A for this S96
Page 147
20 MARCH 2014
6.16
Gross floor area in Zone B2
6.17
Health Consulting Rooms and
secondary dwellings in Zones E3 and
E4
Retailing bulky goods in Zone IN2
Location of Sex Services
6.18
6.20
Yes
No
N/A
The proposed Ground
Floor is retained as
retail/commercial use
which satisfies the
intent of this clause.
N/A for this S96
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A for this S96
N/A for this S96
There is no Draft Planning Instrument applicable for this Section 96 modification.
Issues
Townscape
Yes
N/A
Sunlight Assess and Overshadowing
Yes
Yes
N/A
Sustainability
Yes
Accessibility
Yes
Yes
Waste Management
Yes
Yes
Page 148
20 MARCH 2014
Site Area:
513.6
m²
Permitted/
Required
Proposed
0m
0m
Residential 19
Residential 19
Yes
Residential visitor 3
Residential visitor 3
Yes
Commercial 7
Commercial 0
No
1
1 service area
Yes
N/A
N/A
Awnings
N/A
N/A
Excavation
N/A
N/A
Setbacks
Car Parking
Loading bay
Signage - Number of signs
Complies
Yes/No
Yes – no
change
N/A for
this S96
-Size of signs
Subdivision
-Access and services
N/A
Assess and services
acceptable
-Prevailing subdivision
pattern and natural features
Complements
existing pattern
-Energy efficiency
Maximise solar
access
N/A for
this S96
N/A for
this S96
N/A for
this S96
Comment:
The proposed Section 96 modification provides for relatively minor changes to the configuration of
units and retail space generally within the approved building envelope. Apart from car parking
provision, the modifications do not alter the extent of the proposals compliance with the
development controls. The proposal includes retail/commercial space across the whole ground
floor level as required by conditions of the original consent. To allow for improved functioning of the
basement levels, the number of car parking spaces provided for the development has reduced
from the original proposed 25 spaces to 22 plus a separately accessed loading bay/service area.
The distribution of spaces is weighted toward the residential component of the development which
is considered acceptable in the circumstances subject to payment of appropriate Section 94
contributions. It is noted that Condition ANS05 of the consent requires payment of Section 94
contributions for a shortfall of five (5) car parking spaces. A additional payment of Section 94
contributions to offset the deficiency of a further two car parking spaces is required and is included
as a condition in the recommendation.
Page 149
20 MARCH 2014
Applicable
Comments
Conservation Area
No
N/A for this S96
No
N/A for this S96
No
N/A for this S96
Flood Control Lots
No
N/A for this S96
No
N/A for this S96
Road Widening
No
N/A for this S96
There is no planning agreement required or offered in respect of this application.
The application is in accordance with the regulations.
There is no applicable Coastal Zone Management Plan.
The proposed modification will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the natural or built
environments. The proposal will have a positive effect on local economic conditions and will
contribute positively to social aspects of the locality.
The site is considered to be suitable for the development as proposed in this Section 96
modification.
Development Control Plan 2013 Section 2.2 with two (2) submissions received from the following
1.
V A Keating- 1/366-372 Sydney Road, Balgowlah
 Additional loss of solar access and shadows it will create.
 Proposed change No. 8 nominates “North West Boundary wall extended to provide fire
separation between neighboring property and approved bedroom window.’ I am
concerned that change No.8 may relate to the north east wall.
 If this is the case then the extension of the wall will have increased impact on
overshadowing and direct and indirect light to my property. The current approved design
already imposes a very large wall to my west and northwest that already has a significant
impact.
 I have searched Council’s web site but have been unable to find or view shadow
diagrams. I believe that modified shadow diagrams which should be required in this
circumstance, may not have been submitted.
Page 150
20 MARCH 2014
 The bulk of currently approved development occupies almost the entire block the rear
extends approximately 90% to the rear of the site, whereas the bulk of my property extend
approximately 2/3 the way to the rear of the site, with the rear 1/3 of my property being
balcony space, originally designed to enjoy sunlight.
 Given the position of my property I cannot see any significant reduction in fire risk by the
potential extension of the eastern boundary wall. The only potential effect I can see is an
increase in unit size of the development and reduction in light to my property.
 I would ask that Council consider how the applicant could find alternate ways to achieve
BCA compliance rather than just extending the wall.
Assessing Planners Comment
The notation on the plans and in the Statement of Environmental Effects referencing north west is
inconsistent with the plans. The plans show an extension of a fin wall to the north east wall which is
located on the eastern side boundary. The extension is proposed over the ground floor level and
