Agenda of Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

13 February 2019

Item No: LPP003/19

Development Application at 74,76 & 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: 2017/513/1

Application lodged	1 December 2017
Applicant / Owner	Our Lady of Consolation Aged Care Services
Application No.	2017/513/1
Description of Land	74, 76 & 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 3 lots into 1 lot, construction of a part 4, part 5 storey mixed use development containing seniors housing in the form of 38 self-contained dwellings and a medical centre over two levels of basement parking accommodating 37 parking spaces under Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability SEPP 2004.
Site Area	1,907.44m²
Zoning	74 & 76 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie – B2 Local Centre 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie – R4 High Density Residential
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	The subject site is not a heritage item, nor is it located within a heritage conservation area. The subject site is located within the vicinity of a local heritage item known as St Edna’s Church Hall – Inter-war Hall, circa 1929 (Item No. 101), located at 27-33 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie.
Principal Development Standards	Floor Space Ratio Permissible: 2:1 and 1.2:1 Proposed: 1.88:1 and 1.16:1 Height of Buildings Permissible: 17m Proposed: 16.84m
Issues	· Building separation · Ceiling heights · Number of units per core · Building height in storeys · Street wall height

Figure 1 – Perspective From Aurelia Street, Looking East (Source: Idg, 2018)

Summary:

Council is in receipt of a Development Application from Our Lady of Consolation Aged Care Services seeking approval for demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 3 lots into 1 lot, construction of a part 4, part 5 storey mixed use development containing seniors housing in the form of 38 self-contained dwellings and a medical centre over two levels of basement parking accommodating 37 parking spaces under Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability SEPP 2004 at 74, 76 & 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie. The Development Application Architectural Plans are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The site is affected by Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The development has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer to be acceptable, subject to standard conditions.

The Development Application was publicly notified for a period of 35 days from 20 December 2017 to 24 January 2018, inclusive of an additional 14 days, accounting for the Christmas / New Year period. In response, no submissions were received.

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre associated with the properties 74 & 76 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie, and zoned R4 High Density Residential associated with the property 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie, pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013. A Residential Flat Building is permissible with development consent in the R4 – High Density Residential zone, and Shop Top Housing, is permissible with development consent in the B2 – Local Centre zone.

The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land), State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, Sydney Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013, Draft SEPP (Environment), and Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013.

The Development Application was referred for comments externally to Endeavour Energy, and internally to Council’s Development Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Tree Management Officer, Heritage Consultant, Environmental Health Officer, and Resource Recovery Officer, to which the application is supported.

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant matters for consideration pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, including likely impacts, the suitability of the site for the development, and the public interest, and the proposed development is considered appropriate.

The variations sought via the subject application are as follows:

Control	Required	Provided	% Variation
Building separation	Min. 6m	3.9m & 5m	16.6% - 35%
Ceiling heights	3.3m	2.75m	16.6%
Number of units per core	Max. 8	10	25%
Building height in storeys	Max. 4 storeys	5 storeys	25%
Street wall height	Max. 3 storey	4 storeys	33.3%

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination, as it is a development with more than 4 storeys to which the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Developments applies.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Approve the Development Application, subject to the Draft Notice of Determination provided at Attachment 2 to this report.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 74, 76, & 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie, and is legally described as Lots 17, 18 and 19, Deposited Plan 10697. The site is a regular mid-block, and has a frontage of 45.72 metres to Aurelia Street, and depth of 45.72 metres. The total site area is 1,907.44sqm, and is illustrated in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2 - Location Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2018

The subject site currently contains a weatherboard dwelling on 74 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie, fibro dwelling on 76 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie, and 2 storey brick dwelling on 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie, all with ancillary structures. Sixteen (16) existing trees and shrubs are present on the subject site, which are proposed to be removed.

The surrounding locality is characterised as follows:

· North 43 & 45 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie – 5 storey mixed use development under construction.

· East 64, 66 & 72 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie – Part 4 / Part 5 storey mixed use development.

· South & West 80 & 82 Aurelia Street and 35 - 43 Toongabbie Road, Toongabbie – 3 x 4 storey residential flat buildings.

The topography of the site is maintained to a 1.5% gradient, with a 1 metre fall from North West to South East. The site is affected by Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).

Figure 3 – Zoning Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2018)

The subject site is situated to the south of Aurelia Street. Figure 4 below illustrates an aerial perspective of the site and the general surroundings.

Figure 4 – Aerial Photo (Source: Cumberland Council, 2018)

The subject site is located within the vicinity of a heritage item, known as St Edna’s Church Hall – Inter-war Hall, circa 1929 (Item No. 101), located at 27-33 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie.

Figure 5 below illustrates the location of the heritage item listed above:

Figure 5 – Heritage Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2018)

The site is within 400 metres walking distance to the Wentworthville town centre which is located to the East of the subject site. Wentworthville town centre provides key retail and commercial services including bank facilities, supermarkets and a medical centre.

The site is within 400m of the Toongabbie Train Station, and a number of bus routes, including routes 702 and 711, which access Blacktown and Parramatta respectively.

Description of The Proposed Development

The proposal is for demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 3 lots into 1 lot, construction of a part 4, part 5 storey mixed use development containing seniors housing in the form of 38 self-contained dwellings and a medical centre over two levels of basement parking accommodating 37 parking spaces under Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability SEPP 2004.

Specific details of the proposed development are as follows:

Built Form

The proposal comprises a 5 storey mixed use building, with ground floor medical centre and hydrotherapy pool, 3 independent living units, and independent living units within the floors above. The proposed building, as measured to Aurelia Street, maintains a nil setback within 74 & 76 Aurelia Street, and 6 metre setback within 78 Aurelia Street. A setback of 5 to 6 metres is maintained to the north-eastern boundary (inclusive of the Aurelia laneway extension), 9 metres to the south-eastern boundary, and 3.9 to 6 metres to the north-western boundary.

