VC: GR

 

2 March 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Councillor/Sir/Madam

 

You are invited to attend an ORDINARY MEETING of Ashfield Council, to be held at the Haberfield Library, 78 Dalhousie Street, Haberfield, on TUESDAY  8 MARCH 2011 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

VANESSA CHAN

General Manager

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Ordinary Meeting - 8 March 2011

 

AGENDA

 

 

1.                      Opening

 

2.                      Acknowledgement of Local Indigenous Community

 

3.                      Apologies/Request for Leave of Absence

                   

4.                      Condolence and Sympathy Motions

 

5.                      Moment of Private Contemplation

 

6.                      Disclosures Of Interest

 

Disclosures to be made by any Councillors who have a pecuniary / non-pecuniary interest in respect of matters that are before Council at this meeting.

(08/03/2011)

 

7.                      Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Aboriginal Consultative Committee – 02/02/2011

Civic Centre Redevelopment Steering Committee – 15/02/2011

Ashfield Youth Committee – 21/02/2011

Budget and Operations Review Committee – 22/02/2011

Ordinary Meeting - 22/02/2011

 

8.                      Mayoral Minutes

 

MM2/2011    DEATH OF HUGH FRASER

 

9.                      Notices of Motion

 

Nil

10.                  Staff Reports

 

10.1     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.280.1
3 CLISSOLD STREET, ASHFIELD

 

10.2     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.230.2
76 PROSPECT ROAD, SUMMER HILL

 

 

11.                  General Business

 

12.                  Close

 


document6

Ashfield Council

 

Ordinary Meeting

8 March 2011

 

 

8         Summary of  Mayoral Minutes

 

8.1         DEATH OF HUGH FRASER. Edward Cassidy - Mayor. Report submitted.

(25/02/11)                                                                           Public Relations>Condolence

                                                      h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM080311MM_2.doc

                                                                                                           MM2/2011 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council send a letter offering its sincere and respectful condolences to his widow, Mrs. Christine Fraser.

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 March 2011

MM2/2011

Public Relations>Condolence

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

DEATH OF HUGH FRASER

       

Councillors will be saddened to hear of the recent passing of architect Hugh M. Fraser, who some may recall from his involvement with Council on behalf of the Heritage Branch of the NSW Department of Planning, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In those times, when the future of Haberfield as a place of heritage value hung in the balance, Hugh was a committed and passionate supporter of Federation Architecture and of Haberfield - as the special place we now know and accept it to be.

 

In an obituary soon to be published in the RAIA's journal, his architect colleague Peter Moffitt has written :

 

"Hugh had a special interest in the architecture of the Federation Period. He was the driving force behind the publication by the Heritage Council of the book on Federation architecture called “Getting the Details Right”. He was the author of the book “The Federation House: Australia’s Own Style”, which was published in 1986 and sadly is out of print.

 

He presented many Heritage Council seminars for Local Government to educate people, particularly town planners and building inspectors, in conservation issues, especially involving Federation architecture, at a time when Federation architecture had not achieved broad community acceptance as being worthy of conservation. Attitudes have changed since then, and Hugh’s passionate advocacy played a crucial role in educating and promoting this change."

 

It was in the latter role that Hugh became most publicly involved with Haberfield. After liaising with Council in the years during the Commission of Inquiry into the heritage values of the suburb, and the subsequent preparations for Ashfield LEP 1985, Hugh participated in lectures and seminars at which he and other specialists offered their advice on Federation homes, interiors and gardens.

 

In later years in which Hugh maintained his own private practice, he designed a number of thoughtful, modest extensions to some houses in Haberfield, demonstrating his opinions and skills as an architect.

 

Council offer its sincere and respectful condolences to his widow, Mrs. Christine Fraser, and gratefully record the debt owed to her late husband by the suburb which he so strongly and passionately supported.

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council send a letter offering its sincere and respectful condolences to his widow, Mrs. Christine Fraser.

