Hornsby Shire Council

Attachment to Report No. PLN211/08 Page 0

 

Development Application No:    DA/167/2007

Description of Proposal:             Alterations and additions to a dwelling-house, demolition of a pool shed and erection of a cabana.

Property Description:                   Lot 9, DP 200132, (No. 22) Warandoo Street, Hornsby

Applicant:                                         Mr A F Just

Owner:                                              Mr A F Just

Statutory Provisions:                    Hornsby Shire LEP 1994 Residential A (Low Density) Zone

Estimated Value:                            $160,000

Ward:                                                 B

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Development Application No 167/2007 at Lot 9 DP200132 (No. 22) Warandoo Street, Hornsby (hereafter referred to as DA/167/2007) be refused for the reasons detailed in Schedule 1 of this report.

______________________________________________________________

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

1.         The application proposes alterations and additions to a dwelling-house, the demolition of a pool shed and the erection of a cabana.

 

2.         Council, at its Planning Meeting held on 15 August 2007, resolved to defer its consideration of the Development Application and requested the applicant  to submit amended plans addressing concerns in relation to the height of the rear extension to the dwelling-house, the deletion of a first floor deck to minimise privacy impacts and to provide a justification why the proposed cabana in the north-western corner of the site should be approved on a nil setback to side and rear boundaries.

 

3.         The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal in the Land and Environment Court against Council’s deemed refusal of the Development Application (Proceedings No. 10760 of 2008).

 

4.         The proposal does not comply with the provisions of the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan (HSLEP) and the Dwelling House Development Control Plan (DCP) in regard to height, setbacks and privacy impacts.

 

5.         Four (4) submissions were received following the notification of the development application raising objection to the development proposal.  A further two (2) submissions raising objections to the application have been received following the lodgement of the appeal.

 

6.         It is recommended that the application be refused.

 

HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION

 

At its Planning Committee Meeting on 15th August, 2007, Council resolved:

 

“That Development Application No. 167/2007 for alterations to a dwelling-house demolition of pool shed and erection of a cabana at Lot 9, DP200132 ( No. 22) Warandoo Street, Hornsby, be deferred and the applicant be requested to submit amended plans to:-

 

1.     Lower the additions by approximately one (1) metre to reduce the extent of overshadowing of No. 24 Warandoo Street and to maintain the views currently enjoyed by the owners of No. 20 Warandoo Street.

 

2.     Remove the proposed master bedroom deck to minimise the privacy impacts upon the existing deck of No. 20 Warandoo Street.

 

3.     Allow the applicant the opportunity to provide justification as to why the cabana in the north eastern corner of the allotment should be approved.”

 

This report details the assessment of the application for Council’s determination.  The applicant has lodged an appeal in the Land and Environment Court against a ‘deemed refusal’ of the Development Application.

 

HISTORY OF SITE

 

A report in relation to Development Application No. 167/2007 was considered by Council at its Planning Meeting held on 15 August, 2007.  The initial report to Council recommended approval of the application.  The Executive Manager, Planning, in a memo to Councillors dated 9 August 2007, changed the recommendation following an inspection of the site.  The amended recommendation was that consideration of the application be deferred and that the applicant be requested to submit amended plans to:

 

1.      Lower the additions by approximately one (1) metre to reduce the extent of overshadowing of No. 24 Warandoo Street and to maintain the views currently enjoyed by the owners of No. 20 Warandoo Street.

 

2.      Remove the proposed master bedroom deck to minimise the privacy impacts upon the existing deck of No. 20 Warandoo Street.

 

3.      Allow the applicant the opportunity to provide justification as to why the cabana in the north eastern corner of the allotment should be approved.”

 

The Council adopted the amended recommendation in its resolution at its Planning Committee meeting held on 15 August, 2007 and deferred consideration of the Development Application.

 

On 5 August 2008, the applicant lodged an appeal in the Land & Environment Court against Council’s ‘deemed refusal’ of DA/167/2007.

 

On 26 September 2008, a Case Management hearing was held in the Land and Environment Court before Commissioner Tuor.  Council’s Solicitor informed the Court that the appeal had been lodged outside the statutory time period to file an appeal on a ‘deemed refusal’.  The Commissioner was also informed that the Council has the opportunity to determine the application by either granting a Development Consent or refusing the Development Application.  If the application is refused, the Court could resolve the legal issue relating to the late appeal.

 

THE SITE

 

The site has an area of 866.3m2, is located on the low, western side of Warandoo Street, Hornsby, and experiences an average fall of 20% to the rear of the site.