Parking (Basement Levels)

	Basement 1	Basement 2	Total
Residential Parking	0 spaces	18 spaces (11 accessible)	18 spaces
Retail / Commercial	17 spaces (2 accessible)	2 spaces	19 spaces
Bicycle Parking	20 spaces	5 spaces	25 spaces

Independent Living Apartment Mix

	Building	Total
1 Bedroom	29	29
2 Bedroom	9	9
3 Bedroom	0	0
	Total	38

Access Arrangements

Pedestrian access to the development is maintained from Aurelia Street. A single core is maintained to the residential portion of the development, designed to maintain access to the basement levels and independent living apartments above. The medical centre and hydrotherapy pool are accessible also from Aurelia Street, with access also maintained from the basement level car park through the central core.

The proposed development includes an extension to Aurelia Lane along the north-eastern portion of the site, maintained to a 4 metre width, which connects Aurelia Street with Cox Lane. Vehicular access, including loading and unloading functions, is maintained to Aurelia Lane.

Communal Open Space

The proposal maintains the primary communal open space areas to a communal courtyard area within first floor, and rooftop garden. Breakout spaces are also maintained to the central courtyard within levels 2 and 3, with the overall areas designed to be 486.72m².

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Smyth Planning dated 29 November 2017 and was received by Council on 1 December 2017 in support of the application.

Additional correspondence was received by Smyth Planning dated 14 June 2018, 26 June 2018, 5 July 2018, 21 August 2018, and 15 November 2018 in response to Council’s request for amended plans and additional information.

Contact with Relevant Parties

The assessing officer has undertaken an inspection of the subject site and has been in contact with the applicant throughout the assessment process.

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable, subject to standard conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft Notice of Determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Traffic Engineer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable, subject to standard conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft Notice of Determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Tree Management Officer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable, subject to standard conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft Notice of Determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Environmental Health Officer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable, subject to standard conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft Notice of Determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Resource Recovery Officer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Resource Recovery Officer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable, subject to standard conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft Notice of Determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Heritage Consultant

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Heritage Consultant for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable, as it does not negatively impact upon the surrounding heritage item.

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

The Development Application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comments who has advised that the proposed development is supported.

Planning Comments

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act)

The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instruments (EP & A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(i))

The following Environmental Planning Instruments are relevant to the assessment of the subject modification application:

(a) State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

The requirement at Clause 7 of SEPP No. 55 for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development has been considered in the following table:

Matters for consideration	Yes	No	N/A
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?
Is the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g.: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?
Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site? acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation.
Is the site listed on Council's Contaminated Land Database?
Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?
Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?
Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?
Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site: The site is not identified in Council’s records as being contaminated. A site inspection reveals the site does not have any obvious history of a previous land use that may have caused contamination and there is no specific evidence that indicates the site is contaminated. The subject site is currently used for residential purposes and contamination is not expected.

(b) State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 aims to provide access to affordable housing for older people, people with disability and those on low income.

The proposed development has been assessed and found to comply with the provisions of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. A comprehensive assessment against the provisions of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 has been undertaken, and is provided at Attachment 3.

(c) State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65)

SEPP 65 and the associated Apartment Design Guide (ADG) apply to the assessment of the subject application as it includes residential flat buildings that are 3 storeys or more in height and contain more than 4 dwellings.

The Development Application has been accompanied by a Design Verification Statement from a Registered Architect. The proposed development has been assessed and found to comply with the requirements of SEPP 65 and the ADG, with the exception of building separation, ceiling heights, and the maximum number of units per core, which is discussed below. A comprehensive assessment against the ADG is contained in Attachment 4 to this report.

Building Separation

· The ADG requires a minimum separation distance for buildings to side and rear boundaries of 6 metres, for the first four storeys, as measured to habitable rooms and balconies. In this regard, the following variations are noted:

· Along the north-eastern elevation of the building, a setback of 5 metres has been designed to balconies of Units 103, 106, 203, 206, 303 and 306, and the living rooms of Units 104, 105, 204, 205, 304, and 305; and

· Along the south-western elevation of the building, a setback of 3.9 metres has been designed to the balconies of Units 109, 209, and 309.

The proposed variations achieve the aims and objectives of the ADG, and are considered supportable on their merits, noting:

· The projecting elements have been designed to achieve the required amount of solar access to the development, due to the orientation of the site, and minimum balcony sizes, as per the ADG. The areas in question provide articulation to a façade, which would otherwise be continuous in form, and void of visual interest.

· Privacy screening has been designed to the living room and balcony areas in question, and where possible, openings and balconies have been offset from those of adjoining developments. In the case of the balconies along the south-western elevation, a separation in excess of 12 metres, as measured building to building, has been achieved.

Ceiling Heights

· The ADG requires the first floor of a mixed use building to have a floor to ceiling height measuring 3.3 metres. In this regard, the floor to ceiling height associated with first floor is maintained to 2.75 metres.

A statement has been provided by the Applicant, in response to the above variation, which is noted as follows:

A 3.3m ceiling height would impose additional costs without any social / economic benefit. The purpose of the senior’s housing development is to provide much needed affordable rental housing specifically designed to seniors who need low cost rental housing in a town centre, close to transport and services which may otherwise be unaffordable for this vulnerable part of the community. The development is to be owned and managed by a charity aged care organisation who will provide seniors support services to the residents, so that unnecessarily increasing construction costs is not in the public interest.