Levels 1 to 4 above. This will result in loss of afternoon sunlight to the adjoining property to the
east. This aspect of the proposed modification will also add to the visual impact of the development
when viewed from adjoining and nearby properties as well as the rear public laneway. There is little
justification for the additional fin wall and alternate less impacting methods of compliance with fire
protection provisions of the BCA are available to the applicant. In this instance it is considered that
the proposed extension of the east side wall to the north is unacceptable and accordingly a draft
condition of consent deleting this component is included in the recommendation.
2.
J McDougall – (no address provided).
 Are you able to confirm that this development complies with every aspect of the
development control plan?
 I am concerned about the number of units being built in this area and want to ensure that
all development is in accordance with the DCP.
The proposed modification involves revisions to an approved development. The approved
development includes some variations to the numeric requirements of Council’s development
control plan (DCP). These variations were considered acceptable and in accordance with the
objectives of the DCP. The proposed modification includes an increase in floor space ratio
which is discussed in detail earlier in this report.
A wider public interest is best served by the proposals ability to provide an appropriate land use
within the locality and by providing a development which is compatible with others in the vicinity.
This is considered to have been achieved with the current proposal.
‘(1)
(2)
or both.
Comments:
In this case, additional contributions are applicable as a part of this modification application.
Page 151
20 MARCH 2014
Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
2 Other modifications
A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person
entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in
accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:
(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is
substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally
granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and
(b) it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the
meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a
concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval
proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has
not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent,
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
the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as
the case may be.
Subsections (1) and (1A) do not apply to such a modification.
(1)
In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent
authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 79C (1) as
are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.
(2)
The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be
the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act
to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified.
With regard to the above it is considered that the proposed modifications to the original consent,
comprise substantially the same development as the original development as consented to. The
modifications requested were notified in accordance with Council's Manly DCP – Amendment 2, for
Notification, and two (2) submissions received. All matters relating to the proposed modification in
terms of impact on neighbouring properties, streetscape and residents concerns have been
considered. The proposed modifications are considered to be satisfactory, and therefore are
recommended for approval.
CONCLUSION:
The modification application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C and Section 96 of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013
and the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 - Amendment 2. And is considered to be
satisfactory for Approval.
Page 152
20 MARCH 2014
RECOMMENDATION
The application to vary the development standard for floor space ratio pursuant to the Manly Local
Environmental Plan 2013 is well founded and is supported.
That pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the
proposed modification to Development Consent No. DA 277/2011 for Demolition of a retail building
and the construction of a mixed use development consisting of a retail area on the ground floor,
nineteen (19) residential apartments and two (2) levels of basement car parking with twenty-two
(22) car parking spaces – involving changes to lifts and fire escapes, enclose voids, increase the
size of the units on all the floors, modification to ground floor balustrade, relocation of mechanical
ventilation and modification to floor level on the ground floor at 374-378 Sydney Road, Balgowlah
be Approved subject to the original conditions of consent with the deletion of condition ASN01 and
the modification of conditions DA1 and ANS05, and addition of conditions ANS07 and
ANS08(3MS01), as follows: DA1
Plans affixed with Council’s stamp relating to Development Consent No. Sec 96 (2) for DA
277/2011
Plan No. / Title
