23.03.2014 Views

ordinary meeting of council to be held on tuesday, 26 april 2005 at ...

ordinary meeting of council to be held on tuesday, 26 april 2005 at ...

ordinary meeting of council to be held on tuesday, 26 april 2005 at ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Ordinary Meeting <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Council - <strong>26</strong> April <strong>2005</strong> 19 / 25<br />

2 <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> 4A Finlay Road, Turramurra<br />

Item 19<br />

DA1270/04<br />

6 April <strong>2005</strong><br />

fact th<strong>at</strong> this area <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the adjoining site has NOT <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en surveyed and the loc<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

existing trees and veget<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> has not accur<strong>at</strong>ely <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en undertaken. The survey plan<br />

simply st<strong>at</strong>es “thick undergrowth dense trees <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> advised <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> loc<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong>”.<br />

As a result the loc<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the easement has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en simply drawn as a straight line <strong>on</strong><br />

plan, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween two points, r<strong>at</strong>her than <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en loc<strong>at</strong>ed in regard <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the loc<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> trees and<br />

n<strong>at</strong>ural c<strong>on</strong>straints. In additi<strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>sulting Arborist has failed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> identify existing<br />

trees, detail or menti<strong>on</strong> the potential impacts <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the easement <strong>on</strong> the existing veget<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong>.<br />

Further detail/inform<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> is necessary <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> determine the potential adverse impacts <strong>on</strong><br />

existing trees <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the drainage easement.<br />

Deep Soil Landscaping<br />

By the applicant’s calcul<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong>s, a deep soil landscaping area <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 50.6% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the site has<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en proposed, which technically complies with the requirements <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the LEP for the<br />

site. However, Landscape Services is in disagreement as <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the areas included as part <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

the deep soil calcul<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong>s. Additi<strong>on</strong>al areas th<strong>at</strong> technically do not comply with the LEP<br />

definiti<strong>on</strong>s include; the garden <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ds surrounding the swimming pool (they are less than<br />

2.0m wide), the stairs, p<strong>at</strong>h and garden <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the north <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the pool (The p<strong>at</strong>h/stair is<br />

gre<strong>at</strong>er than 1.0m wide), and the garden <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ds <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind the retaining walls adjacent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />

site fr<strong>on</strong>tage (they are less than 2.0m wide). This area amounts <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> approxim<strong>at</strong>ely 2.43%<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the site area which when subtracted from the nomin<strong>at</strong>ed deep soil landscaping<br />

percentage will result in 48.2% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the site <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing available for deep soil landscaping,<br />

which strictly does not comply with the LEP definiti<strong>on</strong>s and requirements.<br />

It must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> noted, however, th<strong>at</strong> this can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> resolved by increasing the setbacks <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>f the<br />

site boundaries for the pool and retaining walls <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a minimum 2.0m <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> comply with the<br />

LEP.<br />

Pool<br />

The proposed swimming pool, loc<strong>at</strong>ed in the south-east site corner, has a setback <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

approxim<strong>at</strong>ely 1.4m <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the w<strong>at</strong>er line. This does not comply with <str<strong>on</strong>g>council</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s pool setback<br />

requirements for residential properties. To maximise landscape amenity and deep soil<br />

landscaping it is required/preferred th<strong>at</strong> the proposed pool have a minimum 2.0m<br />

setback from site boundaries <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the outer coping edge.<br />

Setbacks<br />

Rear – basement projecti<strong>on</strong><br />

As proposed the rear projecti<strong>on</strong> setback for the basement is 3.6m for approxim<strong>at</strong>ely<br />

50% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the building length. This does not adequ<strong>at</strong>ely allow for sufficient deep soil area<br />

<strong>on</strong> site for the establishment and replenishment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> larger tree species th<strong>at</strong> are<br />

characteristic <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the site and immedi<strong>at</strong>e area. This is evidenced by the landscape<br />

proposal th<strong>at</strong> includes <strong>on</strong>ly two trees within this area th<strong>at</strong> are planted immedi<strong>at</strong>ely<br />

N:\0504<strong>26</strong>-OMC-PR-03090-2 TO 4A FINLAY ROAD TURRA.doc/klithgow/25

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!