The Applicant’s written justification submitted to the variation of ceiling heights is considered well founded, and supportable on its merits. Council is also not aware of any market demand for first floor level commercial uses, and the proposed floor to ceiling heights are consistent with recently approved developments within the locality.

Number of Units per Core

· The ADG requires the maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on single level to be eight. In this regards, the maximum number of units per core on levels 1, 2 and 3, is maintained to 10 units.

A statement has been provided by the Applicant, in response to the above variation, which is noted as follows:

The ADG is written on the basis of “residential flat buildings” which may be occupied by residents who may have no social connection. In contrast, the development is intended to facilitate social connection by providing opportunities within each floor level (e.g. small nooks for table / seating and larger communal areas with community facilities to promote socialisation of the elderly residents, many of whom will be single and / or without supporting family members). The development is proposed for rental by less affluent seniors, and is not proposed to be strata subdivided / owner occupied. Thus facilitating any / all opportunities for social interaction is an important design objective for this type of development. The provision of 2 x lifts per floor (in effect 1 lift serving 5 units), will minimise wait times and provides a “spare lift” in the event that a lift is closed for maintenance. Thus having 10 not 8 units per floor combined with 2 x lifts is considered to be a positive feature of the development.

The Applicant’s written justification submitted to the variation of number of units per core is considered well founded, and supportable on its merits.

(d) State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP)

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the Development Application.

Clause 45 - Development likely to affect an electricity transmission or distribution network

The subject development occurs within 5 metres of an overhead electricity power line and the proposed development also includes a substation. As such, the Consent Authority is required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority. The Development Application was referred to Endeavour Energy, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.

(e) State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX Certificate has been lodged as a part of the Development Application. The BASIX certificate indicates that the development has been designed to achieve the required water, thermal comfort and energy scores.

(f) State Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The subject site is identified as being located within the area affected by the Sydney Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. The proposed development raises no issues, as no impact on the catchment is envisaged.

Note: The subject site is not identified in the relevant map as land within the ‘Foreshores and Waterways Area’ or ‘Wetland Protection Zone’, is not a ‘Strategic Foreshore Site’ and does not contain any heritage items. Hence the majority of the State Environmental Plan is not directly relevant to the proposed development.

(g) Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP 2013)

The provision of the HLEP 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the HLEP 2013 and the objectives of the B2 Local Centre and R4 High Density Residential zoning.

Permissibility

· The site is zoned B2 Local Centre associated with the properties 74 & 76 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie, and zoned R4 High Density Residential associated with the property 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie. The proposed development is defined as a mixed use development, comprising seniors housing across the site, and a ground floor medical centre within 74 & 76 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie. The proposed development is permissible with consent.

Mixed use development means a building or place comprising 2 or more different land uses.

Seniors housing means a building or place that is:

(a) a residential care facility, or

(b) a hostel within the meaning of clause 12 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, or

(d) a combination of any of the buildings or places referred to in paragraphs (a)–(c),

and that is, or is intended to be, used permanently for:

(e) seniors or people who have a disability, or

(f) people who live in the same household with seniors or people who have a disability, or

(g) staff employed to assist in the administration of the building or place or in the provision of services to persons living in the building or place,

but does not include a hospital.

Note. Seniors housing is a type of residential accommodation.

Medical centre means premises that are used for the purpose of providing health services (including preventative care, diagnosis, medical or surgical treatment, counselling or alternative therapies) to out-patients only, where such services are principally provided by health care professionals. It may include the ancillary provision of other health services.

Note: Medical centres are a type of health services facility.

The relevant matters to be considered under HLEP 2013 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Attachment 5 to this report.

Development Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Height of Buildings

17 metres (Across the site)

16.84 metres

Yes

Floor Space Ratio

74 & 76 Aurelia – 2:1

78 Aurelia – 1.2:1

1.88:1

1.16:1

Yes

The provisions of any Proposed Instruments (EP & A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(ii))

The following draft Environmental Planning Instruments are relevant to the assessment of the subject modification application:

(a) Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

The draft SEPP relates to the protection and management of our natural environment with the aim of simplifying the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property. The changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

· State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas.

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011.

· State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50 – Canal Estate Development.

· Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment.

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997).

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.

· Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property.

The draft policy will repeal the above existing SEPPs and certain provisions will be transferred directly to the new SEPP, amended and transferred, or repealed due to overlaps with other areas of the NSW planning system.

As noted within the assessment above under the heading ‘State Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005’, the proposed development raises no issues, as no impact on the catchment is envisaged.

The provisions of any Development Control Plans (EP & A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(iii))

The following Development Control Plans are relevant to the assessment of the subject modification application:

(a) Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP 2013)

The HDCP 2013 applies to the subject site. The proposed development has been assessed and found to comply with the provisions of the Holroyd DCP 2013, with the exception of the maximum building height in storeys, and street wall height, which is discussed below. A comprehensive assessment against the provisions of the Holroyd DCP 2013 is contained in Attachment 6 to this report.

Building Height in Storeys

· The HDCP 2013 requires the maximum building height in storeys to be 4 storeys, where a maximum permitted building height under the Holroyd LEP 2013 is 17 metres, to which the subject site benefits from. In this regard, the proposal is maintained to 5 storeys.

The proposed variation achieve the aims and objectives of the Holroyd DCP 2013, and is considered supportable on its merits, noting:

· The proposal is compliant with the Holroyd LEP 2013 height of building development standard, with a measurement of 16.84 metres.

· The built form responds to character of the area, in particular recently approved developments to the immediate north and east of the site, as listed below:

· North 43 & 45 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie – 5 storey mixed use development under construction.

