| Your Local Council |
  |
 |
|
Minutes of the Waverley Council Inspection Meeting held on Saturday, 2 February 2008
Council Meetings Minutes Index
How to Search Council Meetings Minutes
PRESENT
Councillor Strewe (Mayor) (Chair)
Councillors Betts, Clayton, Copeland, Kanak, Kay, Main, Moscatt,
Ridyard and Sloan.
At the commencement of proceedings at 12.37pm, those present were as listed above.
At 12.40pm, the meeting was adjourned for the purpose of conducting inspections.
At 4.15pm, Council reconvened in the Council chamber.
Cr Wakefield joined the meeting during the inspection of the Cafe at the Bondi Pavilion.
Cr Moscatt did not attend any site inspections. He was present when Council reconvened in the chamber.
Cr Sloan did not reconvene with Council in the chamber.
I-0802.A APOLOGIES
Apologies were received and accepted from Cr Newhouse.
Late apologies were received and accepted from Cr Wakefield.
I-0802.DI DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Mayor called for declarations of interest and the following was received:
1. All Councillors declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item I-0802.2.5 – Bondi Pavilion, Queen Elizabeth Drive, Bondi Beach – S96 Modification to delete Condition No.25 of development consent to allow cooking within an existing café, including new exhaust system (DA 171/00/A)Cr Clayton informed the meeting that the applicant is a member of the Bondi Forum.
I-0802.1 GENERAL BUSINESS
There were no Items of General Business.
I-0802.2 INSPECTIONS
I-0802.2.1
14 Botany Street, Bond Junction – Demolition of an existing boarding house and the construction of a new boarding house (DA 47/2007)
This matter was last considered by the Development Control Committee at its meeting held on 11 December 2007. At that meeting the Committee decided to defer the matter to this meeting.
Report dated 11 October 2007 from the Development & Building Unit.
MOTION / DECISION (Strewe / Moscatt)
That the application be deferred to allow the applicant to address the following matters:
1. All conditions listed under Clause 6 - General Modifications of the report.
2. The façade is heavy and requires additional finessing and articulation.
3. There is to be no plant room on the roof and fans are to be installed in all bedrooms (The proposed building is over council’s height controls and the plant room would be an unnecessary additional bulking up detracting from the amenity of the neighbours and the look of the building. If there is no plant – that is no AC and no lift there is no requirement for a plant room).
4. The entrance is to be from the front centre of the building (As there are already noise complaints from neighbours with the existing numbers of occupants. This will be relatively simple to change as there is no lift and the rooms open off a corridor in the centre already, it will only require room 102 to be slightly narrower. See p 49 of the meeting agenda).
5. Where deemed necessary by a passive solar expert each window is to have a sunshade above it for protection from midsummer sun.
6. The word ‘tenant’ is to be changed to read ‘boarder/lodger’ throughout the report.
7. On receiving legal advice on an appropriate definition of boarding house and boarder/lodger this definition is to be written in to the approval and appropriate conditions and plan of management is included, satisfying all conditions of the act.
8. A full time resident manager and manager’s flat is to be provided.
9. Refer to the LEP definition of the boarding house re communal cooking and delete the kitchenettes.
10. There be a $1000 bond on the large palm tree that has to be moved.
11. The Management Plan is submitted to Council for approval.
12. A survival plan be submitted to Council showing how the trees on-site are going to be protected and kept in a living condition throughout the construction period.
13. The applicant reviews the SEPP 65 recommendations and includes them in the design.
14. Double glazing on all windows.
I-0802.2.2
37 York Road, Queens Park – Alterations and additions (DA 472/2007)
This matter was last considered by the Development Control Committee at its meeting held on 11 December 2007. At that meeting the Committee decided to defer the matter to this meeting.
Report dated 28 November 2007 from the Development & Building Unit.
MOTION (Moscatt / Strewe)
That the application be approved in accordance with the conditions contained in this report subject to the following additional conditions:
1. The windows in the stairwell on the eastern side be translucent.
2. The size and species of the additional trees on the southern side are to be specified to the satisfaction of Council’s Tree Management Officer.
AMENDMENT (Main / Kanak)
The deck at ground level be setback from the southern boundary by 2 metres.
THE AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND DECLARED LOST.
DECISION: That the Motion be adopted.