S96 01 - Site Plan
S96 02 - Basement 1, Basement 2
S96 03 - G/F Plan, Level 1 Plan
S96 04 - Level 2 Plan, Level 3 Plan
S96 05 - Level 4 Plan, Roof Plan
S96 06 - South Elevation, West Elevation
S96 07 - North Elevation, East Elevation
S96 08 - Section BB, Section AA
Issue/
Revision & Date
B 13.09.13
D 03.12.13
D 03.12.13
D 03.12.13
D 03.12.13
D 03.12.13
D 03.12.13
B 13.09.13
Date Received
by Council
18.09.13
30.01.14
09.12.13
09.12.13
09.12.13
09.12.13
09.12.13
18.09.13
 Statement of Environmental Effects by Blackmore Design Group dated September 2013
and received by Council 18 September 2013.
ANS01. – Deleted
ANS05
Payment of contribution in lieu of seven (7) car parking spaces which cannot be provided on
a site within the Business Zone, under the Manly Local Environmental Plan, shall be made in
accordance with the provisions of Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan 2004, pursuant
to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The current amount
of contribution (2013 – 2014) for each parking space not provided on site is: (i) Balgowlah $17,317.05 per space. The charges may vary at the time of payment in accordance with
Council’s Section 94 Contributions plan to effect changes in land values, construction costs
and the Consumer Price Index.
Page 153
20 MARCH 2014
The contribution for this development of Demolition of a retail building and the construction
of a mixed use development consisting of a retail area on the ground floor, nineteen (19)
residential apartments, and two levels of basement car parking with twenty one (21) car
parking spaces at 374-378 Sydney Road, Balgowlah is $121,219.35. The amount of the
payment shall be in accordance with the Section 94 charges as at the date of the payment
and must be paid prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.
The calculations for DA277/2011 are as follows: 7 x $17,317.05 = $121,219.35
ANS07
The proposed fin wall extension to the east side external wall, nominated on plans as
amendment No.8 is not approved and is to be deleted from the plans prior to the issue of the
Reason: To reduce impacts on the amenity of the adjoining property to the east and achieve
closer compliance with the objectives of the Manly Development Control Plan 2013 –
Amendment 1.
ANS08 (3MS01)
Works in connection with this Section 96 modification are not to be commenced/carried out
until a new Construction Certificate is issued.
Reason: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires a new updated
Construction Certificate to cover any or all approved Section 96 modifications involving
changes in the design of the development.
ATTACHMENTS
AT- MIAP Plans - DA0277/2011 - 374-378 Sydney Road,
Balgowlah - MIAP 20/03/14
1
8
Pages
document
Page 154
TO:
REPORT:
MIAP Report No. 17
20 MARCH 2014
SUBJECT: 8 Smith Street, Manly - DA0236/2013
FILE NO:
MC/14/26530
Application Lodged:
Applicant:
Owner:
Estimated Cost:
Zoning:
Heritage:
Officer:
20 November 2013 with additional information provided 28
January 2013
Mr R Horsley Care Vaughn Milligan
Mr R M & Mrs C J Horsley
$180,000
Manly Local Environmental Plan, 2013 – R1 General
Residential Zone.
Dwelling houses.
The site is located Within the Pittwater Road Conservation
Area. The stone curbs and street tree’s of Smith Street, Manly
are also listed as items of environmental heritage under the
Manly LEP 2013.
Glen Hugo
SUMMARY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
DEVELOPMENT CONSENT IS SOUGHT FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN
EXISTING ROW HOUSE DWELLING INCLUDING A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION, INTERNAL
ALTERATIONS TO THE GROUND FLOOR, NEW WINDOWS AND A REAR AWNING.
OWNERS AND ONE (1) SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED.
THE APPLICATION WAS REFERRED TO THE OCEAN BEACH PRECINCT COMMUNITY
FORUM FOR COMMENTS, WHICH DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL.
THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A VARIATION TO THE FLOOR SPACE RATIO
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD BY 34.5%.
MEETING ON THE 26 FEBRUARY 2014 WHERE IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL.
THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
Locality Map
Page 155
20 MARCH 2014
Report
Introduction
Subject site and surrounding area
The subject site is commonly known as 8 Smith Street, Manly and legally known as Lot C in DP
437840. The site is located on the north eastern side of Smith Street. The property is regular in
shape and has a frontage of 4.535 m to Smith Street and a length of 30.48m. The site has an area
of 138.5m2. The property currently contains a single storey attached dwelling also known as a row
house. The site is relatively flat.
The surrounding area includes row houses, dwelling house and semidetached dwelling houses.
The proposal includes alterations to and existing row house and includes;
 First floor addition.
 Awning to the rear.
 Internal modifications.
The applicant provided a Statement of Environmental Effects written by Vaughan Milligan
Development Consulting Pty Ltd, dated November 2013 and received by Council 20 November
2013.
Internal Referrals