· East 64, 66 & 72 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie – Part 4 / Part 5 storey mixed use development.

Street Wall Height

· The HDCP 2013 requires the proposed development to adhere to an upper storey setback above the 3rd floor. In this regard, the proposed development maintains a 4th storey street wall height, and upper storey setback to the 5th storey.

The proposed variation achieve the aims and objectives of the Holroyd DCP 2013, and is considered supportable on its merits, noting recently approved surrounding developments do no adhere to an upper storey setback above the 3rd floor, rather, they typically provide an upper storey setback to the 5th storey. This is prevalent in the case of the adjoining eastern mixed use development at 64, 66 & 72 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie, and directly opposite mixed use development at 43 & 45 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie. As such, the development is considered to provide an acceptable presentation, which is consistent with the future streetscape of Aurelia Street.

The provisions of any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4 (EP & A Act s4.15(1)(a)(iiia))

There is no planning agreement or draft planning agreement associated with the subject Modification Application.

The provisions of the Regulations (EP & A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(iv))

The proposed development raises no concerns as to the relevant matters arising from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP & A Regs).

The Likely Environmental, Social or Economic Impacts (EP & A Act s4.15 (1)(b))

It is considered that the proposed development will have no significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts in the locality.

The suitability of the site for the development (EP & A Act s4.15 (1)(c))

The subject site and locality is not known to be affected by any natural hazards or other site constraints likely to have a significant adverse impact on the proposed development. Accordingly, it is considered that the development is suitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality.

Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation (EP & A Act s4.15 (1)(d))

Advertised (newspaper) Mail Sign Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 35 days from 20 December 2017 to 24 January 2018, inclusive of an additional 14 days, accounting for the Christmas / New Year period. In response, no submissions were received.

Amended plans were received during the process of the application, which, due to the minor nature of the changes proposed, and lack of submissions received during the first notification, did not warrant re-notification.

The public interest (EP & A Act s4.15(1)(e))

The public interest is served by permitting the orderly and economic use of land, in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding environment and has regard to the reasonable amenity expectations of surrounding land users. In view of the foregoing analysis, it is considered that approval of the proposed development would not be contrary to the public interest.

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94 Contributions)

The subject development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013. In accordance with the currently indexed rates for the Toongabbie Centre contribution area, the following contributions apply:

· 442.3m2 of commercial gross floor area x $13 = $5,749.90

The current rate of the required contribution is $5,749.90. The draft Notice of Determination provided as Attachment 2 includes a recommendation to impose the contribution amount.

9.2 In accordance with Ministerial Direction ‘Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Revocation of Direction in force under Section 94E and Direction under Section 94E)’, dated 14 September 2017, the seniors living component of the subject development is exempt from payment of Section 7.11 contributions, as the Application is made under SEPP (Housing and Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, by a social housing provider.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

The NSW Government has introduced disclosure requirements for individuals or entities with a relevant financial interest as part of the lodgement of various types of development proposals and requests to initiate environmental planning instruments or development control plans.

The application and notification process did not result in any disclosure of Political Donations or Gifts.

Conclusion:

The proposed development has been assessed against the matters for consideration listed in Section 4.15 of the EP & A Act, 1979, and is considered to be satisfactory. Any likely impacts of the development have been satisfactorily addressed and the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Holroyd LEP 2013, and is permissible in the zone with Development Consent. The proposal also complies with the Holroyd DCP 2013, with the exception of the maximum building height in storeys, and street wall height requirements, with the variation considered supportable on its merits.

Consultation:

There are no further consultation processes for Council associated with this report.

Financial Implications:

There are no further financial implications for Council associated with this report.

Policy Implications:

There are no policy implications for Council associated with this report.

Communication / Publications:

The final outcome of this matter will be notified in the newspaper. The objectors will also be notified in writing of the outcome.

Report Recommendation:

That Development Application 2017/513/1 seeking demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 3 lots into 1 lot, construction of a part 4, part 5 storey mixed use development containing seniors housing in the form of 38 self-contained dwellings and a medical centre over two levels of basement parking accommodating 37 parking spaces under Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability SEPP 2004 at 74, 76 & 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie, be Approved, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

Attachments

1. Architectural Plans ⇩

2. Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

3. SEPP (Housing for Seniors and People with Disability) 2004 Compliance Assessment ⇩

4. SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment ⇩

5. Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment ⇩

6. Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment ⇩

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

13 February 2019

Item No: LPP004/19

Development Application for 27B & 29 Garfield Street, Wentworthville

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: 2018/196

Application lodged	8 June 2018
Applicant	Blue Sox Developments Pty Ltd
Owner	Blue Sox Developments Pty Ltd
Application No.	2018/196
Description of land	27B & 29 Garfield Street Wentworthville
Proposed development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 4, part 5 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating a total of 20 units and 24 parking spaces
Site area	1267.2 m²
Zoning	R4 – High Density Residential
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	The site is not a heritage item and is not located within a heritage conservation area
Principal development standards	Height of Buildings – 15 m Floor Space Ratio – 1.2:1
Issues	· Building separation · Landscape non-compliance · Overshadowing

Summary:

1. The subject application was lodged on 8 June 2018 and notified to surrounding properties from 27 June to 18 July 2018. No submissions were received.

2. The application was deferred on 28 November 2018 due to non-compliances with the FSR standard, ADG apartment size controls, visual bulk of the proposal, inappropriate privacy treatment to habitable rooms, and inconsistencies between the landscape and stormwater plans. Additional information was also sought regarding overshadowing of the approved development to the south.