COUNCILLOR E CASSIDY

Mayor  


document6

Ashfield Council

 

Ordinary Meeting - 8 March 2011

 

 

10       Summary of  Staff Reports

 

10.1       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.280.1

3 CLISSOLD STREET, ASHFIELD

Haroula Michael - Development Assessment Officer. Report submitted with attachments 1 to 4.

(01/03/11)                                                                                                     10.2010.280.1

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM080311SR_3.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.1 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 determine Development Application No. 10.2010.280.1.

 

 

 

10.2       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.230.2

76 PROSPECT ROAD, SUMMER HILL

Andrew Johnston - Development Assessment Officer. Report submitted with attachments 1 and 2.

(24/02/11)                                                                                                        10.2010.230

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM080311SR_2.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.2 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) modify Development Consent No. 10.2010.230.1 for alterations and additions to the convent and the erection of a carport on Lot 1 in DP: 301799, known as 76 Prospect Road, Summer Hill, in the following manner.

  

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 March 2011

CM10.1

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.280.1
3 CLISSOLD STREET, ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2010.280.1

 

Prepared by                   Haroula Michael - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 


Overview of Report

 

Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling-house including a second storey (attic) addition and replacement of the existing garage with a double garage and an office workspace.

 

Background

 

The development application was considered at Council’s meeting held on 8 February 2011. This report recommended refusal of the subject application.

 

A copy of this report is included at Attachment 1.

 

The application was deferred at this meeting in order for the applicant to address the issues of bulk and height of the garage and locate the structure further away from the boundary fences. The amended proposal was put before Council on the 22 February 2011.

 

A copy of this report and amended plan is included at Attachment 2.

 

At this meeting Council resolved the following:

 

1/2  That Development Application No. 10.2010.280.1 be deferred until the Council meeting on 8 March 2011.

2/2  That the applicant present Council with accurate shadow diagrams for the current and proposed development.

 

In view of Council’s resolution the applicant has submitted additional shadow diagrams to Council on the 28 February 2011. The shadow diagrams submitted indicate the following details;

 

·          Existing shadows-Winter solstice 21 June 9am, 12noon and 3pm;

·          Proposed shadows- Winter solstice 21 June 9am, 12noon and 3pm.

 

These plans are acceptable and are included at Attachment 3.

 

Conclusion

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act 1979 with all matters specified under Section 79C (1) Clauses (a) to (e) having been taken into consideration.

 

Council officers maintain their previous recommendation for refusal of the application as contained in Council’s previous report. However, if Council is minded to approve the application conditions of approval are provided at Attachment 4.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Report to Council Meeting 8 February 2011

42 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Report to Council Meeting 22 February 2011 (Amended Plan)

4 Pages

 

Attachment 3View

Shadow Diagrams

1 Page

 

Attachment 4

Conditions of Consent

9 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 determine Development Application No. 10.2010.280.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Report to Council Meeting 8 February 2011

 











































Attachment 2

 

Report to Council Meeting 22 February 2011 (Amended Plan)

 





Attachment 3

 

Shadow Diagrams

 


Attachment 4

 

Conditions of Consent

 










Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 March 2011

CM10.2

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.230.2
76 PROSPECT ROAD, SUMMER HILL

 

File Ref                            10.2010.230

 

Prepared by                   Andrew Johnston - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Application requires Council determination – review of condition imposing Section 94A Contribution

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks to modify Development Consent No. 10.2010.230.1 for alterations and additions to the two-storey convent (St Joseph’s Convent) and the construction of a carport at 76 Prospect Road, Summer Hill. This Section 96 Application proposes the following amendments to the original approval:

 

·    Condition C(2) of the consent is to be deleted. This condition requires the payment of a Section 94A Contribution of $12,000.00. The applicant argues that the payment of this contribution is unreasonable given that the works to the convent involve the provision of access and facilities for disabled persons, which is exempt under the Section 94A Contributions Plan.

 

The applicant further notes that accommodation within the convent is to be reduced from twelve (12) to seven (7) residents (nuns) and on this basis the development will place less of a burden on Council facilities and services in comparison to the existing situation.