I-0802.2.3
31 Yanko Avenue, Bronte – Demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a part two/part three storey dwelling with parking and rooftop terrace (DA243/2007)
This matter was last considered by the Development Control Committee at its meeting held on 11 December 2007. At that meeting the Committee decided to defer the matter to this meeting.
Report dated 9 February 2005 from the Development and Building Unit.
MOTION (Betts / Ridyard)
That the application be approved in accordance with the conditions contained in this report subject to the following additional conditions:
1. A landscape plan be submitted for the property and should include the planting of trees between the garage and the property to the west.
2. A $2000 bond be placed on the trees between the garage and the property to the west for a period of 24 months to ensure their survival.
FORESHADOWED MOTION (Main / Wakefield)
That the application be refused in accordance with the reasons contained in this report.
THE MOTION WAS PUT AND DECLARED LOST ON A SHOW OF HANDS 4/6.
THE FORESHADOWED MOTION NOW BECAME THE SUBSTANTIVE MOTION AND WAS PUT AND DECLARED CARRIED.
DECISION: That the Substantive (Foreshadowed) Motion be adopted.
I-0802.2.4
34B Gardyne Street, Bronte – New House (DA 392/2007)
This matter was last considered by the Development Control Committee at its meeting held on 11 December 2007. At that meeting the Committee decided to defer the matter to this meeting.
Report dated 20 November 2007 from the Development and Building Unit.
MOTION (Main / Moscatt)
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposal fails to satisfy the Desired Future Character objectives of Part 4.4 of Waverley Development Control Plan 2006 as follows:
(a). By virtue of its height, bulk and scale, it does not minimise the impact of development on existing public and private views and vistas. This is evidenced, in particular, by the devastating impact upon the views available across the site from the living areas of 32 Gardyne Street.
(b). The proposal relies on excavated and filled ground and does not emphasize the natural topography of the area and does not retain or emphasize existing landscape features such as sloping ground.
(c). It does not satisfy the objective expressed in Part 4.2 of Waverley Development Control Plan 2006 in that the proposed building does not reinforce the typical bulk and scale whilst the proposal is not consistent with the street’s established setbacks, height and architectural character. The inadequate setbacks, in the order of 900mm from the southern, western and northern boundaries, and in the order of 1 metre from the eastern boundary exacerbate the impacts of the excessive height and bulk.
2. The proposal by virtue of its excessive height does not satisfy the following Objectives of Part 5.1 of Waverley Development Control Plan 2006:
(a). The proposal does not ensure that the height and scale of the development relates to the topography with minimal cut and fill. The proposal relies upon a flawed calculation of building height by using existing ground levels instead of natural ground levels as defined within the Waverley Development Control Plan under the definition of D1 5.1 Building Height.
(b). The proposal, by virtue of its excessive height and inadequate setbacks does not minimise view loss from other dwellings.
(c). The proposal, by virtue of its height and close proximity to sensitive areas of adjacent and nearby dwellings does not minimise loss of privacy to other dwellings. This is manifested in the likely adverse privacy impacts upon the principal areas of private open space of the adjoining properties, particularly 32, 34 and 36 Gardyne Street.
(d). The proposal, by virtue of its height, bulk and inadequate setbacks will have an unacceptable degree of solar access impact upon dwellings and adjoining open space. This is manifested in the likely adverse privacy impacts upon the principal areas of private open space of the adjoining properties, particularly 32 and 36 Gardyne Street.
(e). The proposal does not minimise bulk related impacts of proposed dwelling houses by virtue of its impact upon overshadowing, views, privacy and lack of adequate usable landscaped areas.
(f). The proposal will not enhance the predominant neighbourhood and streets character by virtue of its excessive height, bulk and inadequate setbacks.
(g). The proposal provides for an unacceptable degree of visual impact due to the scale, height and lack of setbacks.
(h). The proposal by virtue of the location and elevation of the swimming pool and pool terrace provides an unacceptably high retaining wall, and potential for overlooking, particularly to nos 409, 411 and 413 Bronte Road.
3. The proposal is flawed in that, the proposed dwelling height seeks to rely upon existing ground levels and not natural ground levels as required under the Definitions contained within Waverley Development Control Plan 2006.
4. The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives expressed in Part 5.2 of Waverley Development Control Plan 2006 as follows:
(a). The proposal seeks consent for a dwelling of unacceptable size and bulk that does not adequately address the constraints of the size and shape of the allotment.
