Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019

A meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30am at the Merrylands Administration Building, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands on Wednesday, 13 March 2019.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.          Receipt of Apologies

 

2.     Confirmation of Minutes

 

3.     Declarations of Interest

 

4.     Address by invited speakers

 

5.     Reports:

        -       Development Applications

        -       Planning Proposals

 

6.     Closed Session Reports

 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                               Page No.

Development Applications

LPP005/19.. Development Application for 116 Kingsland Road, Regents Park. 8

 

LPP006/19.. Section 4.55(2) modification for 601-605 Great Western Highway, Greystanes........................................................................... 123

 

LPP007/19.. S.46 Modification to 1-7 & 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands........... 227

 

LPP008/19.. Section 4.56 modification to 1-7 and 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands........................................................................... 439

 

LPP009/19.. Planning Proposal for 100 Woodville Road.............................. 657

 

LPP010/19.. Planning Proposal Request For 2 Bachell Avenue, Lidcombe -Preliminary Public Exhibition and Technical Assessment.......... 707

 


 

Minutes of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting held at Merrylands Administration Building, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands on Wednesday 13 February 2019.

Present:

The Hon. Paul Stein AM (Chairperson) QC, Lindsay Fletcher, David Ryan and Bruce Simpson.

In Attendance:

Karl Okorn, Monica Cologna, Sohail Faridy, Esra Calim, Sarah Pritchard, William Attard and Laith Jammal.

Notice of AUDIO RECORDING of CUMBERLAND lOCAL planning panel meeting

The Chairperson advised that the Cumberland Local Planning meeting was being audio recorded and will be posted on Council's website and members of the public must ensure their speech to the Panel is respectful and use appropriate language.

 

The meeting here opened at 11:30a.m.

DeclaRations Of Interest:

There were no declarations of interest.

ADDRESS BY INVITED SPEAKERS:

 

The following persons had made application to address the Cumberland Local Planning Panel meeting:

 

Speakers                         Item No. Subject

 

Meg Levy                         LPP003/19 – DA for 74, 76 & 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie

 

Andrew Elia                      LPP003/19 – DA for 74, 76 & 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie

 

Onofiro Marzulli                LPP003/19 – DA for 74, 76 & 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie

 

Barry Wiggins                   LPP003/19 – DA for 74, 76 & 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie

 

Adam Byrnes                   LPP004/19 – DA for 27B & 29 Garfield Street, Wentworthville

 

The Chairperson enquired to those present in the Gallery as to whether there were any further persons who would like to address the Panel and no further persons presented themselves.

 

The open session of the meeting here closed at 12:12p.m.

 

The closed session of the meeting here opened at 12:13p.m.

  ITEM LPP003/19 - Development Application at 74,76 & 78 Aurelia Street, Toongabbie

RESOLVED:

  1. 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 the Planning Officer’s report as amended by the Panel as follows:
  2. Condition 180 to be amended as follows:

        The removal of existing and the construction of concrete footpath paving 2.5         metres wide along the Aurelia Street site frontage. These works shall be carried         out by a licensed construction contractor at the applicant’s expense and shall be         in accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD 8100 and issued level sheets.

  1. Condition 208 to be amended as follows:

        All vehicles shall enter and leave the site in a forward direction (with the         exception of the loading and unloading functions).

  1. Inclusion of Condition 12A:

12A Screening of Substation

A lightweight screen, designed to a height of 1.5 metres, shall be constructed adjacent to the 3 metre zone of influence of the existing substation opposite unit number G03. Details and consequent amendment of the landscape plan shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

For: Paul Stein AM (Chairperson), Lindsay Fletcher, David Ryan and Bruce Simpson.

Against: Nil.

Reasons for Decision:

 

  1. The Panel is in agreement with the Planning Officer’s report and has added a condition to improve the outlook and amenity of unit G03.

 

  1. The Panel notes that the reference to Wentworthville Town Centre on page 14 of the report was intended as referring to Toongabbie Town Centre.

 

ITEM LPP004/19 - Development Application for 27B & 29 Garfield Street, Wentworthville

Resolved:

 

  1. 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 as a Deferred Commencement Consent subject to the conditions within the draft notice of determination provided at attachment 4 in the Officer’s report, as amended by the Panel as follows:

 

  1.  The inclusion of condition 12A:

 

Apartment B-201, together with the communal area and bedroom balcony in unit A-302 on the roof of apartment B-201, are to be deleted.

 

  1. The inclusion of condition 12B:

 

A frosted glass privacy screen shall be provided along the southern edge of the communal roof terrace to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level of the terrace to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Assessment.

 

  1. The inclusion of condition 12C:

 

The installation of a lightweight decorative screening to partially enclose the front void area (beneath unit A-101) and to conceal any services from the apartments above. Details are to be provided to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Assessment.

 

  1. The inclusion of Condition 122A:

 

Vehicular access to Garfield Street through the approved development site at 27 Garfield Street, Wentworthville shall be constructed generally in accordance with drawing DA-02 issue D.

 

  1. Amendment to condition 2:

 

To add a reference in the table to plan DA-02 - overall basement plan - issue D.

 

  1. Amendment to condition 18:

 

In line 3, “fifteen (15) x2 bedroom dwellings”, becomes “fourteen (14) x2 bedroom dwellings”

 

For: Paul Stein AM (Chairperson), Lindsay Fletcher, David Ryan and Bruce Simpson.

Against: Nil.

Reasons for Decision:

 

  1. The Panel generally concurs with the Planning Officer’s report subject to the following comments.

 

  1. The Panel considers that the adverse overshadowing, privacy and built form impacts associated with the proposed development will be ameliorated to an acceptable level through the deletion of unit B-201 and associated roof elements. Further conditions are also imposed to improve streetscape and privacy impacts.

 

  1. The Panel is of the firm opinion that a better planning outcome would be achieved by consolidation of the subject sites (27B and 29) with the adjoining allotment (27) to provide one development site. This should result in a development of an improved standard of amenity over and above the existing consents and this approval. Notwithstanding this and the other current approvals, the Panel would encourage the applicant to consider a whole of site consolidation.

 

  1. The Panel note a typographical error at page 169 of the Planning Officer’s report under SEPP 55 - The matter for consideration paragraph 3 the answer is “no” and not “yes”.

 

 

The closed session of the meeting here closed at 1:42p.m.

The open session of the meeting here opened at 1:44p.m.

 

The Chairperson delivered the Cumberland Local Planning Panel’s resolutions to the Public Gallery.

 

The meeting terminated at 1:47p.m.

Signed:

The Hon. Paul Stein AM (Chairperson) QC

Chairperson

Item No: LPP005/19

Development Application for 116 Kingsland Road, Regents Park

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                              DA - 93/2018  

 

 

Application lodged

07-Feb-2019

Applicant

Bechara Chan & Associates

Owner

Mn Sukkar Pty Ltd

Application No.

DA-93/2018

Description of Land

116 Kingsland Road, REGENTS PARK  NSW  2143, Lot Y DP 403688

Proposed Development

Demolition of an existing dwelling and structures and construction of five two storey townhouses (including attic level) over basement car parking

Site Area

916.90m2

Zoning

R3 – Medium Density Zone

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

No

Principal Development Standards

FSR

Permissible: 0.75:1

Proposed: 0.68:1

 

Height of Building

Permissible: 9m

Proposed: 9m

Issues

Submissions received, dwelling size, head height of windows, development control diagram and basement setback

Summary:

1.     Development Application No.DA-93/2018 was received on 29 March 2018 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and structures and construction of six by two storey townhouses (including attic level) over basement car parking.