 

·    Condition B(1)(a) is to be deleted. This condition required the deletion of the kitchenette proposed within the first floor lounge room of the convent. The applicant has stated that the kitchenette will consist of a sink and joinery unit only, and that there is no intention to cooks meals in this area. Instead the kitchenette will allow residents to make tea and coffee on the first floor level.

 

The applicant also argues that a similar kitchenette exists within the current building.

 

Comments provided by the applicant in relation to the above matters are included at Attachment 1. A copy of the delegated report prepared for the original application is included at Attachment 2.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

No objection is raised to the installation of the first floor kitchenette as the convent is not a single dwelling house and a similar facility exists within the current building. However, the deletion of Condition C(2) and the payment of a Section 94A Contribution is not supported on the grounds that the proposal does not solely involve creating works to improve access to the building.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council delete Condition B(1)(a) only, and that Condition C(2) be retained as originally approved.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Young + Metcalf

Owner                                    :         Trustees of The Sisters of St Joseph NSW

Value of work                        :         $1,200,000.00

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 1 DP: 301799

Date lodged                          :         28 February 2011

Date of last amendment      :         Not applicable

Building classification          :         3 and 10A*

Application Type                            :         Local

Construction Certificate       :         No

 

* The classification of the building is to be determined by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) as a part of the assessment of the construction certificate against the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA). However, Council’s Construction Assessment Officer has indicated that the convent is likely to be considered as a Class 3 building should the construction certificate be lodged with Council.

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Prospect Road, bounded by Drynan Street to the north and Junction Road to the south.  The property has a site area of approximately 795.6m2.  A two-storey Inter-War building ‘St Joseph’s Convent’ exists on the site. Surrounding development generally comprises of dwelling houses although the property adjoins (and is associated with) a school and church at 5-9 Drynan Street and a dual occupancy at 78 Prospect Road.

 

5.0    Development History

 

Previous applications submitted to Council for the subject site include:

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

BA: 6.1955.1692.1

05/08/1955

Alterations and additions to convent (first floor extension)

Approved

BA: 6.1956.1919.1

15/06/1955

Alterations and additions to convent

Approved

BA: 6.1982.207.1

08/06/192

Erection of attached side carport

Approved

BA: 6.1982.444.1

11/03/1983

Alterations and additions to convent (construction of two storey wing)

Approved

DA: 10.2010.230.1

10/12/2010

Alterations and additions to convent and the construction of a carport

Approved

 

Previous consents are relevant in that they reveal the building has approval for use as a convent. The layout of the existing two-storey building is generally in accordance with BA: 6.1982.444.1. This application indicates that twelve bedrooms were previously approved for the convent. The plans also show that there is a sink (kitchenette) located at first floor level.

 

Given the history of the site it is considered that the property benefits from an existing use right as a convent.

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

·    The site is zoned 5(a)-Special Uses – School under the provisions of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1985.

·    The property is located within the general vicinity of heritage items at 5-9 Drynan Street (St Patrick’s Church [Victorian Italianate] and convent [Federation]).

·    The property is located within the general vicinity of the Draft Teakle Street Conservation Area.

·    The property enjoys existing use rights.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent (see Section 7.1.1 of this report).

 

7.0    Section 79C and 96 Assessment

 

The proposal has been submitted on the basis that the site enjoys existing use rights and – whilst a number of the planning instruments do not strictly apply – they have been considered in a ‘merit based’ assessment of the application. As such the following is an assessment of the application with regard to the heads of consideration under the provisions of Sections 79C and 96(1A) of the EP&A Act.

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The subject property is zoned 5(a)-Special Uses – School and a convent, which is generally associated with churches, would not ordinarily be permissible under this zoning. However, in the previously prepared report Council accepted that the property had the benefit of an existing use right as a convent. This was on account of Council’s records indicating that the subject building had previously been approved as a convent.

 

A full discussion of this matter is included in the previously prepared report. The submitted Section 96 Application does not alter the permissibility of the development.

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development is generally consistent with the objectives of the Plan and would not have any adverse effect on environmental heritage, the visual environment, the natural environment and open space and recreation facilities.

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

The amendments proposed with this Section 96 Application will not alter the development’s level of compliance with the previously considered State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP).