 

The site contains a single storey dwelling-house of weatherboard and tile construction.  An in-ground swimming pool and pool shed are located at the rear of the site, adjacent to the western boundary.

 

The site is burdened by a 5.38m wide easement for support across the front (eastern) boundary.

 

The site slopes generally from north to south.  The adjoining property to the north is upslope of the subject site and contains a two storey dwelling-house which has its living areas oriented towards the subject site.

 

The property to the south is down slope from the subject site and contains a single storey weatherboard dwelling-house and is overlooked from the subject site.

 

A natural watercourse extends across the rear yards of the properties to the rear of the subject site.  Consequently, the dwelling-houses on the adjoining rear properties are well set back from the subject site.

 

The character of the surrounding area comprises a mix of one and two storey brick and weatherboard clad dwelling-houses built during the 1950s and 1960s.  There are also a number of examples of more contemporary style dwellings in the locality.

 

THE PROPOSAL

 

The application involves alterations and additions to the existing dwelling-house incorporating a first floor addition with three (3) bedrooms, a walk-in-robe, ensuite, bathroom and three (3) decks.  A ground floor addition including a dining room, family room, kitchen, laundry and deck is proposed at the rear of the dwelling-house.

 

A single space carport will be located on the southern side of the dwelling-house and two (2) new porches will be constructed at the front of the dwelling-house.

 

The existing pool shed is to be demolished and a new pool shed and cabana will be constructed within the swimming pool area, adjacent to the northern side allotment boundary.

 

Council, in its previous consideration of DA/167/2007 on 15 August, 2007 sought to give the applicant the opportunity to address a number of the concerns raised by resident objectors.  Accordingly, Council resolved to defer consideration of the application to enable the applicant to modify the plans.

 

The applicant has filed amended plans in the Land and Environment Court to address Item 2 of Council’s resolution.  The amended plans propose the retention of the steel mesh floor on the proposed master bedroom balcony (north) and to remove the balustrade and replace the doorways accessing the area with windows which would essentially render the area unusable as a balcony.

 

ASSESSMENT

 

The Development Application has been assessed having regard to the ‘2005 City of Cities Metropolitan Strategy’, the ‘North Subregion (Draft) Subregional Strategy’ and the matters for consideration prescribed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act).  Subsequently, the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

 

 

1.         STRATEGIC CONTEXT

 

1.1       Metropolitan Strategy – (Draft) North Subregional Strategy

 

The Metropolitan Strategy is a broad framework to secure Sydney’s place in the global economy by promoting and managing growth.  It outlines a vision for Sydney to 2031; the challenges faced, and the directions to follow to address these challenges and achieve the vision.  The draft North Subregional Strategy acts as a framework for Council in the preparation of a new Principal LEP by 2011.

 

The draft Subregional Strategy sets the following targets for the Hornsby LGA by 2031:

 

·    Employment capacity to increase by 9,000 jobs; and

·    Housing stock to increase by 11,000 dwellings.

 

The proposed development would be consistent with the draft Strategy by maintaining the existing dwelling-house and would improve housing choice in the locality.

 

 

2.         STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Section 79C(1)(a) requires Council to consider any relevant environmental planning instruments, draft environmental planning instruments, development control plans, planning agreements and other prescribed matters.

 

2.1       Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 1994

 

The subject land is zoned Residential A (Low Density) Zone under Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994 (HSLEP).  The objectives of the zone are:

 

“(a) to provide for the housing needs of the population of the Hornsby Shire;

 

(b) to promote a variety of housing types and other land uses compatible with a low density residential environment;

 

(c) to provide for development that is within the environmental capacity of a low density residential environment.”

 

The proposed development is defined as “dwelling-house” under the HSLEP and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.

 

Clause 15 of HSLEP prescribes that the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of development within the zone is 0.4:1.  The proposed FSR would comply with the requirement.

 

Clause 18 of HSLEP sets out heritage conservation provisions within the Hornsby area.  The site is not within a Heritage Conservation area or within the vicinity of a heritage-listed Item.

 

2.2       SREP No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River

 

The site is located within the catchment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River and is subject to SREP No. 20.  The aim of the Plan is to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system, including its water quality.

 

As the proposed development will have the potential to impact on the water quality of the catchment, should consent be granted, a condition is recommended requiring the erection of sediment erosion control measures, prior to the commencement of work.