2.     The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 17 April 2018 and 1 May 2018 and again between 15 May 2018 and 29 May 2018. In response, a total of 26 submissions were received including 4 individual letters and two sets of pro-forma letters each with 11 signatures.

3.     The variations are as follows:

 

Control

Required

Provided

% variation

Window head height

2.4m

Between 1.15m and 2m

16.7-52.1%

Basement setback

1.2

Between 0.415 and 1m

16.7-65.4%

Width of units in front townhouses

5.5m

5.3m

3.64%

Depth of units in front townhouses

8m

7.43m

7.13%

Width of units in rear townhouses

7m

Between 5.3m and 5.4

22.9-24.3%

Side setback from rear townhouses

8m

7m

14.29%

Dwelling size

115m²

113m²

1.74%

 

4.     The application is recommended for Deferred Commencement Approval in order to address dwelling width (which will result in the deletion of one unit), dwelling size and stormwater matters. The Deferred Commencement is subject to the conditions as provided in the attached schedule.

 

5.     The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal is considered to be contentious due to the large number of submissions received.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is legally described as Lot Y in DP 403688 and is known as 116 Kingsland Road, Regents Park. The site is a regular shaped land parcel located on the western side of Kingsland Road, approximately 60m north of the intersection of Amy Street and Kingsland Road, Regents Park. The Regents Park train station is located within 420m walking distance of the site.

The site which currently accommodates a single storey residential dwelling and an outbuilding has a 20.1m frontage to Kingsland Road and a total site area of 916.9m2 with a fall of 1.66m from the front to the rear boundary. Development within the immediate proximity of the site comprises a mixture of single and double storey dwellings of varied ages and architectural styles.

The site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Zoning and to the east of the site (on the other side of Kingsland Road) is R2 – Low Density Zoning.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for demolition of an existing dwelling and structures and construction of six by two storey townhouses (including attic level) over basement car parking.

The detailed breakdown of the development is as follows:

-        11 residential parking spaces

-        2 visitor parking spaces

-        Individual entry from basement into units above;

-        Storage spaces in the basement;

-        Plant room and garbage room in the basement;

-        6 townhouses two storeys in height with attics;

-        2 x 2 bedroom units and 4 x 3 bedroom units;

-        Private open space; and

-        Associate landscaping.

It is considered that the development fails to provide an acceptable width to the rear townhouses in accordance with the requirements of the ADCP 2010 block layout for multi-dwelling housing development. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposal be amended to remove one townhouse from the townhouses at the rear so that the remaining townhouses can be redesigned to comply with the ADCP 2010 multi-dwelling housing control to achieve better internal amenity for future occupants. This matter will be discussed further elsewhere in the report.

History

-        29 March 2018 DA was lodged with Council;

-        Application was notified for 14 days. Objectors were not satisfied with the notification period;

-        Application was re-notified for 14 days;

-        26 June 2018 the applicant was notified of identified issues;

-        19 July 2018 the applicant submitted amended information/plans;

-        5 September 2018 Council issues another letter with identified issues. Applicant was informed that a decision would be made on the submitted information;

-        12 October 2018 the applicant submitted amended information/plans;

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 23 February 2018 and was received by Council on 29 March 2018 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported via deferred commencement consent to address drainage easement, stormwater and ramp design issues. 

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

Landscape Architect/Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Landscape Architect/Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

External Referrals

The application was not required to be referred to any external government authorities for comment.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

The proposed development is affected by the following State Environmental Planning Policies:

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

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development. The matters listed within Clause 7 have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

 

Matter for Consideration

Yes/No

Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?

 Yes  No

Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?

 Yes  No

In the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g.: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

Is the site listed on Council’s Contaminated Land database?

 Yes  No

Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?

 Yes  No

Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?

 Yes  No

Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?

 Yes  No

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?

 Yes  No

Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:

 

A Stage 1 Investigation report prepared by Dirt Doctors (Job No DD513_1) was submitted with the application. The report did not reveal any potential matters of concern with regard to contamination and concludes that the site is suitable for its intended use.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the reports and determined that the site is suitable to support such a development given that the report provides there is no soil contamination detected. 

 

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

The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable. Please refer to the DCP compliance table for further discussion.

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

BASIX Certificate 891124M, issued on 22 February 2018 and prepared by Certified Energy has been submitted with Council and is considered to be satisfactory to the design proposed. The deferred commencement requires the deletion of one townhouses and therefore an amended BASIX Certificate will also be required to be submitted.

Regional Environmental Plans

The proposed development is affected by the following Regional Environmental Plans:

(a)    Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The subject site is identified as being located within the area affected by the Sydney Regional 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 SREP is not directly relevant to the proposed development).

Local Environmental Plans

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP 2010)

The provision of the ALEP 2010 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the ALEP 2010 and the objectives of the R3 – Medium Density Zone.

(a)    Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a “multi dwelling housing” and is permissible in the R3 Zone with consent. The definition of multi dwelling housing is as follows:

multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.

The relevant matters to be considered under ALEP 2010 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.

 

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP)

Is the development consistent with the aims of the LEP?

Yes the development is considered to be consistent with the aims of the ALEP 2010

Is the development consistent with the Zone objectives?

Yes the development is considered to be consistent with the zone objectives

Maximum height of building – 9m

Yes – overall building height is 9m

Floor space ratio (FSR) – 0.75:1

0.68:1

Heritage Conservation

N/A

Flood Planning

N/A

Acid Sulphate Soils

Yes – Class 5

Earthworks

Yes – Acceptable

Figure 4 – Auburn LEP 2010 Compliance Table

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

(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.

Changes are also proposed to the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan. Some provisions of the existing policies will be transferred to new Section 117 Local Planning Directions where appropriate.

The proposed development is not affected by any relevant Draft Environmental Planning Instruments.

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

The Auburn DCP 2010 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the ALEP 2010.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Appendix A.

The following table highlights non-compliances with the DCP, which relate primarily to development control diagram, basement setback, dwelling size and head height of windows, and the variations sought are generally considered satisfactory on merit in this instance except for the dwelling width of the rear townhouses.

 

Clause

Control

Proposed

Complies

2.6

Head height of windows 2.4m

Varies

No

2.7

Development Control Diagram:

Width of front townhouse 5.5m

Depth of front townhouses 8m

Width of rear townhouses 7m

Setback from rear townhouses to side boundary 8m

 

5.3m

7.43m

Between 5.3m and 5.4m

7.09m

 

No

No

No

No

2.8

Basement setback 1.2

Between 0.41m and 1m

No

2.11

Dwelling size 3 bedroom needs 115m²

113m²

No

Figure 5 – Auburn DCP 2010 Compliance Table

As a result of the deferred commencement conditions the following variations will remain relevant to the application:

 

 

Clause

Control

Proposed

Complies

2.6

Head height of windows 2.4m

Varies

No

2.7

Development Control Diagram:

Width of front townhouse 5.5m

Depth of front townhouses 8m

Width of rear townhouses 7m

Setback from rear townhouses to side boundary 8m

 

5.3m

7.43m

Approximately 6.9m

7.09m

 

No

No

No

No

2.8

Basement setback 1.2

Between 0.41m and 1m

No

2.11

Dwelling size 3 bedroom needs 115m²

All units are expected to meet dwelling size control

Yes

Figure 6 – Auburn DCP 2010 Compliance Table after deferred commencement

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from the head height of windows, development control diagram, basement setback and dwelling size provisions of Council’s Auburn Development Control Plan 2010.