 

7.2       The provisions of 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.

 

Not altered by the proposal.

7.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The proposal has been considered against the provisions of the Ashfield Development Control Plan (DCP) 2007:

 

C1

ACCESS AND MOBILITY

The Access and Mobility DCP does not strictly apply to the development. As noted in the previously prepared report, a convent is not defined as a residential flat building or boarding house and as such the accessibility requirements of the Access and Mobility DCP do not strictly apply.

 

The proposal does incorporate access and facilities for the disabled, such as a rear ramp, lift and accessible toilet, however, this is not a mandatory Council requirement, nor is there the suggestion that these facilitates strictly comply with AS 1428.1.

C5

 

MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL FLAT ZONES

Not applicable. The subject building is not defined as a residential flat building, nor is the property zoned 2(b) or 2(c)-Residential.

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

The amended proposal will not adversely impact on the character or significance of the neighbouring heritage item at 5-9 Drynan Street.

C11

PARKING

Parking arrangements for the site will not be altered with this amended proposal.

C12

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS AND ALL ASPECTS OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The proposal was not notified in accordance with the Public Notification DCP. See Section 7.7 of this report.

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

Not applicable.

 

7.4       Any matters prescribed by the regulations that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

 

These matters have been considered in the assessment of this application.

 

7.5       The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality.

 

These matters have been considered as a part of the assessment of the Section 96 Application. 

 

The applicant seeks the deletion of Condition B(1)(a), which required the deletion of a first floor kitchenette. This condition states:

 

Amended plans and specifications incorporating the following amendments are to be submitted with the application for a construction certificate:

(a)       The first floor kitchenette within the lounge room (indicated as ‘Tea’) shall be deleted.

 

The following comments were made with respect to this second kitchen in Section 9 of the previously prepared delegated report:

 

The addition of a kitchenette within the first floor lounge room is proposed with the development. Should the application be approved Council’s Specialist Planner has recommended the imposition of condition deleting this second kitchen. Whilst the subject building is a convent, and is unlikely to be classified as a Class 1A building under the Building Code of Australia (BCA), past approvals have not approved multiple kitchens and the submitted SOEE does refer to the building as a dwelling house.

 

The applicant has stated that the kitchenette will consist of a sink and joinery unit only, and that there is no intention to cooks meals in this area. Instead the kitchenette will provide the residents an opportunity to make tea or coffee at the first floor level. The applicant also argues that a similar kitchenette exists within the current building.

 

The plans approved with BA: 6.1982.444.1 does in fact show that a small sink was approved for the first floor of the convent. It is further recognised that the subject building is not a single dwelling house; it is a convent and is likely to be defined as a Class 3 building (shared accommodation) under the BCA. On these grounds no objection is raised to the installation of a kitchenette at first floor level. It is therefore recommended that Condition B(1) be altered to remove the prohibition on a second kitchen. 

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the Section 96 Application. There are no natural hazards or other site constraints that are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the proposed development. 

 

7.7       Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

Clause 2.26(c) of the Public Notification DCP outlines that “requests for amendment of consents in relation to technical conditions of consent” do not need to be notified. Clause 2.32 further states “re-notification will not be required if the proposed amendments do not increase the height, scale and bulk of the proposal, nor alter the character of the development or affect heritage significance, nor detrimentally prejudice the persons that responded to the original application”. The submitted application does not propose any alterations to the approved development in terms of footprint, bulk or scale. Instead this application relates to technical conditions of consent.

 

Therefore, the notification of the application has not been required.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

Not applicable.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application.

 

7.9    Section 96 Assessment

 

The submitted application has been considered against Section 96(1A) of the EP&A Act. This section of the Act states:

 

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”.

 

The modifications are considered to be of a minimal environmental impact on the basis that they relate to conditions of consent and that the building envelope and footprint are not to be altered. As detailed in Section 7.7 of this report, the notification of this application was not required.

 

The modified development is considered to comprise substantially the same development as that which was originally approved and as such it may be considered under the Section 96(1A) provisions of the EP&A Act.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Not referrals were undertaken as a part of the assessment of this Section 96 Application.