Engineers Comments
Building Comments
The Council’s Landscape Officer offered no objections to the proposal subject to inclusion of
Heritage
Council's Heritage Officer has commented on the proposal as follows:
"Heritage Status
8 Smith Street is not currently identified as an item of Heritage Significance within Schedule
5 of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 (MLEP).
The building is located within:
 the boundaries of the Pittwater Road Conservation Area;
 the vicinity of an avenue of Tuckeroo and Brush Box; and
 the vicinity of sandstone curbing.
Existing Property
8 Smith Street is a single storey mid-terrace residential dwelling set under a red tiled roof.
The street boundary is defined by a sandstone and painted iron fence. A set of sandstone
steps clad with tessellated tiles lead to the elevated entry porch.
The main elevation appears to be in good conditions and retains its original timber joinery
such as the porch structure, main entry with mulitpaned fan light and the main window to the
front facade. The rear elevation, visible from Smith Lane has been extended with the addition
of a single storey extension.
Page 156
20 MARCH 2014
Proposal
The proposal seeks to:
 Add a first floor addition to the rear of the property; and
 Undertake internal alterations.
Comments
It is noted that whilst the original facade of the property will not be altered to as part of this
development, the first floor development will be visible from the Streetscape. It is also noted
that the rear addition of the neighbouring property, 10 Smith Street, is also visible from the
streetscape and the ridge of the roof line can be viewed when viewing the building from the
western side of the Street. 10 Smith Street is the only older style property in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property which has a visible rear extension. This is not a desired future
outcome for the streetscape.
A site inspection and consideration of the plans has raised concerns that a greater extent of
the proposed development will be visible above the roofline than is seen to the neighbouring
property this is due to the roof form and the set back of the rear addition.
Conditions Of Consent
If the assessment officer is of the opinion that the proposal is to be recommended for
approval, the following condition is to be included;
ANS Condition
1. That the plans are to be amended to include a larger set back of the first floor addition to
ensure that it cannot be seen when viewing the property from the western side of Smith
Street.
Reason: To ensure that the new development respects the traditional development
pattern of the conservation area and does not impact upon the form of the existing terrace
row."
Assessing officers comments: The setback of the proposal is sufficient to prevent the first floor
being visible from the street.
Waste
External Referrals
The proposal was referred to the Ocean Beach Precinct Community Forums for comment The
forum did not object to the proposal.
Planning Comments
application:
(a)
the provisions of:
(i)
The subject site is located in Zone R1 General Residential Zone under Manly LEP, 2013 the
proposed development is considered to be alterations and additions to an existing attached
dwelling and is defined below:
Page 157
20 MARCH 2014
“attached dwelling means a building containing 3 or more dwellings, where:
(a) each dwelling is attached to another dwelling by a common wall, and
(b) each of the dwellings is on its own lot of land, and
(c) none of the dwellings is located above any part of another dwelling”
The proposal is permissible with development consent.
Zone R1 General Residential
Objectives of zone
• To provide for the housing needs of the community.
The proposal provides for housing.
• To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.
The proposal provides for housing.
•
of residents.
The proposal is for a residential use.
4.
4.3
4.4
Principal Development Requirement Proposed Complies
Comments
Standards
Yes/No
Height of buildings
8.5m
6.9m
Yes
The
proposal
complies
Floor Space Ratio
0.6:1
0.807:1
No
Proposal
83.1m2
111.74m2
complies with
the clause
outcome.
Comment:
Floor Space Ratio
The proposal includes an application pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Manly LEP 2013 for a variation
of the floor space ratio development standard. The variation sought is 34.5%. The site is an
undersized allotment and as such 4.1.3.1 of the Manly DCP 2013 is applicable.
The application argues that the proposal is consistent with the scale of the adjoining buildings, is
consistent with the view sharing objectives and is consistent with the objectives for the R1 General
Residential Zone. The application for variation of the development standard is considered to be
adequately address clause 4.6(3) and is considered to be consistent with the objectives for the R1
general residential zone and in the public interest. The application for variation to the floor space
ratio development standard is considered to be well founded.
5.
5.10
Applies
Yes
Complies
Yes
Comments
Page 158
20 MARCH 2014
6.
6.4
Local Provisions
Applies
Yes
Complies
Yes
Comments
Issues
Streetscape