Council has generally applied some flexibility to variations to the development control diagram, however the extent of variation to the internal width of the rear block of units in this case is not supported. It is important to maintain the internal amenity of intended occupants and allow for a flexible and comfortable furniture arrangement. Council has been consistent in seeking an acceptable amenity outcome in relation to the size of units, the internal width and depth and the relationship of this to the private open space.

It is for this reason that the deletion of one unit is necessary to bring the width of the rear block closer to compliance. The deletion of one unit will increase the size of the other units making it compliant with minimum dwelling size and providing a better internal amenity to the future occupants.

The non-compliances are discussed in detail below:

2.6 Head height of windows

The development proposed 2.7m floor to ceiling heights which would require 2.4m window head height for windows facing the street. This is to ensure a well-proportioned street facing elevation. This control relates to the two front facing units.

The front two units have large windows with a head height of 2m. These windows are considered acceptable as they start from the floor and go all the way to the underside of the eaves. The eaves are lower to provide sufficient space for attics whilst still complying with the maximum building height. These two units also have smaller kitchen windows height of 1.15m which act as a backsplash in the kitchens.

It is considered that the front elevation provides sufficient windows and different sizes to provide interest and passive surveillance including providing sufficient ventilation to the rooms to comply with the BCA. For these reasons this variation can be supported in this instance.


 

2.7 Development Control Diagram

Figure 7– Auburn DCP 2010 Development Control Diagram

The development control diagram sets out minimum setbacks, dwelling width and depth, access driveway and deep soil zone. As discussed above the development proposal as it stands does not comply as follows:

·        Width and depth of front townhouses

The front townhouses require a minimum width of 5.5m and minimum depth of 8m. Both of the front facing units have a width of 5.3m and a depth of 7.8m. The non-compliance with the width requirement is as a result of the need to provide adequate width access ramp to the basement and pedestrian entry to the rear units. Whilst the depth of the units are marginally non-compliant, the units comply with the minimum dwelling size for 2 bedroom townhouses and provides generous bedrooms plus studies. The ground floor is considered to be well configured.  Furthermore, the proposal provides for a useable and compliant private open space for improved amenity to the intended occupants. It is for these reasons that a variation in this instance is considered acceptable.

·        Width of rear townhouses

The rear townhouses require a minimum width of 7m. One of those units has a width of 5.3m while the others have a width of 5.4m. The building envelope control under the ADCP anticipated that the townhouses in the rear row should be wider and deeper than those in the front row. Whilst the width of the front row townhouses are supported for the reasons earlier stated, same does not apply to the rear row of townhouses as there is opportunity to provide wider townhouse design that present different options to families. Furthermore, it is noted that the increased width of the rear townhouses will allow for better furniture placement in the living rooms which are currently further abridged by the staircase and bathroom location on the ground floor.

 

A 5.3m width is considered to be too small for the rear townhouses and the amenity outcome is not supported. It is for this reason that the deletion of one unit is recommended.

·        Setback from rear townhouses to side boundary

The rear townhouses require a 8m setback to the side boundary from the side of the townhouses containing courtyards. The rear townhouses are setback 7.09m from the side boundary. It is considered that there is sufficient setback to protect neighbours from any acoustic and privacy impacts. To further protect privacy to the neighbours and future occupants a condition has been imposed on the consent to require privacy screening on top of parts of the fence. There is also no impact on solar access as the separation is to the north and the dwelling to the north is single storey. It is for these reasons that a variation in this instance is considered acceptable.

2.8 Basement setback

A 1.2m side setback is required for the basement, this is to allow for deep soil and adequate area for construction. The development predominantly complies with this requirement however it does breach the 1.2m setback in three different places.

One is on the north side of the site which proposes a setback of 0.41m for the length of 6.83m to provide the area for turning vehicles. The remainder of the north side has a setback of 1.2m, 3.51m and 4.56m which is where the predominant deep soil is located.

The other breach is located on the southern side of the site which provides a 0.55m setback for 12.56m which is to provide space for stairs adjacent to the driveway and entry to the garbage room which is located directly under the driveway. The southern side provides a 1.2m setback to the front of the site and a 1m setback to the rear of the site. The width of the setback is reduced in this part in order to provide a 6.1m wide aisle width which is required for vehicles to enter their designated parking spaces.

The third breach is located on the western side with a setback of 0.73m proposed for 6.86m which has been proposed to make room for secondary stairs and bicycle storage. The second staircase is necessary to comply with egress requirements under the BCA.

The breaches proposed are found satisfactory given that the subject site complies with minimum deep soil requirement (being 10%) and the subject site complies with minimum landscaping requirement (being 30%). Furthermore, appropriate conditions have been included in any consent that maybe issued to ensure that dilapidation report is prepared prior to excavation of the site. 


 

2.11 Dwelling size

Unit 4 is considered a three bedroom unit and therefore requires a unit size of 115m² while the plans show this unit has a size of 113m².

The non-compliance mostly comes from a smaller attic to those of the other units. In most instances this small variation would be considered acceptable, however since one unit is being deleted and remaining units being made larger it would not be unreasonable to request all units to comply with the minimum internal dwelling size.

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 draft planning agreement associated with the subject Development 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 Reg).

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 Auburn DCP 2010, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 17 April 2018 and 1 May 2018. The application was re-notified for a further 14 days between 15 May 2018 and 29 May 2018. In response, 4 individual submissions were received and two sets of pro-forma letter each with 11 signatures. In total 26 signatures have been received in response to the application.


 

The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

Issue: DA diagram sent out too small.

Planner’s comment: Full size plans are available for viewing during the notification period at the Council office and Libraries. These plans were also available via Council’s online tracker.

 

Issue: The size of the development is too large.

Planner’s comment: The initial plans fails to comply with the maximum FSR allowable for the site. The applicant has amended the plans which now comply with the FSR, height and storey limit. Furthermore, the deferred commencement condition requires the deletion of one unit further reducing the size of the development.

Issue: Number of units.

Planner’s comment: There isn’t a Council control that stipulates the number of units that can be proposed on a site. The proposed development complies with the FSR and height which guides the size of the development. There are also Development Control Diagrams that stipulate the width and length of each unit. The variation sought for the rear block is not supported and for this reason the deferred commencement condition requires the deletion of one unit further reducing the size of the development

Issue: The proposed development does not match with the character of the area.

Planner’s comment: The site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential and development such as townhouses is envisioned as being the future character of the area. Multi dwelling housing is a permissible form of development in a R3 – Medium density Zone.

Issue: Shadow diagram was not submitted to neighbours.

Planner’s comment: Copies of the shadow diagrams were available for viewing during the notification period at the Council office and Libraries. These plans were also available via Council’s online tracker. 

Issue: Overshadowing of No. 118 Kingsland Road.

Planner’s comment: There will be some shadow impact on No. 118 Kingsland Road. The windows facing north will however still receive 3 hours of solar access. Council records show that there are no north facing living areas in this dwelling. The existing east and west facing living areas maintain their solar access.

Issue: Height of the development.

Planner’s comment: Under Auburn LEP 2010 the maximum permissible height is 9m. This development has a maximum height of 9m complying with this control.


 

Issue: Privacy from southern elevation.

Planner’s comment: The entry doors into the units are located on the southern elevation. There are also low backsplash windows on the ground floor. The first floor includes bedroom window that is frosted and fixed to the height of 1.5m and a high bathroom window. The attic also includes a high bedroom window. There are no balconies proposed. Given the height of the windows proposed it is considered that the privacy of adjoining neighbours is not significantly impacted as a result of this development.

Issue: No 116 Kingsland Road being rezoned in isolation without notification.