 

8.2    External

 

Not applicable.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

Section 94A Contribution Plan

 

With the submission of this Section 96 Application the applicant has requested the deletion of Condition C(2) of the consent. This condition requires the payment of a Section 94A Contribution of $12,000.00. This condition reads as follows:

 

Pursuant to Section 80A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Ashfield Council's Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2009 a contribution of $12,000.00 shall be paid to Ashfield Council.

 

The amount to be paid is to be adjusted at the time of the actual payment, in accordance with the provisions of Ashfield Council's Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2009.

 

The contribution is to be paid prior to the issue of the construction certificate and copies of receipts(s) confirming that the contribution has been fully paid are to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA).

 

The applicant argues that the payment of this contribution is unreasonable given that the work involves the provision of access and facilities for the disabled, which are exempt under the Section 94A Contributions Plan. The applicant further notes that accommodation within the convent is to be reduced from twelve to seven nuns and on this basis the development will place less of a burden on Council facilities and services in comparison to the existing situation.

 

Section 3.6 of the Section 94 Contribution Plan states a “levy will not be imposed in respect of development:

·    where the proposed cost of carrying out the development is $100,000 or less

·    for multi dwelling housing

·    for the purpose of disabled access

·    for the sole purpose of providing affordable housing

·    for the purpose of reducing a building’s use of potable water (where supplied from water mains) or energy

·    for the sole purpose of the adaptive reuse of an item of environmental heritage

·    that has been the subject of a condition under section 94 under a previous development consent relating to the subdivision of the land on which the development is to be carried out”.

 

The applicant is referring to dot point 3 as the basis for the deletion of Condition C(2).

 

Whilst it is recognised that the provision of access and facilities for the disabled forms a part of the application, the proposal does involve other substantial work. This includes the creation of new and improved residential accommodation and parking facilities, which would not be exempt under the Plan.

 

The applicant’s comment regarding a reduction in accommodation for the site is acknowledged, however, the Section 94A Contributions Plan – unlike the Section 94 Contributions Plan – is not based on the provision of establishing a nexus that proposed development is generating a demand for improvements to Council’s services and facilities. The payment of a levy under the 94A Plan is determined solely on the estimated value-of-works – i.e. no nexus is required.

 

It should also be noted that the Section 94A Contribution Plan does not exclude religious groups or charities from being subject to its provisions. Given the above, the deletion of condition C(2) is not supported.

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

The BCA does not place any form of prohibition on secondary kitchens within Class 3 buildings.

 

Financial Implications

 

See Section 9 of this report.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

See Section 8.1 of this report.

 

Public Consultation


See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act with all matters specified under Sections 79C and 96(1A) having been taken into consideration. As discussed in the body of this report it is recommended that Council delete Condition B(1)(a) but retain Condition C(2) as originally approved.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Applicant's letter dated 7 February 2011

2 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Delegated Development Assessment Report dated 10 December 2010.

10 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) modify Development Consent No. 10.2010.230.1 for alterations and additions to the convent and the erection of a carport on Lot 1 in DP: 301799, known as 76 Prospect Road, Summer Hill, in the following manner.

 

 

Conditions

 

Condition A(1) is to be modified as follows:

 

(1)     Approved plans stamped by Council

 

The development must be carried out only in accordance with the plans and specifications set out on drawing numbers DA01, DA03, DA04 and SK03 date stamped by Council 23 September 2010 and DA02 date stamped by Council 28 February 2011ptember 2010, each of which were prepared by Young and Metcalf Architects, and any supporting documentation received with the application, except as amended by the conditions specified hereunder.

 

 

Condition B(1) is to be modified as follows:

 

(1)        Amended plans to be submitted

 

Amended plans and specifications incorporating the following amendments are to be submitted with the application for a construction certificate:

(a)        The carport shall have a maximum ceiling height of 2.5m.

(b)        The use of grass cells for the rear yard shall be limited to the driveway and turning area as indicated in red on the approved plans.

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Applicant's letter dated 7 February 2011

 



Attachment 2

 

Delegated Development Assessment Report dated 10 December 2010.