 

2.3       Dwelling-House Development Control Plan

 

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant performance criteria and prescriptive measures within Council’s Dwelling House Development Control Plan. 

 

The following table sets out the proposal’s compliance with the prescriptive standards of the Plan:

 

 

 

Dwelling-House Development Control Plan

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

Site Area:

866.3m2

N/A

N/A

 

Scale

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

·   Gross Floor Area

270.9m2

346.5m2

N/A

·   Floor Space Ratio

0.31:1

0.4:1

Yes

·   Site Cover

38%

40%

Yes

 

Setbacks

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

·   Front

11.75m

6m

Yes

·    Side (north-dwelling)

 1m

1m

Yes

·   Side (north-cabana)

0m

1m

No

·   Side (south-dwelling)

0.15 m

1m

No

·   Rear (dwelling)

11.6m

5m

Yes

·   Rear (cabana)

0m

3m

No

 

Design

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

·   Unbroken wall length

9.1 m

10m

Yes

·   Total wall length

21 m

24m

Yes

·   External finishes

Consistent with area

Consistent with area

Yes

 

Height

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

·   Number of storeys

2

2

Yes

·   Height (dwelling)

8.1m

<9m

Yes

·   Height (cabana)

5.1m

<9m

Yes

 

Privacy

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

·   Living areas

Located at ground level

Located at ground level

Yes

 

Solar Access

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

·   Private open space

>4 hrs

4 hrs

Yes

·   North facing windows

>3 hrs

3 hrs

Yes

 

Private Open Space

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

·   Area

160m2

120m2

Yes

·   Location

Extension of living areas

Extension of living areas

Yes

 

Landscaping

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

·   Area

53%

45%

Yes

 

Carparking

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

·   No. of spaces

2 spaces

2 spaces

Yes

·   Vehicular access

Complies

Complies with driveway grade template

Yes

 

 

 

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development does not comply with the prescriptive measures in relation to side and rear setbacks for the proposed cabana as prescribed within the DCP.  The matters of non-compliance are detailed below, as well as a brief discussion on compliance with relevant performance standards.

 

2.3.1   Scale/Height

 

The Dwelling House DCP contains both ‘performance criteria’ and ‘prescriptive measures’ which should be satisfied.  The proposed alterations and additions comply with the prescriptive nine (9) metre height control being measured vertically from the natural ground level to the ridge line.  There has been an attempt to step the building down at the rear extension as there is a fall in the grade of the land to the rear, as well as a cross fall from north to south.

 

The dwelling-house on the adjoining property to the north, (No. 20 Warandoo Street), is skewed in its positioning on the site and has living areas and a balcony which are oriented towards the rear of the subject site.  The dwelling-house at No. 20 appears to have been designed to allow the living areas on the upper floor to have the benefit of an outlook towards a number of established trees to the south-west.

 

The ridgeline on the proposed rear extension will have an RL of 150.40 AHD which is approximately seven (7) metres in height.  It is acknowledged that the height complies with the prescriptive measure contained within the height element of the DCP.  However, the ridge height of the proposed extension will almost completely obscure the outlook enjoyed by the occupants of No. 20 from their living room and balcony. 

 

The impacts of the proposed alterations and additions on the neighbouring properties by way of overshadowing to the south (No. 24) and view loss for the property to the north (No. 20), could be mitigated by a reduction in the height of the rear extension by a minimum of  one (1) metre as suggested by Council in its deferral of consideration of the application.

 

It is considered that the height of the rear addition at an RL150.40 AHD(ridge) is inconsistent with the performance criteria contained with the height element of the DCP in that the addition will compromise sunlight and privacy to the adjacent property to the south.  Furthermore, the DCP states that:

 

 “Council” will allow two storey dwelling-houses at the street frontage where they do not adversely impact upon the streetscape, privacy, solar access and views enjoyed by adjacent properties.”

 

A minimum one (1) metre reduction in the height of the rear addition would significantly improve the impacts the current proposal will have on the outlook currently enjoyed by the occupants at No. 20.  The one (1) metre height reduction suggested would reduce the ridge height to approximately the height of the top of the balcony rail on the upper level of No. 20.

 

The height reduction could be accommodated by a combination of roof design modification, reduction in the floor to ceiling height of the lower level of the extension and slight reduction in the ground floor of the addition.  The applicant has expressed an unwillingness to modify the proposal.  Accordingly, due the impacts the current height of the proposal will have, particularly on the outlook enjoyed by the occupants of No. 20, it is considered that the proposal fails to comply fully with the criteria contained with the Height element of the DCP and should be refused on that basis.