Planner’s comment: No 116 Kingsland Road has not been rezoned in isolation. The entire block and the block further west is zoned for R3 – Medium Density Zoning under ALEP 2010. It is however noted that the adjoining sites to the East (on the other side of Kingsland Road) are zoned R2 Low Density Zone.

Issue: Setbacks.

Planner’s comment: The proposed development complies with the front setback, rear setback and generally with the side setbacks. The only setback the development fails to comply with is the distance between rear townhouse block and the side boundary. This matter has been discussed in the body of the report.

Issue: Do different rules apply to Townhouses development vs dwellings?

Planner’s comment: Yes there is a different part of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 that specifically applies to multi-dwelling housing.

Issue: Car parking.

Planner’s comment: The proposed development requires nine residential parking spaces and two visitor spaces. The development includes two visitor spaces and 11 residential spaces exceeding the minimum required for the site.

Issue: All four bedroom units is too large

Planner’s comment: This has been changed since the original application. The development includes two x 2 bedroom units and four x 3 bedroom units. However, this will change under Deferred Commencement as one unit is recommended to be deleted.

Issue: Traffic in the area.

Planner’s comment: A multi dwelling of this size is not considered to be a traffic generating development and therefore a Traffic Study was not necessary to be lodged as part of the proposal.


 

Issue: Landscaping and deep soil

Planner’s comment: Under Auburn development Control Plan 2010 the development requires 30% of the site to be landscaped and 10% of the site to be deep soil. Based on Council’s calculations the development has 30% landscaped and 19% deep soil.

Issue: Report for excavation of the basement.

Planner’s comment: A dilapidation report is required for any development that includes a basement and must be submitted to the Certifier. This is included in any development consent that may be needed.

Issue: Privacy to the rear.

Planner’s comment: Privacy to the rear is being maintained. The ground floor dining/living window has obscured glazing to the height of 1m. The first floor and attic have a west facing bedroom window which have a 1.2m window sill height. These are bedroom windows and are considered to be low use areas usually containing blinds. To maintain privacy a condition has been imposed on the consent to include a privacy screen along the rear fence. 

 

Issue: Easement.

Planner’s comment: The development is only supported on a deferred commencement basis as the applicant must obtain a stormwater easement. The application cannot continue without a downstream easement.

Issue: This sets a precedent in the area.

Planner’s comment: It is not considered to be a precedent as multi dwelling housing is a permissible form of development envisioned in an R3 Medium Density Zone.

Issue: Lack of infrastructure, schools, health facilities, public transport, waste control and inadequate utilities.

Planner’s comment: The consideration of available infrastructure is lengthily considered before a rezoning of an area. Furthermore, the development is required to pay 7.11 Contribution fee which goes towards some of the facilities listed.

Issue: Parking will be used for storage.

Planner’s comment: Most units have two allocated spaces. There is also provision for storage in the basement under the stairs as well as some units have storage rooms. The provided storage is considered acceptable.

Issue: Maintenance of the landscaping.

Planner’s comment: The owner is responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping. If the development was to be strata subdivision this task would go to a Strata Body Corporate.

Issue: Lack of notification.

Planner’s comment: The immediate neighbours were notified twice for a period of 14 days. There was also a site notice put on the site. The development also featured an advertisement in the local newspapers. This is compliant with Council’s notification policy.

Issue: Noise in the area.

Planner’s comment: The development is not expected to generate any noise other than general household/residential noise.

Issue: Waste.

Planner’s comment: The development will include bulk storage bins which take up less space on the street for waste pick up.

 

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

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development, if carried out subject to the conditions set out in the recommendation below, will have no significant adverse impacts on the public interest.

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

This part of the Act relates to the collection of monetary contributions from applicants for use in developing key local infrastructure.

Comments:

The development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plans.

As at 12 February 2019, the fee payable is $37,981.54. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The draft determination attached includes a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R3 Medium Density Zone under the relevant provisions of the Auburn LEP, however variations in relation to the development control diagram, window height and basement setback are sought.

Having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, Council may be satisfied that the development has been responsibly designed and provides for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents. It is considered that the proposal successfully minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Hence the development, irrespective of the departures noted above, is consistent with the intentions of Council’s planning controls and represents a form of development contemplated by the relevant statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the land.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the development may be approved via a Deferred Commencement subject to conditions.

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 further 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:

1.     That Development Application No. DA-93/2018 for Demolition of an existing dwelling and structures and construction of five by two storey townhouses (including attic level) over basement car parking on land at 116 Kingsland Road, Regents Park be approved via a Deferred Commencement subject to attached conditions.

 

2.     Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

Attachments

1.     Draft Notice of Determination

2.     Architectural Plans

3.     Stormwater/Engineering Plans

4.     Submissions Received

5.     DCP Assessment

6.     Shadow Diagrams  

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP005/19

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP005/19

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP005/19

Attachment 3

Stormwater/Engineering Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP005/19

Attachment 4

Submissions Received


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP005/19

Attachment 5

DCP Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP005/19

Attachment 6

Shadow Diagrams


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

13 March 2019

 

Item No: LPP006/19

Section 4.55(2) modification for 601-605 Great Western Highway, Greystanes

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                              DA - 2018/9/2  

 

 

Application lodged

7 December 2018

Applicant

Rachel McNeil

Owner

Greystanes Service Centre Pty Ltd

Application No.

2018/9/2

Description of Land

601-605 Great Western Highway, Greystanes

Proposed Development

Section 4.55 (2) Modification to amend delivery hours for the service station tenancy to 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week

Site Area

5584 m2

Zoning

IN2 – Light Industrial

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

N/A

Principal Development Standards

FSR – N/A

Height of Buildings – 26 m

Issues

Public submissions

Summary:

1.     DA 2018/9 was approved by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel on 12 September 2018 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a single storey service station with associated kiosk and underground fuel storage tanks to be operated by 7-Eleven, an independent single storey food and drink premises to be operated by McDonald’s with associated signage and all uses to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

2.     The subject modification application 2018/9/2 was received on 7 December 2018, seeking consent to amend delivery hours to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

3.     The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 9 January 2019 and 23 January 2019. In response, 6 submissions were received, including a petition with 26 signatures.

4.     The issues raised in the submissions do not warrant refusal of the application.

5.     The applicant provided additional information on 4 February 2019 clarifying that the purpose of the proposed modification was to allow for deliveries of consumables to the service station (7-Eleven), and that other truck movements such as fuel deliveries and waste collection would be carried out between 7 am and 10 pm as required by the condition on the original consent (condition 162).

6.     Additional information was requested from the applicant to address the issues raised in the public submissions on 18 February 2019. The response received 19 February 2019 clarified aspects of the noise assessment to Council’s satisfaction.

7.     HDCP 2013 has a restriction for hours of operation in industrial zones. The proposed modification seeks to extend the permitted hours of operation for deliveries to 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. 24 hour operation for all three tenancies on site was approved under the original application. There are no other non-compliances associated with the subject application.

8.     The application is being referred to the Panel for determination due to the number of public submissions received.

9.     It is recommended that the application be approved subject to modified conditions as set out in the draft determination at attachment 4.

Report:

 

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is known as 601 Great Western Highway Greystanes. The legal description of the site is lot 11 in DP 1233454. The site is zoned IN2 – Light Industrial under the zoning provisions of HLEP 2013. The site currently accommodates a truck sales business, with a large, unsealed hardstand area and two single storey buildings.

 

The site is located between the Great Western Highway to the north, and the Western Motorway to the south, a short distance from the intersection with Greystanes Road. To the east of the subject site are two allotments zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential. At 3 Greystanes Road there is a single storey detached dwelling and 1 Greystanes Road currently accommodates a multi-dwelling housing development. The sites to the west are zoned IN2 and the sites on the opposite side of the Great Western Highway are zoned IN1 – General Industrial.  