3. Additional information and amended plans to address the deferral items were submitted on 18 December 2018. The amended plans provided for compliance with the FSR standard as a result of relocation of the waste storage area and plant room, and deletion of the lobby at lower ground floor. The amended plans also addressed the majority of the concerns regarding ADG non-compliances. The amended plans were not required to be renotified as there were no additional impacts resulting from the amendments.

4. Further information was requested and received from the applicant in January 2019 to address concerns regarding overshadowing of the approved development to the south of the subject site.

5. The site is isolated in that it does not meet the minimum frontage required for a residential flat development. However, there are no reasonable opportunities for amalgamation with adjacent sites.

6. The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination as it is a development with more than 4 storeys to which the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Developments applies.

7. The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 and Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP 2013).

8. The application involves the following numerical non-compliances which are considered supportable as discussed in detail elsewhere in the report:

Control	Required	Proposed	% Variation
Building separation (ADG)	9 m	3 m	66%
Living room width (ADG)	4 m	3.72 m	7%
POS for ground floor units (ADG)	15 m² with 3 m min dimensions	14 m² with minimum 3 m dimensions	6%
Landscape area (DCP)	30% (380.6 m²)	13.7% (174.4 m²)	54%
Lot frontage (DCP)	Minimum 24 m	16.52 m	31%
Site coverage (DCP)	Max 30% (1782.3 m²)	38% (1897.73m²)	6.4%
Front setback (DCP)	6 m	4.505	24.9%
Rear setback (DCP)	20% (14.579 m)	7.6% (5.6 m)	61.5%
Side setback (DCP)	3 m	2.5 m	16%
Basement setback (DCP)	3 m	0 m	100%
Number of storeys	4	5 (technical non-compliance due to basement protrusion)	20%

9. The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions in the draft determination at attachment 4.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 27B & 29 Garfield Street Wentworthville and is legally described as lot 23 in DP 816973 and lot Y in DP 383623. The site has an area of 1267.2 m2 and frontage of 16.52 m to Garfield Street and 31.755 m to Emert Street (Cumberland Highway). The site is located opposite the intersection of Garfield Street and McKern Street. There is currently a single storey dwelling located on each of the existing sites. There are a number of established trees on the subject site and within the adjacent road reserve. The site falls approximately 4 m towards the western boundary.

The site is zoned R4 – High Density Residential, as are neighbouring sites to the north and south. The land on the opposite side of Garfield Street is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential.

The subject site does not contain any heritage items and is not within a heritage conservation area. However, there are a number of local heritage items within proximity of the subject site. There is significant physical separation between the subject site and the local heritage items and the proposed development will have no impact on the setting or significance of any of the items.

Aerial view of the locality with subject site shown hatched. Source: Cumberland Council 2018

Zoning map with subject site shown hatched. Source: Cumberland Council 2018

Subject site – view from Garfield Street. Source: Google Maps 2018

Subject site – Emert Street frontage. Source: Google Maps 2018

Description of the Proposed Development

DA 2018/196 proposes demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 4, part 5 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating a total of 20 units and 24 parking spaces.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

Level	Details
Basement	24 car parking spaces including 3 accessible spaces and 1 car wash bay
Lower ground	3 x 2 bedroom units, plant room, bicycle storage, garbage room, and storage room
Ground floor	3 x 2 bedroom units and 1 x 3 bedroom unit
First floor	4 x 2 bedroom units and 1 x 3 bedroom unit
Second floor	3 x 2 bedroom units and 3 x 3 bedroom units
Third floor	2 x 2 bedroom units and rooftop communal open space area

Access to the basement car park is provided from 27-27A Garfield Street which is burdened by a right of carriageway benefitting the subject site.

The proposed apartment mix is as follows:

· 3 x 1 bedroom (15%)

· 15 x 2 bedroom (75%)

· 2 x 3 bedroom (10%)

Application History

The subject site was isolated as a result of the approval of DA 2016/478 for development of 27 and 27A Garfield Street (now 27 Garfield Street). That application was lodged concurrently with DA 2016/474 for development of 29 Garfield Street which was also subsequently approved by Council.

During the assessment of those applications, valuations were prepared and submitted to Council for the remaining lot (27B Garfield Street), which at that time was owned by the Department of Housing. Concept plans for development of 27B as an isolated site were also submitted for assessment. Council was satisfied at the time of approving DA 2016/474 and DA 2016/478 that the applicant had made reasonable attempts to acquire 27B Garfield Street but had been unsuccessful, and that it was possible to develop both 27B and 29 as separate lots.

Since that time, the applicant has acquired 27B and is now proposing to develop that lot in conjunction with 29 Garfield Street. A pre-DA meeting was held with the applicant in February 2018 and at that time it was suggested that the applicant explore the possibility of developing all 3 lots (27, 27B and 29 Garfield Street) in one scheme. The applicant indicates in their Statement of Environmental Effects that the approved development at 27 Garfield Street has progressed significantly in the time it has taken to acquire 27B Garfield Street, and for that reason a consolidated scheme for all lots is not reasonably possible at this point.

Date	Action
4 November 2016	DA 2016/474 lodged with Council, seeking consent for a 5-storey residential flat building comprising 9 units at 29 Garfield Street
7 November 2016	DA 2016/478 lodged with Council, seeking consent for a part 4 / part 5 storey residential flat building comprising 19 units at 27 & 27A Garfield Street
7 November 2017	DA 2016/478 approved under delegated authority
28 November 2017	DA 2016/474 approved under delegated authority
30 November 2017	Blue Sox Development Pty Ltd acquires 27B Garfield Street from Department of Housing
28 February 2018	Pre-DA meeting held to discuss proposed redevelopment of 27B & 29 Garfield Street
8 June 2018	DA 2018/196 (subject application) lodged with Council
20 June 2018	Subject application referred to the following internal sections: · Development Engineering · Waste Management · Environmental Health · Landscaping
20 June 2018	Subject application referred to the following external agencies: · Endeavour Energy · Transgrid · NSW Police
27 June to 18 July 2018	Subject application placed on public notification for 21 days
28 November 2018	Application deferred seeking additional information and amended plans
18 December 2018	Amended plans and additional information received by Council
18 January 2019	Additional information regarding overshadowing of the adjacent site requested from the applicant
30 January 2019	Amended plans and shadow diagrams received from the applicant
13 February 2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 31 May 2018 was submitted with the application.