 

2.3.2   Setbacks

 

The proposed carport has a southern side boundary setback of 0.15m which does not comply with the 1m prescriptive measure of the setbacks element of the DCP.

 

The adjoining (southern) dwelling-house at No. 24 does not have any windows or openings in the wall fronting the subject site.  The carport is a low scale structure and the encroachment of the setback is not considered to have any detrimental impact to the adjoining property at No. 24.

 

If a boundary fence was to be erected along the southern boundary line, the carport would be mostly obscured from view from No. 24.  In the circumstances, a variation to the southern side boundary setback is considered to be acceptable.

 

The proposed cabana adjacent to the pool is to have a side and rear setback of 0m which does not comply with the 1m and 3m requirements, respectively.  The DCP permits a zero side boundary setback where it is considered that the encroachment satisfies the performance criteria of the Setbacks element of the DCP.

 

The relevant performance criteria states:

 

“Low scale, single storey development may be permitted to encroach within the setback area where it enables the preservation of vegetation and where the amenity of adjacent properties or streetscape would not be compromised”.

 

It is considered that the side (northern) setback encroachment will have minimal impact on the adjoining property at No. 20.  However, the encroachment on the rear setback will have a detrimental visual impact on the amenity of the immediately adjoining properties to the rear at Nos. 29 and 30 Greenvale Grove.

 

The existing fence within the north-western corner of the subject site is setback from the boundary.  Although the area is currently overgrown, it does provide a buffer to the property at No. 30 Greenvale Grove.  The westerly portion of the cabana will be supported on piers and will be elevated above the natural ground level.  This will allow an unsightly undercroft area to be visible from the rear properties.

 

The nil setbacks will not provide any area between the cabana and side/rear boundaries for the establishment of suitable landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the cabana when viewed from adjoining properties to the north and west.  Consequently, the setback encroachment is considered to be inconsistent with the performance criteria of the Setbacks element of the DCP.

 

2.3.3   Design

 

The objective of the Design element of the Dwelling House DCP is to provide:

 

“Building design that is consistent with and enhances the character and amenity of the local area has regard for environmental characteristics and energy efficiency.”

 

The design of the alterations and additions to the dwelling-house is consistent in terms of architectural style, bulk and form with adjacent residential development, maintains the required building setbacks to common boundaries and provides for residential amenities such as private open space and solar access in compliance with the relevant elements of the Dwelling House DCP.

 

The proposal complies with the objectives of the Design element of the Dwelling-House DCP.

 

 

3.         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

 

Section 79C(1)(b) of the Act requires Council to consider “the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality”.

 

3.1       Natural Environment

 

There are a number of trees that will be impacted upon by the proposed building footprint.

 

It is noted that there are four (4) trees on the site including a variety of introduced species such as Camellia, Cypress and Michelia.  None of the four (4) trees have been rated as significant by Council Officers.  One (1) of these trees would be removed, as it is within 4 metres from the proposed development.

 

The total landscaped area on the site exceeds the minimum 45% required under the DCP.  The proposal complies with the objective of the Landscaping element of the DCP.

 

3.2       Built Environment

 

The concerns raised in relation to the overall height of the proposed additions have been discussed in previous sections of this report.  The overall design of the alterations and additions is consistent with the mix of dwelling design in the locality.

 

3.3       Vehicle Access and Parking

 

The proposed development has provided two (2) carparking spaces in compliance with the prescriptive measures of the DCP albeit in a stacked configuration.

 

The proposal complies with the objectives of the Vehicle Access and Parking element of the DCP.

 

3.4       Social Impacts

 

The proposed alterations and additions will provide a more modern and functional dwelling-house to accommodate future occupants of the premises.

 

As previously discussed, the impacts which the height of the addition at the rear will have on the amenity of the occupants of No. 20
Warandoo Street, is considered to be unacceptable.  These impacts can be mitigated by a minor modification to the dwelling’s design.  A reduction in the height by a minimum of one 1 metre will maintain the majority of the outlook currently enjoyed by the occupants of No. 20 from their living areas.

 

Likewise, the nil setback of the proposed cabana will detrimentally impact on the amenity of the occupants of the premises to the rear.  The provision of a landscape buffer and treatment to the undercroft of the cabana would overcome the negative amenity impacts.

 

The privacy concerns in relation to the amenity impacts of the proposed north (bedroom) balcony have been addressed by the amended plans.  Privacy issues are discussed in Section 4 of this report.