Sunlight Assess and
Overshadowing



Comment
Sunlight Assess and Overshadowing
The proposal does not reduce the overshadowing to the surrounding properties private open space
by more than 1/3rd. The proposed development does not result in loss of solar access between
9am to 3pm to a living room of an adjoining property. The proposed development does not
overshadow adjacent solar systems, or cloths drying area. As such the impacts of the proposal are
consistent with the with the DCP requirements for overshadowing.
In considering the impacts on the existing views of the adjoining properties the DCP refers to the
planning principal established under Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC
140 [25-29]. The impacts on existing views to 10 Smith Street, Manly and are considered below;
“The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly
than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are
valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than
partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more
valuable than one in which it is obscured.”
With regard to the above the affected view is to the top of the pine trees on Manly’s Ocean Beach
and the Kangaroo statue on Kangaroo Street. Both are local landmarks but not on the scale of
iconic views mentioned as examples within Tenacity.
Page 159
20 MARCH 2014
“The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For
example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of
views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a
standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect
than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often
unrealistic.”
The affected views are obtained across the side boundaries and existing ground floor roof of 8
Smith Street.
“The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the
property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more
significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly
valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed
quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say
that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more
useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or
devastating.”
In this instance the views from the proposed development impacts the existing views from the first
floor bedroom which are not as significant as views from living rooms or kitchens. The impact of
the development is considered to be minor as the views are not significant and are obtained from a
bedroom.
“The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact.
A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more
reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of
non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be
considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether
a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and
amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is
no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered
acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.”
The proposed development does not comply with the FSR development standard or side setbacks.
It is noted that the scale of development similar to that of the surrounding development. An
application pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Manly LEP 2013 has been lodged and is considered to be
well founded. Given the pattern of the development within the street being row houses with the
extremely small lot width, the impact of the development is considered to be reasonable.
Site Area: 138.5m2
Permitted/
Required
6.5m
Party wall 6.5m
6.5m
Rear first floor addition
5.9m
Party wall 6.95m
2
2
Roof height
2.5m
1m
NW setback side
1.97m
Party wall 0m
Wall height NW side
SE side
Number of Storeys
Proposed
Complies
Yes/No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Rear first floor addition
0.7m
Page 160
20 MARCH 2014
Site Area: 138.5m2
Permitted/
Required
Proposed
8.0m
5.6m
Setback Rear
Complies
Yes/No
No
Comment:
South Eastern wall height
The proposed development is non-compliant with the wall height development control on the south
eastern side of the site. It is noted that this wall is a party wall and as such has minimal roof
beyond the wall. The height of the wall is well below the height of buildings development standard
under the Manly LEP 2013. The non-compliance with the wall height does not result in additional
amenity impacts as a result of the non-compliance. As such it is considered that the proposal is
consistent with the objectives for height of buildings contained within clause 4.3 the Manly Local
Environmental Plan 2013 which the Manly DCP refers to as the relevant objectives.
North Western Side setback
The proposed development in non-compliant with the setback control on north western side of the
site. The site has a width of 4.535m at the front of the site and 4.66m at the rear of the site which
makes the side setback control impossible to comply with for a first floor addition. The setback of
the proposal matches that of the exiting side setback and that of the adjoining property at 10 smith
Street Manly. The proposed setback is consistent with the setback of development within the street
and does not affect the existing streetscape. The proposed development does not have a
significant impact on the privacy of the adjoining property at 10 Smith Street, Manly. The impacts of
the proposal on solar access are consistent with the DCP requirements. As the setback matches
that of the existing and adjoining it is considered that the proposal provides equitable access to
light sunshine and air movement. The impacts of the proposed development on the views have
been considered and it is considered that view sharing has been achieved. The proposal does not
affect the open space on the site. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives
for setbacks contained within 4.1.4 of the DCP and acceptable on merit.
Rear Setback
The proposed awning at the rear of the dwelling matches that of the existing awning and as such
the proposal does not include an increase in the non-compliance with this development control.
Conservation Area
Applicable
Not Applicable



