The application was referred to following sections of Council:
a. Traffic
Council’s Traffic Section reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
The proposed residential development will have minimal impacts in terms of its traffic generation potential. There are no objections to the proposal in terms of traffic impact.
However as Old Northern Road Road is a classified road, the matter shall be referred to the TfNSW (RMS) for concurrence. It is recommended that vehicles exiting the driveway be restricted to left in left out through the installation of a seagull island.
b. Engineering
Council’s Engineering Section reviewed the proposal, and following several amendments and a number of requests for the various matters to be addressed, does not support the proposed development in its current form.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
The following comments were provided:
The proposed wider driveway impacts the existing bus stop. The Traffic report dated 26/09/2018 submitted with the application does not address this impact. An amended Traffic Report to be reflective to the impact due to widening of the driveway has not been provided.
The Traffic report dated 26/09/2018 prepared by ‘TTPP transport planning’ has not analysed the traffic additionally generated by the change of use and the queuing effect.
The proposed parking variation and the stacked car space are not supported.
The easement width over the northern lot is to be 1.0m wide as per the subdivision consent DA 1528/2015/ZA. The 300mm wide as shown on the stormwater drawing will not be acceptable.
The surface levels of the above ground OSD basin are to be able to gravitationally drain back to the Discharge Control Pit. The levels provided do not comply with this requirement.
The design engineer is to ensure any discrepancies on existing surface levels opposed to the approved EC drawings (if any) are to be fixed to be compliant to the current new development application instead of referring to the previous approvals.
The architectural elevation plans are not consistent with the engineering plans, particularly with respect to levels and the OSD, which show ground level differences of up to 2m. The landscape plans are also not consistent with either the architectural elevation plans or the engineering plans.
c. Landscaping
Council’s Landscaping Officer reviewed the proposal, and following several amendments and a number of requests for the various matters to be addressed, does not support the proposed development in its current form.
The following comments were provided:
I have major concerns relating to the construction on site in relation to tree impacts, major conflicts with proposed plans, and a lack of detail and consistency between plans.
During a site inspection it was observed that an OSD has been constructed extending to the rear of the properties which has resulted in excessive retaining walls (at unapproved levels) and potential impacts on neighbouring trees. The existing consent required no level changes within the TPZ of neighbouring trees. In order to address the above, we require an amended Arboricultural Assessment which assess the damage to trees within the adjoining properties, and provide recommendations for ongoing remediation. The arborist report and plans are to be amended to reflect the current trees one site, as tree removal for the site has already been undertaken.
Additionally, the existing consent required a Project Arborist to supervise works in the vicinity of or within the Tree Protection Zone of trees to be retained, which would include Tree 10, 15 , and those within the rear yard of 55 Chelsea avenue. Council has not received the certification within 14 of the works as required by the consent. Furthermore, the proposed stormwater plan proposes a Pier and Beam footing, however this does not appear to have been undertaken, with an excavated strip footing evident.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
As indicated above, retaining walls for an above ground OSD have been installed in the rear of both lots. The walls were located on the landscape plan, despite council requesting the OSD that no level changed were permitted with TPZs of tree to be retained. The approved landscape plan located the rear wall across both lots at TOW 113.85. The natural ground level on the boundary is 113.00. Therefore the retaining wall on the rear boundary for the above ground OSD should be max 850mm high (which are not even shown on the architectural plans). As can be seen by the following images, the walls are at least 1.4m high.
Additional to the significant amenity impacts from the 1.4m height of the retaining wall, the construction of the wall has additional impacts, including apparent drainage from the bottom of the OSD running directly into the rear yard of the neighbours and a visually unacceptable attachment of the 1.8m high fence to the wall, resulting in an unacceptable interface with a total height of 3.2m viewed the rear property.
As this 1.4m wall appears to be unapproved and constructed without the appropriate engineering, it is not supported by Council.
The proposed ground levels shown on the current plans are significantly inconsistent with the recently constructed levels.
Additional retaining walls have also been constructed on boundaries where not approved.
For example, the south-west wall extends much further past the retaining walls that were located on the approved landscape plan. The recently constructed walls and pits are also not in accordance with the proposed stormwater plans.
None of the plans reflect the location of the recently constructed walls. All details of walls, wall heights and fence heights conflict with what now exists, and between plans.
The architectural plans appear to locate walls surrounding all boundaries of the site. This is not supported and is not indicated on the landscape plans.
The recently constructed boundary fencing is also not in accordance with the approved plans.
A 1.2m high solid brick wall with palisade fencing on top is proposed to the front boundaries of both lots. This solid 1.2 wall on the front boundary is not supported. There are no other examples within the streetscape of a 1.2m high solid front wall without screen planting.
Landscaping to the front setback must be compatible with the streetscape as per SEPP (ARH) 2009 and Council’s landscaping DCP requirements.
The location of bin storage areas is also not in keeping with the streetscape. The location of Hydrants within the front setback is far too prominent, and not in keeping with the streetscape as required.
The proposed ramps located outside the property boundary, on the two pedestrian paths are not supported.
d. Environmental Health
Following a number of amendments, including deleting the rear balconies, and the submission of additional information, no objection was raised to the proposal subject to conditions.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
e. Resource Recovery
Following a number of amendments, including changing the garbage storage area from the basement to the front setback area and collection from onsite collection to kerbside collection, and the submission of additional information, no objection was raised to the proposal subject to conditions.