Additional correspondence in response to the deferral items prepared by Think Planners dated 15 December 2018 was submitted in support of the amended application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

The assessing officer has undertaken an inspection of the subject site and has been in contact with the applicant throughout the assessment process.

Internal Referrals

Development Engineering

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment. Response received 26 November 2018 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions, including a deferred commencement condition requiring the registration of a drainage easement in favour of the subject site. The conditions recommended by the Engineer are included in the draft determination.

Landscape and Tree Management

The application was referred to Council’s Landscape and Tree Management Officer for comment. Response received 7 January 2019 indicates that the proposed tree removal and landscape works are satisfactory subject to conditions. The conditions recommended by the Landscape Officer are included in the draft determination.

Environmental Health

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Unit for comment. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of provision for mechanical ventilation of the waste storage room and basement car park. These matters were satisfactorily addressed by the applicant with the amended plans.

Waste Management

The application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Unit for comment. The response received 23 August 2018 recommends that the waste storage area be relocated to the basement with provision made for a bin tug to transfer the bins to the street. In this instance, transferring the bins through the driveway is not possible or practical as access to the basement is provided through the adjacent site; and the right of carriageway does not include a right to transfer waste. The proposed waste arrangements are considered satisfactory and will be a matter for management by the owners’ corporation.

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

The application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment pursuant to clause 45 of the SEPP Infrastructure. The response received 9 July 2018 indicates that Endeavour Energy does not object to the proposal. The response also indicated some concerns regarding encroachments into the fire restriction area for the padmount substation. This matter was addressed by the applicant with the amended proposal.

NSW Police

The application was referred to NSW Police for comment regarding CPTED. Response dated 2 July 2018 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

NSW Roads and Maritime Services

The application was referred to RMS for comment pursuant to clause 101 of the SEPP Infrastructure. Response received 1 July 2018 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

Planning Assessment

The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instruments (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(i))

The following Environmental Planning Instruments are relevant to the assessment of the subject application:

(a) State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

The requirement at clause 7 of SEPP 55 for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development has been considered in the following table:

Matter for consideration	Yes	No
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?
Is the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g. residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?
Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site? acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation
Is the site listed on Council's Contaminated land database?
Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?
Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?
Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?
Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site: The site is not identified in Council’s records as being subject to contamination. There is no evidence available to suggest that the site has ever been used for a potentially contaminating activity. No further investigation is considered necessary in the circumstances.

(b) State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

BASIX certificate 926540M dated 27 May 2018 was submitted with the application. The proposal achieves the target scores for energy, water and thermal comfort and relevant commitments are shown on the architectural plans.

(c) State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65)

The proposal is classified as a residential apartment development and SEPP 65 applies. A design verification statement signed by registered architect Dany Ramanos Khoury was submitted with the application.

The design quality principles from Schedule 1 of the SEPP are considered in the following table:

Design quality principle	Response
1. Context and neighbourhood character	The design represents an appropriate response to the context of the site in terms of the limited frontage and sloping topography. The proposed development will provide a positive addition to the streetscape, and is compatible with the developments that are currently under construction on surrounding sites. The generous communal open space provision and landscaping within the setbacks will provide good amenity for the residents of the proposed development, as well as softening the appearance of the proposal from adjacent sites.
2. Built form and scale	The scale, bulk and height of the proposal appropriate for the site and are consistent with the desired future character of the area; as evidenced by compliance with the height and FSR standards for the site. The alignment and proportions of the building help to define the public domain and contribute to streetscape character, internal amenity and outlook.
3. Density	The subject site is well located with respect to existing public transport and community facilities. The proposal complies with the FSR standard for the site and the design of the development provides for appropriate separation between dwellings, supplemented by privacy treatment to balconies and windows where necessary.
4. Sustainability	A BASIX certificate was submitted with the application, demonstrating that the building meets the applicable thermal comfort, energy efficiency and water efficiency targets. The proposal provides for adequate deep soil zones which will allow for groundwater recharge and establishment of vegetation.
5. Landscape	A landscape plan was submitted with the proposal. The landscaping options are considered to be adequate. The proposed landscaping will provide suitable visual amenity for the future occupants of the development and a suitable landscape setting for the building within the streetscape is also proposed.
6. Amenity	The proposed development optimizes internal amenity through appropriate room dimensions, layout of the units, access to sunlight, and natural ventilation. Visual and acoustic privacy concerns are managed with privacy screens, highlight windows and other treatments without compromising the outlook and amenity of the proposed units. Consideration has also been given to service areas and storage to ensure the functionality of the development as a whole.
7. Safety	The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of providing casual surveillance to the public domain and communal areas whilst maintaining privacy for the proposed units. Public areas are well defined and access within the development is appropriately restricted to ensure safety of residents.
8. Housing diversity and social interaction	The proposal provides for a mix of apartment sizes and layouts. The variety of communal open spaces and the design of the common circulation spaces will encourage social interaction among residents.
9. Aesthetics	The proposal provides for a balanced composition of building elements with a variety of colours and textures. The external presentation of the building reflects the internal layout and structure, and the visual bulk is broken up with indentations and offsets on each façade.