 

 

Figure 1 – Aerial view of locality, subject site hatched. Source: Cumberland Council 2018

 

 

Figure 2 – Land zone map, subject site hatched. Source: Cumberland Council 2018

 

Figure 3 – Subject site frontage, facing west. Source: Cumberland Council 2018

 

Description of the Proposed Development

 

The subject modification application seeks to modify condition 162 which restricts the delivery hours to between 7 am and 10 pm. Condition 162 currently reads as follows:

 

162. Deliveries are to be carried out between 7 am and 10 pm.

 

The applicant has proposed that the condition be modified to read as follows:

 

162. Deliveries will be carried out in accordance with the following:

a)     Service Station

 

Deliveries for the purposes of fuel and waste collection are to be carried out between 7 am and 10 pm, 7 days a week.

 

Deliveries for the purposes of consumables may be carried out 24 hours, 7 days a week.


 

b)     Kiosk

 

Deliveries are to be carried out between 7 am and 10 pm, 7 days a week.

 

c)     Take Away Food and Drink Premises

 

Deliveries are to be carried out between 7 am and 10 pm, 7 days a week.

History

 

Date

Action

12 September 2018

DA 2018/9 approved by CLPP

7 December 2018

DA 2018/9/2 (subject modification application) lodged with Council

9 January 2019 to 23 January 2019

DA 2018/9/2 notified to owners and occupiers of surrounding properties. 6 submissions were received as a result of the notification, including a petition with 26 signatures

18 February 2019

Additional information requested from the applicant

19 February 2019

Additional information received by Council

13 March 2019

DA 2018/9/2 referred to CLPP for determination

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A planning statement prepared by KDC, dated 6 December 2018 was submitted in support of the application. Additional correspondence dated 4 February 2019 was submitted to clarify aspects of the proposed modification.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Environmental Health

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment. The response received on 28 December 2018 indicates that the proposed modification is supportable and that no additional conditions are required.

External Referrals

Roads and Maritime Services

The application was referred to RMS for comment under section 101 of the ISEPP. The response received 29 January 2019 indicates that RMS has no objection to the proposed modification.

Planning Comments

Section 4.55 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

Pursuant to section 4.55(2), 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:

 

Requirement

Comment

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

The original application consented to the construction of a service station, food and drink premises and kiosk, with all tenancies to operate 24 hours a day.

 

The subject modification application proposes only to modify condition 162 which relates to delivery hours.

 

The proposed modifications do not seek to alter the height, GFA, mix of uses or intensity of the development to be carried out.

 

The acoustic assessment provided with the application indicates that the proposal complies with the relevant noise criteria and as such will have acceptable amenity impacts in the locality.

 

Accordingly, the proposed modification is considered to be substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.

it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 4.8) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

No Minister, public authority or approval body was required to be consulted.

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

The application was notified in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation, or Part E of Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013.

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 issues raised in the public submissions are discussed elsewhere in this report.

In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.

(a) The provisions of the applicable EPIs are discussed elsewhere in this report.

The provisions of the applicable DCP are discussed elsewhere in this report.

 

There are no planning agreements or draft planning agreements related to this application.

 

The regulations do not prescribe any relevant mattes for consideration.

 

The likely impacts of the proposal are considered satisfactory.

 

The site is considered to be suitable for the development as proposed to be modified.

 

The application was notified in accordance with HDCP 2013 and the issues raised in the submissions are addressed elsewhere in the report.

 

Approval of the subject application would not be contrary to the public interest.

The consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.

(b) The reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified are not relevant to the subject modification application. 

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 application:

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

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development. The provisions of SEPP 55 were considered in the assessment of the original application and the proposed modifications do not alter previous conclusions regarding the suitability of the site for the proposed development.

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

The provisions of clause 101 were assessed under the original application. The proposed modification does not affect the location of the design of the vehicular access, nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road, or the emission of smoke or dust from the development.

(c)    Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

The proposed modification does not affect the permissibility of the development, or compliance with any of the applicable development standards under HLEP 2013.

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 Environmental Planning Instruments that apply to the subject application.

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

a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013

Only Part D – Industrial Controls, applies to the subject modification application. The development as approved does not comply with the hours of operation control and this application seeks to exacerbate that non-compliance as it relates to the delivery hours for ‘consumables’.

A noise impact assessment was provided with the application and was assessed as satisfactory by Council’s Environmental Health Unit. The noise assessment indicates that the proposed development will satisfy the relevant noise criteria, having regard to impacts from a range of potential noise sources including delivery trucks.

Accordingly, the proposed modification is considered acceptable.

The applicant has indicated that the purpose of the proposed modification is to allow for deliveries of fresh produce and other consumables to the service station tenancy. It is considered appropriate to limit the 24 hour deliveries in line with the applicant’s request. All other deliveries (including fuel) and waste collection activities are to occur between the hours of 7 am and 10 pm to minimise the impacts on nearby residences. Additional restrictions on the size of the delivery trucks to be used between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am are also included in the draft conditions, in line with the information provided by the applicant about the proposed modification.

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 application.

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

The Regulations do not prescribe any relevant matters for consideration.

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

The likely environmental impacts of the proposed modification have been considered in the assessment of the application and are considered to be satisfactory.

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

The site is considered to be suitable for the development as proposed to be modified.

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 of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days from 9 January to 23 January 2019. The notification generated a total of 6 public submissions, including one petition with 26 signatures. The issues raised in the public submissions are addressed in the following table.

 

Concern

Response

Issues raised in previous submission not addressed.

The issues raised in the submissions received in relation to the original application were addressed in the report to the Panel dated 12 September 2018. The business paper and minutes of that meeting can be viewed at any time on Council’s website.

Noise assessment report does not consider:

·    Multiple trucks on site at the same time

·    Reversing beeper

The applicant’s acoustic consultant provided the following comment in response to this issue:

 

“In accordance with the criteria under the Noise Policy for Industry (NPI) noise levels are to be assessed over a fifteen minute period (known as the overall LAeq15min noise level). Reverse alarms for sites of this size occur for a very short period of time and hence do not increase the overall LAeq15min noise level.

 

Notwithstanding, the LAmax (or sleep disturbance assessment) is considered the industry standard assessment method for assessing reversing alarms. This accounts for the maximum noise emission when beeping. A sound power level of 107dBA (102dBA for a reverse alarm used on a 12.5m large rigid vehicle + 5dBA hypothetical factor for annoyance) was modelled at the service station delivery bay. Results identify that maximum emissions at nearest receivers was 59dBA which is below the relevant sleep disturbance criteria, being 62dBA.

We can confirm the operational noise assessment (ie LAeq assessment) included both fuel deliveries and consumables (ie service station deliveries) simultaneously, as well as the overall operation of the site. It is noted the LAmax (sleep disturbance assessment) is designed to assess one off transient events and is only relevant during the night time (i.e sleep disturbance) timeframes.

The LAmax assessment, which for the purposes of this application, includes only deliveries for the convenience store as these are the only deliveries to occur between 10pm and 7am.”

Typical tuck noise levels can be between 75 and 100 dB(a),  or higher depending on the age of the vehicle and maintenance regime

The applicant’s acoustic consultant provided the following response to this issue:

 

“The delivery truck represented within the noise model for the site had a noise level of 92dBA with a LAeq sound power level over fifteen minutes. There is no standard guideline for delivery truck noise. As such the modelled truck was derived from direct measurements (conducted personally) at an existing 7-Eleven service station. This direct measurements were taken from a 12.5m large rigid vehicle, being the largest and therefore potentially the loudest delivery vehicle to be used within the loading and service area.  The levels were assessed over a fifteen minute period so they match the criteria, which is based over a fifteen minute assessment period.”