Flood Control Lots


Road Widening

Gurney Crescent and Clavering Road,
Seaforth

Page 161
20 MARCH 2014
Comment:
Pittwater Road Conservation Area
The proposed development is consistent with the statement of significance contained within 5.2.1
of the DCP.
No planning agreement or draft planning agreement has been entered into under section 93F.
The regulations have been considered.
The impacts of the proposed development are considered to be acceptable.
Subject to the recommended conditions of consent the site is considered to be suitable for the
proposed development.
Development Control Plan 2013 Section 2.2 with one (1) submissions received from the following
1.
Jo Ann Kok, 10 Smith Street
 Non-compliance with floor space ratio development standard.
 Impact on views to pine trees at Manly Beach and the kangaroo statue on Kangaroo
Street.
 Impact on overshadowing bedroom 2 and kitchen window from 7am to 10am during
summer (21 December).
 Loss of ventilation to first floor bedroom 3 / home office.
 Non-compliance with side setback control.
With regard to the above, the application pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Manly LEP 2013 in
relation to the variation of the FSR development standard is considered to be well founded.
The impacts on views and overshadowing have been considered in accordance with Manly
DCP 2013 within the body of this report. Adequate ventilation is maintained to the adjoining
property. The non-compliance in relation to the side setback control is considered to be
reasonable considering the width of the site.
Page 162
20 MARCH 2014
‘(1)
(2)
or both.
Comments:
In this case, in this instance section 94 contributions are not applicable.
CONCLUSION:
Control Plan 2013 and is considered acceptable on merit.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Manly LEP 2013 for a variation of the floor space
ratio development standard is well founded and supported.
That Development Application No. 236/2013 for alterations and additions to an existing row house
dwelling including a first floor addition, internal alterations to the ground floor, new windows and a
rear awning at 8 Smith Street, Manly be approved subject to the following conditions:DA1
Plan No. / Title
Issue/
Revision & Date
Revision A / 12 November 2013
Date Received by
Council
28 January 2013
DA01
Site Analysis Plan
DA02
28 January 2013
Ground level Plan
DA03
28 January 2013
First Floor Plan
DA04
28 January 2013
Roof Plan
DA05
28 January 2013
Elevation – Sheet 1
DA06
28 January 2013
Elevation – Sheet 2 + Section
 Statement of Environmental Effects written by Vaughan Milligan Development Consulting
Pty Ltd, dated November 2013 and received by Council 20 November 2013.
 BASIX Certificate Number A172643, dated 3 October 2013 and received by Council 20
November 2013.
Page 163
20 MARCH 2014
CERTIFICATE
1 (2AP01)
2 (2AP03)
owners.
3 (2CD01)
Trust Fund Deposit of $5,100. The Deposit is required as security against damage to Council
Note:
4 (2CD05)
5 (2CD07)
A Certificate of Adequacy signed by a practising structural engineer stating the existing structure is
capable of supporting the proposed additions, is to be submitted to the Council/Accredited Certifier
prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: The existing building must be able to support proposed additional loading.
Page 164
20 MARCH 2014
6 (2DS01)
7 (2WM02)
management.
8 (3BM01)
9 (3CD01)
been issued.
10 (3CD02)
11 (3CD03)
12 (3LD02)
removed.
protected.
Page 165
20 MARCH 2014
13 (3LD03)
14 (4AP02)
15 (4CD01)
site works:
legislation.
recycling.
Page 166
20 MARCH 2014
drainage system.
16 (4CD02)
works.
17 (4CD03)
18 (4CD06)
19 (4CD07)
Note: The Code of Practice and Guide referred to above are known collectively as the Worksafe
further advice.
Page 167
20 MARCH 2014
20 (4LD03)
21 (4LD04)
22 (4LD05)
23 (4LD06)
24 (4LD07)
25 (4MS01)
The cost of these inspections by Council is $885(being $295 per inspection inclusive of GST).
Page 168
20 MARCH 2014
26 (5DS01)
27 (5FR01)
DEVELOPMENT
28 (6LP01)
29 (6LP02)
30 (6LP04)
inconsistency.
31 (6MS02)
32 (6NL01)
this approval.
ATTACHMENTS
MIAP Plans - DA0236/2013 - 8 Smith Street,
ATManly - MIAP 20/03/13
1
12
Pages
document
Page 169
TO:
REPORT:
MIAP Report No. 18
20 MARCH 2014
SUBJECT: 102-104 North Steyne, Manly - DA0056/2012
Section 96(1A)
FILE NO:
MC/14/26494
Application Lodged:
Applicant:
Owner:
Estimated Cost:
Zoning:
Heritage:
Planning Officer:
27 November 2013
Mr Mitchell Corn
Proprietors of Strata Plan 48406
$0
Manly Local Environmental Plan, 2013 – R3 Medium Density
Residential
Residential Flat buildings
Heritage Stone Kerb to North Steyne
Ellise Mangion
SUMMARY:
1.
2.
3.
COUNCIL APPROVED THE APPLICATION FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING INCLUDING REAR AND SIDE ADDITIONS,
NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS ON THE 8 MAY 2012.
THE CURRENT APPLICATION IS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE CONSENT.
OWNERS AND THERE WERE NO SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED.
4.
APPLICATION INCLUDES A VARIATION TO THE FLOOR SPACE RATIO
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD OF 56% (ACTUAL 1%).
5.
THE APPLICATION WAS NOT REFERRED TO THE PRECINCT COMMUNITY FORUM
FOR COMMENTS.
MEETING ON THE 05 FEBRUARY 2014 WHERE IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL.
6.
7.
8.
Locality Map
Page 170
20 MARCH 2014
Report
The subject property is commonly known as Unit 3, 102-104 North Steyne Manly and legally
known as Lot 3 of Strata Plan 48406. The site is located on the western side of North Steyne. The
property is rectangular in shape and has an overall site area of 1103m2. The property currently
contains a five level residential flat building with basement car parking with vehicular access via an
existing driveway from Pine Lane. The building consists of 12 units with unit 3 being located on the
Ground floor.
The surrounding area includes residential flat buildings and Manly Beach.
No burdens or constraints preclude the proposed modifications.
The proposal includes
The applicant provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Mitchell Corn dated 19
December 2013 received by Council on 23 December 2013 in support of the application.
The officer has been in regular contact with the applicant throughout the assessment process.
Internal Referrals
Engineers Comments
Council’s Engineer has commented on the proposal as follows:
No additional conditioned required. Previous conditions remain unchanged.