Pursuant to clause 28(2)(c) of SEPP 65, a consent authority must consider the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) in the assessment of a residential flat development.

The proposal involves the following non-compliances with the ADG controls.

No.	Control		Comments	Compliance
PART 3 – SITING THE DEVELOPMENT
3D	Communal and Public Open Space			Yes	No	N/A
3D-1	Communal open space should be co-located with deep soil areas.		Not possible in this instance due to the isolated nature of the site.
3F	Visual Privacy
3F-1	Design Criteria Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows: Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room. Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties.		North 6m required at levels LG-3 3.74 m proposed. Rooftop 9 m required 3.03 m proposed East N/A street facing South 6m required at levels LG-3. 2.4 m proposed Rooftop 9 m required 3m proposed West N/A street facing The non-compliances are to the northern and southern elevations with the proposal providing
PART 4 – DESIGNING THE BUILDING
4D	Apartment Size and Layout
4D-3	Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of: • 3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments • 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments.	Units B-LG02, B-G02 and B-102 do not comply with this control (2 bedroom apartment with 3.72 m living room width). Indicative floor layouts demonstrate that the proposed units are well-designed and functional.
4E	Private Open Space and Balconies
4E-1	For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15 m² and a minimum depth of 3 m.	Ground floor apartments have POS >15m² B-LG02 has 14 m² with 3 m dimensions but terrace is 30 m² overall which is significantly more than the total area required. As such, the minor deficiency in the area with minimum 3 m dimensions is considered satisfactory.
4L	Ground Floor Apartments
4L-1	Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor apartments are located.		There are no ground floor apartments facing the street. However, there is a large covered lobby area at the front of the building facing Garfield Street which provides for activation of the frontage. Provision of ground floor apartments is not considered possible in this case given the limited site width.

A comprehensive ADG assessment is provided at attachment 2.

(d) State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP (ISEPP) 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

Clause 45 - Development likely to affect an electricity transmission or distribution network

The proposed development does not incorporate basement excavation in proximity (within 2 metres) to an electricity distribution pole nor does the development occur within 5 metres of an overhead electricity power line. As such, the Consent Authority is not required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority.

The proposal provides for a new padmount substation within the Garfield Street setback. As such, the application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment. See discussion above regarding the Endeavour Energy response.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

Clause 101 applies as the site has frontage to Emert Street (Cumberland Highway) which is a classified road. The Panel can be satisfied that;

· vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and

· the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development, and

· the development has been appropriately designed to ameliorate potential traffic noise within the site arising from the adjacent classified road. See comments above regarding referral to Environmental Health.

Clause 102 – Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development

Clause 102 applies as the average daily traffic volume of Emert Street is more than 20,000 vehicles and the proposal is for residential accommodation that is likely to be adversely affected by road noise and vibration.

The DPI Interim Guideline for development near rail corridors and busy roads has been considered in the assessment of the application.

Subject to implementation of the recommendations of the acoustic report, the relevant LAeq levels as specified at clause 102, subclause 3 will not be exceeded.

Clause 104 – Traffic generating developments

Clause 104 does not apply as the proposal does not constitute traffic generating development as defined at Schedule 3.

(e) Statement Environmental Planning Policy No 19 - Bushland in Urban Areas

The proposal does not propose to disturb bushland zoned or reserved for public open space.

(f) State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

The proposal includes removal of all existing trees within the subject site. However, this does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold and the majority of the trees on site are exempt species. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable. Please refer to the HDCP 2013 compliance table at attachment 3 for further comment regarding the proposed tree removal.

(g) State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

The subject site is not identified as a coastal wetland nor is it ‘land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands” as per Part 2, Division 1 of the SEPP Coastal Management 2018.

(h) Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP 2013)

The proposed development is defined as a ‘residential flat building’ under the provisions of HLEP 2013. Residential flat buildings are permitted with consent in the R4 – High Density Residential zone which applies to the land.

The proposal complies with all applicable development standards under HLEP 2013. A comprehensive LEP compliance table is provided at attachment 1.

The provisions of any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(ii))

There are no draft SEPPs applicable to the proposed development.

The provisions of any Development Control Plans (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(iii))

(a) Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

HDCP 2013 contains general controls which relate to all developments under Part A, and Residential Controls under Part B.

A comprehensive HDCP compliance table is attached to this report at attachment 3. A summary of the DCP non-compliances is provided in the following table.

No.

Clause

Comment

Yes

N/A

PART B – RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS

GENERAL RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS

1.5

Landscape Area

Min. 30% for a residential flat building.

Required: 1267.2 x 30% = 380.6 m²

174.4 m² (13.7%). Given the isolated nature of the site and the compliant COS provided, the non-compliance is considered supportable in this instance.

1.8

Sunlight Access

1 main living area of existing adjacent dwellings to receive 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 4pm, 22 June.

Shadow diagrams provided indicate that 4 of the ground floor units in block C of the approved development at 31-37B Garfield Street (currently under construction) will receive no solar access at mid-winter as a result of the proposed development.

Block C has a total of 58 units and as approved, 60.3% of those will receive 2+ hours of direct solar access at mid-winter. As a result of the proposed development, this will reduce to 53% of units in that building.

It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory despite the non-compliance in this instance. Being located at ground level, the affected units are vulnerable to overshadowing, and given the isolated nature of the subject site, some shadow impact is inevitable. The applicant has demonstrated that the design minimises overshadowing of the adjacent site and it is considered that maintaining solar access to the ground floor units at Block C, 31 Garfield Street would require a substantial reduction in the number of units that could be provided on the subject site. This may also result in a non-compliance with the ADG requirement for 70% of the proposed units to receive 2+ hours of solar access.