The acoustic assessment is inconsistent regarding the night time noise limit; stating  60 dB(a) at one point, and 45dB(a) elsewhere

The applicant’s acoustic consultant provided the following comment in response to this issue:

 

“The NPI states there are two methods to quantify potential sleep disturbance impacts.

1.  The LAeq15minute method - is essentially an average over fifteen minutes. (screening criteria is 52dBA)

2.  The LAmax value method - captures the loud impact noise from one-off transient events. (screening criteria is 62dBA)

Where these screening criteria are met, no further assessment of sleep disturbance is required. It is noted that both criteria are satisfied for all receivers in this assessment.”

Penalty should apply for exceeding the specified noise criteria

A condition was imposed on the original consent requiring that noise testing be carried out at the applicant’s expense in the event of Council receiving complaints regarding excessive noise from the premises.

 

Any non-compliance with the consent will be addressed by Council’s Compliance Unit in accordance with the relevant policies and legislation, upon receipt of a complaint. 

Lack of action plan for additional pollution due to emission of CO and CO2

The subject application relates only to the extension of the delivery hours for truck movements relating to provision of food and other consumables to the service station tenancy.

 

The proposal does not seek to increase the intensity of the development and will not result in additional vehicle movements. As such, there is no increase in CO or CO2 emissions as a result of the proposal.

Lack of security measures to address crime risk associated with service station use. Barbed wire fence required to prevent access from the subject site to the residential properties.

The development as approved involves significant cut along the eastern boundary of the subject site. A barbed wire fence is not considered appropriate in an urban context, particularly adjacent to a residential property.

 

The standard height boundary fence, along with the proposed retaining wall along the eastern boundary, are considered sufficient to discourage unauthorised access from the subject site to 1 Greystanes Road.

 

The site will be appropriately lit and monitored at all times and this will further reduce the likelihood of the subject site providing a point of access for would-be intruders to the adjacent residential properties.

 

The proposed modification does not result in any increased security risks for the adjacent residential properties. 

Request to limit hours of operation to 8 am to 8 pm weekdays and 10 am to 8 pm weekends

DA 2018/9 was approved 12 September 2018 for 24 hour operation of all businesses on the site. Limiting the hours of operation is beyond the scope of the subject application.

 

The proposed modification seeks to allow 24 hour delivery of fresh produce and other consumables to the service station tenancy, whilst maintaining the restricted delivery hours of 7 am to 10 pm for the other tenancies.

 

The application was accompanied by an acoustic report which indicates that the proposal complies with the relevant noise criteria and as such, the proposed modification is supported.

Electric fence wall and CCTV required on the boundary to prevent access from the subject site to the residential properties.

An electric fence was not proposed by the applicant and is not considered an appropriate type of boundary treatment in an urban area, particularly where it adjoins a residential property.

 

The conditions of the original consent and the Plans of Management endorsed under that consent require the installation and monitoring of CCTV.

 

The subject modification does not result in any increased security risk for the proposed development or for the adjacent properties.

Impact on small children of petrol and food odours, and noise

The proposal relates only to the extension of delivery hours for the approved service station business. All other aspects of the development were assessed and considered satisfactory under the original application.

 

Standard conditions were imposed on the original consent to require compliance with Australian Standards and Building Code requirements for air handling and petroleum storage systems. There are no additional impacts relating to food or petrol that would arise as a result of the proposed modification to delivery hours.

 

The noise assessment report submitted with the application indicates that the proposal complies with the relevant noise criteria.

Increase in criminal activity as a result of the proposed uses.

As stated above, the subject application relates only to the modification of the hours permitted for deliveries of fresh produce and other consumables to the 7-eleven service station tenancy.

 

There are no changes to the built form, mix of uses or trading hours proposed under this medication application. The modification to approved delivery hours will not result in any increased risk or likelihood of criminal activity in the locality.

No need for 24 hour delivery given the size of the business

The additional information provided by the applicant on 4 February 2019 indicates that the extended delivery hours are required for the service station tenancy to ensure that fresh produce and other like items are available to meet customer needs in the morning peak trade hours.

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

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that approval of the subject modification would not be contrary to the public interest. The issues raised in the public submissions do not warrant refusal of the application.

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

The application does not attract payment of development contributions.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

The application and notification process did not result in any disclosure of 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, HLEP 2013, and HDCP 2013 and is considered satisfactory.

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 DA 2018/9/2 seeking to amend delivery hours for the service station tenancy to 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week on land at 601-605 Great Western Highway Greystanes, be approved subject to the conditions in the draft determination.

That those persons who lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

 

Attachments

1.     Noise Assessment Report

2.     Letter from applicant dated 4 February 2019

3.     Plan of Management

4.     Draft Notice of Determination

5.     Public Submissions  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP006/19

Attachment 1

Noise Assessment Report


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP006/19

Attachment 2

Letter from applicant dated 4 February 2019


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP006/19

Attachment 3

Plan of Management


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP006/19

Attachment 4

Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP006/19

Attachment 5

Public Submissions


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

13 March 2019

 

Item No: LPP007/19

S.46 Modification to 1-7 & 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                              DA - 2016/496/3  

 

 

Application lodged

27 September 2017

Applicant

Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd

Owner

Lot 11 Neil Street Pty Limited

Application No.

2016/496/3

Description of Land

1-7 Neil Street Merrylands (Lot 11, DP 228782) and 9-11 Neil Street Merrylands (Lot 1, DP 203553)

Proposed Development

S4.56 Modification seeking internal and external alterations to Building 4

Site Area

15,763m2

Zoning

R4 – High Density Residential

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

The site is located adjacent to a local heritage item to the north being the former brickworks site known as Item I53 - Goodlet & Smith (brickmaking plant and chimney, Hoffman kiln & chimney).

 

The subject site is known as the Millmaster Feeds site and is identified as a local Archaeological site.

Principal Development Standards

Floor Space Ratio

Permissible: 3.5:1

Approved: 3.67

Proposed: 3.69:1

 

Height of Buildings

Permissible:                                            29m, 30m, and 39m

Proposed:   No change to the approved height proposed

Issues

Exceedance to Floor Space Ratio

Figure 1 – Perspective from Railway looking South (South: Marchese Partners, 2017)

Summary:

Application No. DA-2016/496/3 was received on 27 September 2017 for a Modification Application under Section 4.56 (formerly Section 96AA) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 seeking consent for internal and external alterations to Building 4 at 1-11 Neil Street, Merrylands.

The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 21 days between 25 October 2017 and 15 November 2017. In response, no submissions were received.

The subject site is located adjacent to a heritage item to the north being the former brickworks site known as Item I53 - Goodlet & Smith (brickmaking plant and chimney, Hoffman kiln & chimney) under Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) 2013. The subject site is known as the Millmaster Feeds site and is identified as a potential Archaeological site.

On 26 April 2017, Development Application 2016/496 was considered by the Sydney West Central Planning Panel (SWCPP) for construction of a 2 x residential flat buildings (Buildings 3 & 4) over 3 levels of basement parking accommodating a total of 438 car parking spaces and 5 on-grade spaces; Building 3 being 12 storey accommodating 178 units and Building 4 being Part 6, Part 8 and Part 12 storeys accommodating 133 units. The application includes consolidation of 2 existing lots making up the overall site of 1-11 Neil Street and re-subdivision of the consolidated lot into 3 Torrens title lots and 4 Stratum Lots.