Building Comments
Waste
Council's Waste Officer has commented on the proposal as follows:
No further conditions.
Planning Comments
application:
(i) any environmental planning instrument, and
SEPP
State Environmental Planning Policy
SEPP 14 – Coastal Wetlands
SEPP 32- Urban Consolidation
SEPP 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development
SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land
SEPP 64 – Advertising and Signage
Applies Yes/No
No
No
No
No
No
Page 171
20 MARCH 2014
SEPP 65 – Residential Flat Buildings
SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection
SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009
SEPP BASIX 2004
SEPP Housing for seniors or people with a disability 2004
SEPP Infrastructure 2007
SREP Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
The subject site is located in Zone R3 Medium Density Residential under Manly LEP, 2013 the
proposed development is considered to be ancillary to the existing residential development and is
supported.
The proposed is considered to be permissible within the zone subject to development consent.
Zone R3 Medium Density Residential
Objectives of zone
• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential
environment.
The proposed Section 96 is for modification works to an existing residential flat building that is
considered to currently satisfy the above objective.
• To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.
The proposed Section 96 is for modification works to an existing residential flat building that is
considered to currently satisfy the above objective.
•
of residents.
The proposed modification is for works to a residential premises and the above objective is not
considered to be applicable.
•
To encourage the revitalization of residential areas by rehabilitation and suitable
redevelopment;
The proposed Section 96 is for modification works to an existing residential flat building to revitalise
an existing unit and is considered to currently satisfy the above objective.
•
To encourage the provision and retention of tourist accommodation that enhances the role
of Manly as an international tourist destination.
The proposal is not for Tourist accommodation and therefore the above objective is not considered
to be applicable.
4.
4.4
Principal Development
Standards
Floor Space Ratio
Requirement Proposed
Complies
1.5:1
1654.3m2
Yes
2.34:1
2582m2
outcome for and from the development.
Page 172
20 MARCH 2014
(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.
The applicant’s written request is considered to be satisfactory for the modification of the consent,
considering the streetscape and the additional area is contained within the existing envelope is
satisfactory and no adverse impact to neighbours.
Variation to Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio
The proposed variation is to Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio development standard of the Manly
Local Environmental Plan 2013. The required Floor Space Ratio is 1.5:1, the proposal is for a
maximum floor space ratio of 2.34:1. The proposed variation to the development standard is a 56%
variation to the floor space ratio development standard. However, the actual variation to the FSR
from the approved works on site is 1% as the existing development already exceeds the
permissible FSR. The submitted request for Clause 4.6 variation is considered to be well founded
and satisfactory.
The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest as it satisfies the objectives of
the floor space ratio clause as listed below:
Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio
(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows
(a) to ensure the bulk and scale of development is consistent with the existing and desired
streetscape character,
The proposed development modification is considered to ensure the bulk and scale is
consistent with the existing streetscape character and is therefore supported to approval.
(b)
to control building density and bulk in relation to a site area to ensure that development
does not obscure important landscape and townscape features,
The proposed development modification is considered to control building density and ensure
bulk and scale does not obscure important features and is therefore supported to approval.
(c)
to maintain an appropriate visual relationship between new development and the
existing character and landscape of the area,
The proposed modification maintains a visual relationship between the new development and
the existing area and is therefore supported.
(d)
to minimise adverse environmental impacts on the use or enjoyment of adjoining land
and the public domain
The proposed modification is not considered to have adverse environmental impacts on the
enjoyment on adjoining land and is supported for approval.
(e)
to provide for the viability of business zones and encourage the development,
expansion and diversity of business activities that will contribute to economic growth,
the retention of local services and employment opportunities in local centres.
The proposed modification is for alterations to a residential property and the above objective
is considered to be not applicable.
The proposed variation to the Floor Space ratio development standard is considered to satisfy the
objectives and is also considered to be in the public interest considering the circumstances of the
case. The proposed variation is considered to be acceptable and justify contravening the
development standard.
Page 173
20 MARCH 2014
5.
5.4
5.5
5.9
5.10
(2) Home Businesses
(3) Home Industries
(6) Kiosks
Applies
No
Comment
No
No
No
6.
6.1
6.4
6.9
Local Provisions
Acid Sulphate Soils
Applies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comment
Comment:
The proposed development modification is considered to be compliant with the local provisions
applicable to the subject property.
No draft environmental planning instrument applies to the subject property.
Issues
Consistent with controls
Yes
Yes
Inconsistent with controls
Page 174
20 MARCH 2014
Site Area:
1103 m²
S setback side
Permitted/
Required
1m
Proposed
8.0m
5.2m
No
12m²
20.64m²
Yes
Setback Rear
Private Open Space
Complies
Yes/No
4.3m
Yes
Comment:
The proposed rear setback has a greater setback that the established rear building line and
maintains the required level of private open space and is therefore supported.
Applicable
Not Applicable

