City of Ryde DA Tracking


Application Details
Application IDLDA2019/0307
DescriptionDemolition, land subdivision of 1 lot into 2 lots, new two storey dual occupancy (attached) with strata subdivision on Lot 1 and new two storey dwelling with lap pool and secondary dwelling on Lot 2.
GroupDevelopment Application
CategoryResidential
Sub CategoryDemolition, Land Subdivision, New Dual Occupancy, New Single Dwelling, Secondary Dwelling, Strata Subdivision
StatusCurrent
Lodgement Date5/09/2019
Stage/DecisionRefused
Estimated Cost$996,919.00


Properties
Address2 Russell St DENISTONE EAST NSW 2112
Land DescriptionLot 13 DP 6182


Additional Information
Lodged5/09/2019
Determined28/02/2020


Name Details
NameRichard Shawket Solomon
AssociationApplicant


Events
Application LodgedLodged5/09/20195/09/2019
Allocate to Assessment OfficerCompleted10/09/201910/09/2019
Which type of delegation is required?Manager Assessment1/11/20191/11/2019
Is notification required?14 days10/09/201910/09/2019
Referral sent to City Works & InfrastructureCompleted10/09/201910/09/2019
Referral sent to Development EngineerCompleted10/09/201910/09/2019
Referral sent to Landscape ArchitectCompleted10/09/201910/09/2019
Letter drafted requesting additional informationCompleted23/10/201923/10/2019
Has satisfactory information been received?No11/02/202011/02/2020
Referral sent to Development EngineerCompleted9/12/20199/12/2019
Referral sent to City Works & InfrastructureCompleted9/12/20199/12/2019
Referral sent to Tree Management OfficerCompleted3/02/20203/02/2020
Refer to Manager AssessmentRefused27/02/202028/02/2020


Related Applications
Application ID
DescriptionSection 8.3 review of the determination of LDA2019/0307. The development proposes demolition, land subdivision of 1 lot into 2 lots, new two storey dual occupancy (attached) with strata subdivision on Lot 1 and new two storey dwelling on Lot 2.
RelationshipChild

Application ID
DescriptionSection 4.55(1A) application to modify a number of external elements of approved dual occupancy (attached).
RelationshipChild


Notification Period and Reasons for Decision
DescriptionAdvertising & Notification
NoteNotification letters sent 10/09/19- Submissions closing 27/09/2019

DescriptionReasons for Decision
Note 1. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development does not comply with the following clause contained within the Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014:  Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio - The proposed dual occupancy on Lot 1 results in a FSR of 0.528:1. This is non-compliant with the maximum FSR of 0.5:1 development standard.  No written request to vary the development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 has been submitted by the applicant, and as such, development consent cannot be granted to the proposal. 2. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development does not satisfy State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. The submitted BASIX Certificate does not correspond in all relevant respects with an application and any accompanying documents. The amended proposal which has deleted the secondary dwelling and swimming pool on proposed Lot 2 and reconfigured the openings within the proposed dual occupancy on proposed Lot 1 has not been provided. The proposal is contrary to Clause 164A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (Regulation). 3. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development has not demonstrated an acceptable environmental impact or that the site is suitable for the proposed development in regards to flood impact:  The proposal is contrary to Clause 6.3 Flood planning of Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014 and Part 8.2 of Ryde Development Control Plan 2014. The objective of this clause is to minimise the flood risk to life and property, allow for development that is compatible with the flood hazard and to avoid significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour and the environment. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 6.3(1).  The site is mapped as being impacted by Low to Medium Risk flooding over a large proportion (> 75%) of the site.  The proposal is not considered satisfactory with respect of Clause 6.3(3) for the following reasons: (i) The proposal has not demonstrated compatibility with the flood hazard. A significant portion of the land is mapped as being subject to medium flood risk. (ii) The proposal does not provided sufficient detail regarding the measures to manage the risk to life from flood. (iii) The site is burdened by a drainage easement which traverses proposed Lot 2. The submitted plans do not correctly show the location of the drainage easement and associated infrastructure.  The submitted Flood Impact Assessment does not satisfactorily address the requirements of Part 8.2 and Stormwater and Floodplain Management Technical Manual Section 2.2: (i) The exact location and depth of Council’s stormwater pipeline has not been determined by site investigation and survey. (ii) The flood study referred to proposed “compensatory” earthworks to mitigate flood levels rise, however has not submitted detailed cross-sections showing proposed works (iii) The Hec-Ras model cross-sections appeared to have been plotted in reverse with levels, offset and structures location that does not correlate with the plan submitted. (iv) The Flood report mentioned flow under proposed buildings have been modelled for 70% blockage, however has not detailed clearly what methods have been utilised. (v) The flood study report showed the majority of pre and post vxd exceeded limits specified in Section 2.3.1 of Council’s DCP 2014 Part 8.2. For example, at CH 55 there is an undesirable post development Vxd increase from 0.43 to 0.54.


Related Documents





© Technology One Limited 2024