At its meeting, the SWCPP deferred the application for a number of reasons including concerns over site coverage, insufficient landscaped area and excessive bulk; a desire for taller and slimmer buildings; and a desire for an alternate unit mix with increased 3 bedroom units.

The applicant subsequently lodged a Class 1 Appeal against the deemed refusal of the DA with the NSW Land and Environment Court (appeal number 2017/132564) which was upheld with DA-2016/496 approved subject to conditions.

On 11 September 2017, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/2) was approved which sought minor alterations to the approved residential flat building development, predominately relating to the western elevation of Building 3.

On 14 August 2018, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/5) was approved, which sought amendments to the approved subdivision of the site from 7 lots to 6 lots.

On 4 October 2018, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/6) was approved, which sought the removal of the subdivision component of the development.

The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 55 (Remediation of Land), SEPP No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, SEPP (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 variations sought via the subject modification application are as follows:

 

Control

Maximum

Approved

Proposed

%Variation

Floor Space Ratio

3.5:1

3.67:1

3.69:1

0.5% (approved)/ 5.43% (maximum)

The increase in floor area improves the internal amenity of the apartments by providing additional storage areas, bathrooms and increased bedroom sizes. The increase in floor area is derived from a reduction to the size of the approved balconies and as a result, the amendments are mainly within the approved building footprint.

The subject proposal does not involve significant changes to the approved apartment layouts or built form. Minor changes to the visual articulation of the northern, southern and eastern façades reflect the changes made to the apartment layouts with appropriate visual interest maintained.

The proposal is substantially the same development as the approved development and satisfies the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination, as it is a 4.56 modification application involving a variation to a development standard.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Approve the Section 4.56 Application, subject to the Draft Notice of Determination contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject land is known as Lot 11, DP 228782 and Lot 1, DP 203553, 1-7 and 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands. The land is an irregular shaped lot and has a frontage of 110.82 metres to the southern Neil Street boundary; a 100.65 metre depth along the western side boundary; a 180.5 metre width along the northern rear boundary; and a 131.15 metre depth along the eastern boundary shared with the railway corridor. The total site area is 15,763sqm. The site is illustrated in Figure 2 below with the portion of the site of the approved residential flat Buildings 3 and 4 being the eastern half of the site, with the site of Building 4 marked with a star.

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

The subject site is currently under construction with partially constructed residential flat buildings 1 and 2 on the western half of the site. The land is split by the A’Becketts Creek watercourse which traverses the site in a north to south direction and forms a natural feature and constraint for the site.

The topography of the site is fairly consistent with a slight fall from south to north. The land is affected by Local Overland Stormwater Overflow.

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013, as shown in Figure 3 below:

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

The subject site is situated on the northern side of Neil Street, Merrylands, and is located within the Neil Street Precinct. The subject site is adjacent to a railway corridor that spans the eastern boundary of the site and approximately 350 metres north-east from Merrylands train station. The site is illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 below.

MERRYLANDS STATION - Description: Text Box 25HOLROYD
GARDENS
 - Description: Text Box 26THE
SITE
 - Description: Text Box 26STOCKLAND 
MERRYLANDS
 - Description: Text Box 26Straight Arrow Connector 292Straight Arrow Connector 288Straight Arrow Connector 31image3.png

Figure 4 – Aerial view of subject site and surrounds (Source: Cumberland Council, 2018)

Figure 5 – Aerial Photo (Source: Nearmap, 2019)

The locality is characterised by existing low rise former industrial premises to the west along Neil Street; mixed use and residential flat building developments approved, under construction, and recently completed to the west and north; commercial and retail development to the south-west and residential to the east and south.

The subject site currently benefits from vehicular access directly from Neil Street. Vehicular access to the development is dependent on a proposed extension of Dressler Court at the north of the site, which will connect to a new road running through the site along the western side of the A’Becketts Creek watercourse.

The site is located adjacent to a heritage item to the north being the former brickworks site known as Item I53 - Goodlet & Smith (brick-making plant and chimney, Hoffman kiln & chimney). The subject site is known as the Millmaster Feeds site and is identified as a potential Archaeological site. Figure 6 below illustrates the location of the heritage item, listed above:


 

Figure 6 – Heritage Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2018)

Description of The Proposed Development

Development Application 2016/496/1 was approved via Land and Environment Court Appeal No. 2017/00132561 for construction of a 2 x residential flat buildings (Buildings 3 & 4) over 3 levels of basement parking accommodating a total of 438 car parking spaces and 5 on-grade spaces; Building 3 being 12 storey accommodating 178 units and Building 4 being Part 6, Part 8 and Part 12 storeys accommodating 133 units. The application includes consolidation of 2 existing lots making up the overall site of 1-11 Neil Street and re-subdivision of the consolidated lot into 3 Torrens title lots and 4 Stratum Lots.

On 11 September 2017, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/2) was approved which sought minor alterations to the approved residential flat building development, predominately relating to the western elevation of Building 3.

On 14 August 2018, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/5) was approved, which sought amendments to the approved subdivision of the site from 7 lots to 6 lots.

On 4 October 2018, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/6) was approved, which sought the removal of the subdivision component of the development.

The changes sought via the subject Section 4.56 Application are as follows:

·        Modification to the internal configuration of a number of apartments.

·        Adjustment of balcony sizes to a number of apartments.

·        Alteration to the articulation of the building from the northern, southern and eastern elevations due to the deletion of the balconies and the extension of a number of bedrooms.

·        Increase in Gross Floor Area (GFA) from 9,705sqm to 9,962sqm.

Specific details of the key proposed changes are as follows:

 

Level

Unit

Modifications

Ground

4.0.03

Relocation of kitchen, extension of bedroom to the north and addition of an ensuite.

4.0.05

Modified ensuite and addition of a study, increase in size of bedroom and consequent decrease in size of balcony.

4.0.06

Increase in size of lounge room and consequent decrease in size of balcony.

4.0.12

Addition of a storage cupboard in the lounge room.

1 to 5

4.L.03

Relocation of kitchen, extension of bedroom to the north and addition of an ensuite.

4.L.05

Modified ensuite and addition of a study, increase in size of bedroom and consequent decrease in size of balcony.

4.L.07

Deletion of southern Neil Street balcony and extension of bedroom to the south, relocation of bathroom, addition of study and increase in size of northern balcony.

4.L.09

Modified ensuite and addition of a study, extension of bedroom to the south-east and consequent decrease in size of south eastern balcony.

4.L.11

Modified ensuite and addition of a study, extension of bedroom to the south-east and consequent decrease in size of south eastern balcony.

4.L.14

Addition of a storage cupboard in the lounge room.

4.L.15

Modified internal layout and addition of ensuite.

6

4.6.02

Increase width of unit, reconfigure bedrooms, addition of a study and addition of ensuite.

4.6.04

Modified ensuite and addition of a study, extension of bedroom to the south-east and consequent decrease in size of south eastern balcony.

4.6.06

Modified ensuite and addition of a study, extension of bedroom to the south-east and consequent decrease in size of south eastern balcony.

4.6.09

Addition of a storage cupboard in the lounge room.

4.6.10

Relocation of kitchen, internal reconfiguration, addition of ensuite.

7

4.7.02

Increase width of unit, reconfigured bedrooms, addition of a study and addition of ensuite.

4.7.04

Modified ensuite and addition of a study, extension of bedroom to the south-east and consequent decrease in size of south eastern balcony.

4.7.06

Modified ensuite and addition of a study, extension of bedroom to the south-east and consequent decrease in size of south eastern balcony.

i)            4.7.09

Addition of a storage cupboard in the lounge room.

ii)           4.7.10

Relocation of kitchen, internal reconfiguration, addition of ensuite.