 

3.5       Economic Impacts

 

The development proposal may provide positive impacts on the local building industry and possibly generate income for local building suppliers in the provision of building materials and the like.

 

 

4.         SITE SUITABILITY

 

Section 79C(1)(c) of the Act requires Council to consider “the suitability of the site for the development”.

 

The topography of the surrounding area is such that the properties in Warandoo Street and Greenvale Grove are graded steeply into a valley.  Consequently, dwelling-houses tend to overlook into adjoin properties, particularly on the lower side of the property.

 

The proposal requires some minor design modifications to address concerns in relation to view loss, visual impact and privacy.  The deleting of the upper level (northern) balcony assists in minimising the potential privacy impacts on the northern property (No. 20).

 

The large deck at the rear of the proposed addition which accesses the main living areas within the proposed development will result in overlooking into the rear yard of the adjoining property to the south (No. 24).  The deck will have a finished floor level of 1.35m above natural ground level.  Although the deck is setback 6.3m from the southern side allotment boundary, it is considered that persons using the deck will overlook the rear yard of No. 24 due to the topography of the land. 

 

A similar issue with overlooking will occur from the upper level (rear) balcony of the master bedroom.  The proposal should be modified by the provision of privacy screens to both the rear deck and rear balcony to account for the topography of the land.

 

 

5.         PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 

Section 79C(1)(d) of the Act requires Council to consider “any submissions made in accordance with this Act”.

 

5.1       Community Consultation

 

The proposed development was placed on public exhibition and was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 13 February, 2007 and 6 March, 2007 in accordance with Council’s Notification and Exhibition Development Control Plan.  During this period, Council received four (4) submissions. 

 

These submissions all raised objections to the proposal, generally on the following grounds:

 

·    Setbacks

·    Overshadowing

·    Height

·    Design

·    Dividing Fences

·    Privacy

·    Overdevelopment

·    Character

·    Noise

·    Bulk and Scale

·    Traffic and Pedestrian Safety

·    Social Impacts

·    Pollution of Watercourse

·    Loss of Views

·    Visual Impact

·    Clare

·    Amenity

·    Surrounding Pool Safety

·    Property Value

 

The merits of the matters raised in community submissions have been addressed in the body of the report with the exception of the following:

 

5.1.1   Boundary Fence

 

It is considered to be a reasonable request that the applicant be required to construct the boundary fence at nil cost to the neighbouring property owner.  Should consent be granted, a suitable condition should be imposed on the consent.

 

5.1.2   Acoustics

 

The previous report to Council addressed this matter of concern and stated:

 

“An objection has been received regarding the anticipated noise from the increased use of the swimming pool and the noise currently generated by the existing pool filtration equipment.

 

The objective of the Acoustics element of the Dwelling-House DCP requires:

 

“Development that provides a reasonable acoustic environment for residents”.

 

Comment: No external air-conditioning plant is proposed and the private open space and existing swimming pool at the rear, western end of the site will have a minimal impact on the amenity of adjacent properties in the surrounding low density residential zone.  Notwithstanding, any unreasonable or excessive noise is governed by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997.

 

No works involving the existing swimming pool filtration equipment are proposed as part of the development.

 

The issue of noise currently being generated by the existing filtration and pumping equipment and the potential impacts on the amenity of the adjoining allotments has been referred to Council’s Compliance Team for investigation (Service Request No SR. 141110).

 

The proposal complies with the objectives of the Acoustics element of the Dwelling-House DCP.”

 

We concur with the views expressed by the Council Officers above.

 

5.1.3   Traffic and Pedestrian Safety

 

This matter was addressed in the previous report to Council and state:

 

            “The objectives of the Vehicle Access and Parking element of the Dwelling-House DCP require:

 

“Development that provides vehicular access to dwelling-houses that is simple, safe and direct and maintains the amenity of adjoining properties.

 

The provision of sufficient and convenient parking for residents and visitors so as to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties and the efficiency of the road network.

 

Comment: The proposed development is provided with two (2) car parking spaces in compliance with the prescriptive measures.

 

The proposal complies with the objectives of the Vehicle Access and Parking element of the Dwelling-House DCP”.

 

We concur with the views expressed by the Council Officers above.

 

5.1.4   Pollution of the Watercourses

 

This matter was addressed in the previous report to Council and stated:

 

“An objection has been received regarding the pollution of the watercourse during construction.