Conservation Area


Road Widening

Comment:
The proposed modification is considered to be minor in nature and is not visible from the
Foreshore. Therefore it is considered that the proposed modification is consistent with the
Foreshore Scenic Protection Area controls and objectives.
No draft planning agreement has been proposed for this property.
No coastal management plan is considered to be applicable to the subject property.
The proposed modification will have a minimal impact upon the natural and built environment. The
proposal is not considered to have social and economic impacts upon the locality.
The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development modification.
Page 175
20 MARCH 2014
No submissions were received in relation to the proposed modification.
Section 96 (1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
(1A) Modifications involving minimal environmental impact
A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person
entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in
accordance with the regulations, 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.
Subsections (1), (2) and (5) do not apply to such a modification.
With regard to the above it is considered that the proposed modifications to the original consent
comprise substantially the same development as the original development as consented to. The
modifications requested were notified in accordance with Council's Manly DCP 2013 – Amendment
1 for Notification, and no submissions received. All matters relating to the proposed modification in
terms of impact on neighbouring properties, streetscape and neighbours’ concerns have been
considered. The proposed modifications are considered to be satisfactory, subject to conditions
and therefore recommended for approval.
CONCLUSION:
The application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C and Section 96 of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 and
the Manly Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered satisfactory for
approval.
This report is referred to the Manager of Development Assessment for determination in
accordance with the delegations granted by the General Manager.
Page 176
20 MARCH 2014
RECOMMENDATION
That the application to vary the development standard for floor space ratio pursuant to clause 4.6 of
the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 is well founded and supported.
That pursuant to Section 96 (1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the
proposed modification to Development Consent No. 56/2012 for alterations and additions to an
existing residential flat building including rear and side additions, new windows and doors –
involving modification to rear addition and extension to the rear bedrooms with siding doors - Part 2
at Unit 3 102-104 North Steyne, Manly be approved subject to the original conditions of consent
and the modification of condition No. DA1 the addition of condition No. ANS02 as follows: ANS02
Works in connection with this Section 96 modification are not to be commenced/carried
out until a new Construction Certificate is issued.
Reason: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires a new updated
Construction Certificate to cover any or all approved Section 96 modifications involving
changes in the design of the development.
DA1 - Documents relating to consent.
in accordance with the following plans and documentation.
Plan No. / Title
Dwg No. A 01 – Apartment Plan
Dwg No. A 03 – South & West Elevations
Issue/
Revision & Date
Revision D, 10.02.2012
Revision B, 02.02.2012
Date Received by
Council
15.03.2012
15.03.2012
 Development Application – Minor alterations and additions prepared by JBA Urban
Planning Consultants on 9 March 2012 and received by Council on 15 March 2012.
Except as amended by:
Plans affixed with Council’s stamp relating to Section 96 Modification of Development Consent No.
56/2012
Plan No. / Title
Dwg No. A 01 – Apartment Plan
Dwg No. A 03 – South & West Elevations
Issue/
Revision & Date
Revision F, 28.10.2013
Revision D, 28.10.2013
Date Received by
Council
27.11.2013
27.11.2013
Documentation affixed with Council’s stamp relating to Section 96 Modification of Development
Consent No. 56/2012
 Statement of Environmental Effects dated 19 December 2013 and received by Council on
23 December 2013.
Page 177
20 MARCH 2014
ATTACHMENTS
AT- MIAP Plans - DA0056/2012 - S96(1A) - Part 2 - 102104 Norh Steyne, Manly - MIAP 20/03/14
1
2
Pages
Circulated in
Attachments document
Page 178

1.81 MB - Manly Council

Transcription

Similar documents

HIKVISION ARG-77xxseries

Insulpanel Description Manual

van straten enterprises, inc.

Sprint AIR - Veterinary X-rays

courtsalys - Alys Beach

Presentation

PDF Button

custom truck accessories