Min. 50% of required POS of existing adjacent dwellings to receive 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 4pm, 22 June.

Shadow diagrams provided indicate that 4 of the ground floor units in Block C of the approved development at 31-37B Garfield Street will receive no solar access to their POS areas at mid-winter as a result of the proposed development.

This non-compliance is considered supportable in the circumstances for the reasons detailed above.

6.0

Residential Flat Buildings

Minimum lot frontage for residential flat buildings is 24m or 28m

Subject site has frontage of 16.52 m to Garfield Street which is less than the required minimum.

There are no reasonable opportunities for amalgamation with adjacent sites and the proposed design has demonstrated satisfactory levels of amenity can be achieved for the subject site, and adjoining developments despite the limited site width.

Maximum site coverage of any residential flat development shall not exceed 30%

1267.2 x 0.3 = 380.16 m² max

524.7 m² or 41.4 % site coverage is proposed. This is greater than the permitted maximum. However, as the proposal complies with the FSR standard and provides adequate communal and private open space area, the non-compliance can be supported in this instance.

Setbacks

Front setback from principal street minimum 6m

5.8 m setback proposed to Garfield Street.

This minor non-compliance is considered satisfactory given the subject development is located at the R4-B2 zone interface. The approved development to the north (27 & 27A Garfield Street) has a 3 m setback to the street, and the approved development to the south has a 6 m setback. Accordingly, the proposed setback responds appropriately to the context of the site.

Minimum rear setback required:

Up to four storeys – 20%

Five storeys or more – 30%

72.895 x 0.2 = 14.579 m required

5.6 m (7.6%) rear setback proposed.

This is considered satisfactory in the context of the isolated site, and given that the rear boundary adjoins Cumberland Highway. There are no unreasonable overshadowing impacts on the neighbouring properties.

Side setback minimum 3m

2.5 m proposed to the northern and southern boundaries.

This non-compliance is satisfactory as it is confined to a very small portion of the building (blank wall to eastern stairwell, and screened portion of the balconies to the west facing units).

Varying setbacks are proposed to the northern and southern boundaries at all levels, with the majority of the building complying with the side setback control.

There are no privacy impacts associated with the non-compliance and no overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties.

Basement setback to side and rear boundaries minimum 3m

The proposed basement has a nil setback to the northern side boundary. This is considered satisfactory in the context of the isolated site. It is also necessary in the circumstances to have a nil setback to the northern boundary to facilitate access via the adjacent site. The proposal complies with the minimum deep soil requirements and will not result in any impacts on trees on adjacent sites.

Building height

Maximum building height in storeys shall be provided in accordance with the table below:

Permitted Height (storeys)
Height	Storeys
9m	1
11m	2
12.5m	3
15m	4
18m	5
21m	6
24 m	7

The building is technically five storeys at the central part of the site and at the Emert Street frontage where the basement protrudes more than 1 m out of natural ground. However, the form is generally of a four storey building and the proposal complies with the 15 m height standard. The presentation to Garfield Street is 4 storeys and is in keeping with the approved developments on adjacent sites.

Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4 (EP&A Act s 4.15(1)(a)(iiia))

There is no planning agreement or draft planning agreement associated with the subject Development Application.

The provisions of the Regulations (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(iv))

Pursuant to clause 92 of the Regulation, the provisions of AS 2601 must be considered in the case of a development application for the demolition of a building. Standard conditions are included in the draft determination to require the proposed demolition works to be carried out in accordance with AS 2601.

The Likely Environmental, Social or Economic Impacts (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(b))

The likely environmental, social and economic impacts of the development have been assessed and are considered satisfactory.

The suitability of the site for the development (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(c))

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(d))

Advertised (newspaper) Mail Sign Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days between 27 June and 18 July 2018. As a result of the notification, no submissions were received.

The public interest (EP&A Act s4.15(1)(e))

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94) Contribution Towards Provision or Improvement of Amenities or Services

The subject development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013.

In accordance with the currently indexed rates for the Wentworthville centre contribution area, the following contributions apply:

· 3 x 1 bedroom dwellings – 8,674 x 3 = $26,022

· 15 x 2 bedroom dwellings –14,669 x 15 = $220,035

· 2 x 3 bedroom dwellings – 20,000 x 2 = $40,000

· minus credit for the existing 1 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom dwellings – $34,669

At the time of this development consent, the current rate of the contribution is $251,388. The draft determination at attachment 4 includes a condition to require payment of contributions prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

The application and notification process did not result in the disclosure of any Political Donations or Gifts.

Conclusion:

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory. Whilst there are a number of non-compliances with the development controls under the ADG and HDCP 2013, these are mostly considered to be a result of the site isolation. Overshadowing and privacy impacts resulting from the limited setbacks and separation have been appropriately managed and minimised. The presentation of the proposed development to the street is considered to respond appropriately to location of the site, approved developments on the adjacent sites, and the restricted frontage.

Consultation:

There are no further consultation processes for Council associated with this report.

Financial Implications:

There are no further financial implications for Council associated with this report.

Policy Implications:

There are no policy implications for Council associated with this report.

Communication / Publications:

The final outcome of this matter will be notified in the newspaper. The objectors will also be notified in writing of the outcome.

Report Recommendation:

That Development Application 2018/196 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 4, part 5 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating a total of 20 units and 24 parking spaces be approved subject to the conditions within the draft notice of determination provided at attachment 4.

Attachments

1. HLEP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

2. ADG Compliance Table ⇩

3. HDCP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

4. Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

5. Architectural Plans ⇩

Amount