 

The objective of the Soil and Water Management element of the Dwelling-House DCP requires:

 

“Development that minimises land disturbance and provides control measures on site to minimise soil erosion and water pollution”.

 

Comment:  The proposal was referred to Council’s Water Catchments Team for comment, as the development site is located within forty (40) metres of a watercourse.  The Team raised no objection to the proposal, subject to a condition requiring the provision of erosion and sediment controls to prevent the movement of sediment and rubbish from the site.

 

The proposal complies with the objectives of the Soil and Water Management element of the Dwelling House DCP.”

 

We concur with comments of Council’s Officers above and should Council resolve to approve the application, we would recommend that appropriate conditions in relation to soil and water management be imposed on the consent.

 

5.1.5   Visual Impact of Solar Panel and Glare

 

An objection was raised in relation to the visual impact of the proposed solar panel to be located within the north-facing section of the roof.

 

The visual impact of the proposal has been discussed in the body of the report under design issues.

 

The visual impact of the proposed solar panels when viewed from adjacent properties is consistent with similar structures which are commonplace in an urban environment.  The panels are proposed in accordance with the undertakings given in the BASIX Certificate.  The system complies with the objectives of the Exempt and Complying Development DCP.

 

5.1.6   Swimming Pool Safety

 

This objection was addressed in the previous report to Council which stated:

 

“Swimming Pools Act, 1992

 

An objection has been received regarding the effectiveness of the pool fencing around the existing swimming pool.

              

Comment: This issue has been referred to Council’s Compliance Team for investigation under Service Request No SR 131244.  Discussion with the owner and a subsequent inspection of the site has resolved the matter.  The pool fencing complies with the requirements of the Swimming Pool Act, 1992.”

 

6          THE PUBLIC INTEREST

 

Section 79C(1)(e) of the Act requires Council to consider “the public interest”.

 

The public interest is an overarching requirement, which includes the consideration of the matters discussed in this report.  Implicit to the public interest is the achievement of future built outcomes adequately responding to and respecting the future desired outcomes expressed in environmental planning instruments and development control plans.

 

The application is considered to have unsatisfactorily addressed Council’s criteria and would provide a development outcome that, on balance, would result in a negative impact for the community.  Accordingly, it is considered that the refusal of the proposed dwelling-house alterations and additions would be in the public interest.

 

 

7.         CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations and additions are inconsistent with the provisions of the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan, 1994 and the Dwelling House Development Control Plan.  The development in its current form, has impacts on the amenity of all surrounding properties.

 

The height of the building unreasonably impacts on the outlook from the living areas and balcony of the adjoining property to the north (No. 20).  A reduction in the height of the ridge by a minimum of one (1) metre would maintain the outlook currently enjoyed by the occupants of No. 20.  The height reduction would also improve solar access to the property on the south (No. 24).

 

The design and nil setbacks provided in the proposed pool cabana will impact on the amenity of the properties to the rear.  A redesign of the cabana could overcome concerns in relation to the unsightly undercroft area and the provision of setbacks in accordance with the DCP would provide suitable landscape buffers to the structure.

 

Finally, the elevated height of the rear deck and balcony will result in an unacceptable level of overlooking into the rear yard of the property to the south (No. 24).  Consideration needs to be given in designing privacy screens to obscure vision from the users of the deck into the rear yard of No. 24.

 

The applicant has resisted the opportunity provided by Council to undertake modifications to the plans.  These are not substantial changes.  The applicant has chosen to take the matter to the Land and Environment Court.  The application cannot be supported in its current form and accordingly, refusal of the Development Application is recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Development Application No. 167/2007 at Lot 9 DP 200132 (No. 22) Warandoo Street, Hornsby be refused.

 

 

SCHEDULE  1

 

 

1.   Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the height of the proposed dwelling-house additions will unreasonably impact on the outlook currently enjoyed from the living rooms within the adjoining dwelling to the north at No. 20 Warandoo Street, Hornsby.

2.   Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed pool cabana does not comply with the setbacks element of the Dwelling House Development Control Plan and consequently, insufficient area is provided for landscape planting to screen the structure from view from surrounding properties particularly at the rear.  As a consequence, the structure will adversely impact on the amenity of the properties adjoining at the rear.

3.   Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed rear deck and balcony to the dwelling-house additions will adversely impact on the privacy of the adjoining property to the south at No. 24 Warandoo Street, Hornsby.

4.   Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the adverse impacts on the proposed development on the amenity of the adjoining properties are not in the public interest.