(b). The proposal by virtue of its excessive height and inadequate setbacks will result in an overdevelopment of the site.
(c). The proposal by virtue of its adverse impacts upon privacy, solar access and views does not minimise impacts upon adjoining or nearby allotments.
(d). The proposal by virtue of its height, bulk, scale and lack of setbacks does not add to the existing character of the area.
(e). The proposal by virtue of its height, bulk, scale and lack of setbacks is not in character with the surrounding development.
5. The proposal by virtue of its reliance upon the vehicular accessway to Gardyne Street will result in an unacceptable degree of visual bulk of the built form by virtue of its concentration of building bulk into the principal rectangular part of the site.
6. The proposal, by virtue of its reliance upon existing retaining structures does not demonstrate that the proposed works are able to be carried out without the need for significant structural works to render retaining walls and associated structures capable of withstanding any additional loads imposed by work and vehicular movements associated with construction of the proposed development.
7. The proposal, by virtue of its excessive bulk, scale, height, lack of adequate setbacks, elevated decks and swimming pool, and subsequent likely adverse impacts upon the locality fails to satisfy the following Aims of Clause 3 of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996:
(d) to ensure that new housing is compatible with surrounding development.
(f) to improve the amenity of residential areas.
8. The proposal, by virtue of its excessive bulk, scale, height, elevated decks and swimming pool, and lack of adequate setbacks fails to satisfy the following objective of the Residential 2(a) zone, contained within the Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996:
(b) to maintain and improve the amenity and existing characteristics of localities predominantly characterised by dwelling-houses.
9. The entry portico structure does not comply with front building setback requirements and should be deleted - the gate exceeds the maximum desirable height of 1200 mm on the front property boundary alignment and the portico and attendant structures obscure through views from the public domain.
10. The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.
11. The applicant take into account the covenant over the subject site.
FORESHADOWED MOTION (Betts / Kay)
That the application be deferred in accordance with the reasons contained in the DBU report subject to the following additional conditions:
1. The applicant satisfy the reasons for refusal referred to in the Motion.
2. A structural engineer assess the retaining wall on the eastern boundary and submit their report to Council.
3. Building on the handle of the battle-axe be limited to one storey.
4. Council officers notify interested Councillors and objectors when the amended plans have been received at Council.
THE MOTION WAS PUT AND DECLARED LOST ON A SHOW OF HANDS 4/6.
THE FORESHADOWED MOTION NOW BECAME THE SUBSTANTIVE MOTION AND WAS PUT AND DECLARED CARRIED ON A SHOW OF HANDS 6/4.
DECISION: That the Substantive (Foreshadowed) Motion be adopted.
I-0802.2.5
Bondi Pavilion, Queen Elizabeth Drive, Bondi Beach – S96 Modification to delete Condition No.25 of development consent to allow cooking within an existing café, including new exhaust system (DA 171/00/A)
This matter was last considered by the Development Control Committee at its meeting held on 11 December 2007. At that meeting the Committee decided to defer the matter to this meeting.
Report dated 27 November 2007 from the Development and Building Unit.
MOTION / DECISION (Clayton / Ridyard)
That the application be approved in accordance with the conditions contained in this report subject to the approval for cooking be limited to 5 years and if unsatisfactory must make good.
All Councillors declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item. Cr Clayton informed the meeting that the applicant is a member of the Council run Bondi Forum.
I-0802.RM SUBMISSION OF RESCISSION MOTIONS
Note from the General Manager: Rescission motions received before the close of a meeting will stay action to implement Council's decision until the rescission motion has been determined. This is in line with section 372 of the Local Government Act and Council's Code of Meeting Practice.
Rescission motions must be submitted to the General Manager, or in the absence of the General Manager a member of Council's Governance Unit, and announced before the close of the meeting. The date and time of receipt will be noted on all rescission motions.
Rescission motions received after the close of a meeting will not stay action on implementing Council's decision.
Rescission motions will generally be dealt with at the next Council meeting.
The Chair called for the submission of any rescission motions and none were received.
THE MEETING CLOSED AT 4.55PM
SIGNED AND CONFIRMED
19 FEBRUARY 2008 MAYOR
Back to Meeting Minutes Index