8

4.8.01

Increase balcony size to the west.

4.8.02

Increase balcony size to the west.

4.8.04

Relocation of kitchen, internal reconfiguration, addition of ensuite and consequent reduction in size of Unit 4.8.04

4.8.05

Reduction in unit size due to increase in size of Unit 4.8.04.

9 to 11

4.L.04

Relocation of kitchen, internal reconfiguration and consequent reduction in size of Unit 4.L.05.

4.L.05

Reduction in unit size due to increase in size of Unit 4.L.04

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Willana Associates dated 21 September 2017 and was received by Council on 27 September 2017 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

The application was not required to be referred to any internal Council departments for comment.

External Referrals

Sydney Water

The modification application was referred to Sydney Water for comments, who has confirmed the application is not required to be referred to Sydney Water at this stage. Conditions of consent related to Building Plan Approval and Section 73 Certificate have been imposed within Development Consent 2016/496/1, and remain valid.

Endeavour Energy

The modification application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.

Water NSW

The modification application was referred to Water NSW for comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported, providing updated General Terms of Approval GTAs to reflect recent policy changes.


 

Roads and Maritime Services

The modification application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services for comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.

Sydney Trains

The modification application was referred to Sydney Trains for comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.

Planning Comments

Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act)

A consent authority may, on application being made by the Applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the Court and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

Requirement

Comment

(a)  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

The development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.

(b)  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

The application was publicly notified in accordance with the Holroyd DCP 2013 for a period of 21 days between 25 October 2017 and 15 November 2017. In response, no submissions were received.

(c)  it has notified, or made reasonable attempts to notify, each person who made a submission in respect of the relevant development application of the proposed modification by sending written notice to the last address known to the consent authority of the objector or other person, and

All persons who made a submission in respect of the original application were notified of the proposed modification.

 

(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.

No submissions were received in response to the notification of the subject application.

(1A) In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15 (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. The consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The provisions of the applicable EPIs are discussed elsewhere in this report.

 

The provisions of the applicable DCP are discussed elsewhere in this report.

 

There are no planning agreements or draft planning agreements related to this application.

 

There are no relevant matters referred to in the regulations.

 

The likely impacts of the development as proposed to be modified are considered satisfactory.

 

The site is considered to be suitable for the development as proposed to be modified.

 

No submissions were received in response to the notification period, as noted above.

 

Approval of the subject application is not contrary to the public interest.

(1C) The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified.

Noted.

(2) After determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must send a notice of its determination to each person who made a submission in respect of the application for modification.

Noted.

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 55 for the consent authority to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development, was considered under the original application. The proposed modifications do not raise any new concerns regarding site contamination.

(b)    Statement Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65)

SEPP 65 applies to the development as the building is 3 storeys or more, and contains at least 4 dwellings. A design statement addressing the design quality principles prescribed by SEPP 65 was prepared by the project architect. Integral to SEPP 65 is the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which sets benchmarks for the appearance, acceptable impacts and residential amenity of the development.

Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, the proposal is considered compliant with the policies with mainly internal changes to the apartment layout and changes to the northern, southern and eastern elevations. The proposal continues to satisfy design criteria including building amenity, apartment size and layout, private open space and balconies, storage and universal design. A comprehensive assessment against SEPP 65 and the ADG is contained in Attachment 3 of this report.

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the Modification Application. The proposed modifications do not affect the previous assessment regarding upgrading existing utility services including water, gas or telecommunications.

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 original proposed development also included a substation. As such, the Consent Authority is required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority. The modification application was referred to Endeavour Energy, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.

 

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

The application is subject to clause 85 of the ISEPP, as the subject site is located adjacent to a railway corridor. The modification application was referred to Sydney Trains, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.

Clause 86 – Excavation in, above, below or adjacent to rail corridors

The application is subject to clause 86 of the ISEPP as the proposed redevelopment of the site involves excavation to a depth of at least 2m below ground level (existing), on land within 25m (measured horizontally) of a rail corridor. The modification application was referred to Sydney Trains, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.

Clause 87 – Impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development

The application is subject to clause 87 of the ISEPP as the site is in or adjacent to a rail corridor or is likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration. The modification application was referred to Sydney Trains, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

The application is not subject to clause 101 of the ISEPP as the site does not have a frontage to a classified road.

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

The application is not subject to clause 102 of the ISEPP as the annual average daily traffic volume of Neil Street is less than 20,000 vehicles.

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

The original DA proposed over 300 dwellings and over 400 parking spaces and accordingly was referred to the RMS for comment in accordance with Clause 104 of the ISEPP. The modification application was also referred to the RMS, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.

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

A BASIX Certificate has been lodged and endorsed as a part of Development Application 2016/496/1. An amended BASIX Certificate was not lodged with the subject application, which has been conditioned in the Draft Notice of Determination.

(e)    Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The subject site is identified as being located within the area affected by the Sydney Regional 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 SEP is not directly relevant to the proposed development.

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

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to HLEP 2013. The subject development continues to be characterised as 2 x residential flat buildings.

Residential flat building means a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing.

Note. Residential flat buildings are a type of residential accommodation – see definition of that term in the dictionary.

The development complies with the development standards contained within the HLEP 2013, with the exception of the Floor Space Ratio development standard. A comprehensive assessment against the HLEP 2013 is contained in Attachment 4 to this report.

Floor Space Ratio

·        The proposal is generally consistent with the provisions of the HLEP 2013 as approved, with a continued non-compliance with the FSR development standard. The subject modification proposes an increase in the GFA by 258sqm which increases the FSR variation from 3.67:1 (approved under DA2016/496/2) to 3.69:1.

A Clause 4.6 request is not required as the application is made under Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

The proposal would further exceed the maximum permitted FSR under the HLEP 2013 by a further 0.02:1, increasing the total exceedance from 0.17 (4.86%) to 0.19:1 (5.43%) which is a relatively minor increase considering the overall development. As noted earlier, the additional GFA and increased FSR are a result of improving internal amenity of some units within the development which would achieve a net positive outcome for the development from the modifications proposed. Furthermore, the additional GFA does not amount to any net increase in the building footprint such that additional yield would be achievable.

It should be noted that FSR and GFA averaging has been previously applied across the entire site for the overall 4 buildings that form the original development and a condition was imposed on the original consent granted requiring a positive covenant to be imposed on the lot containing Building 1 to preclude any future applications adding GFA to that building. Of note, when assessed against the average across the site, the proposed amendments remain compliant, with an overall maximum permitted average equivalent to 45,177m², and a proposed average of 42,299.4m² proposed.

Council is satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest, as it is consistent with the objectives of the FSR development standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

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 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 ‘Sydney Regional Environ-mental 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 Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP 2013) provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the HLEP 2013. The proposed development complies with the relevant provisions of HDCP 2013 and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning view point.


 

A detailed assessment against the provisions of the Holroyd DCP 2013 is contained in Attachment 5 to this report.

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 Reg).

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 proposed modifications are minor in nature and are mostly internal changes resulting in improved amenity for future residents.

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. The proposal seeks modification to Building 4 of the approved residential flat building development only. Modifications are minor in nature and will not create adverse impacts on the surrounding 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 21 days between 25 October 2017 and 15 November 2017. No submissions were received in respect of the proposed development.

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. A condition was imposed on the original consent requiring the payment of contributions. The dwelling yield and unit mix is not proposed to change, and therefore, the value of the contributions do not change as a result of the proposed modifications.

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. Further, the subject site continues to be suitable for the development.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R4 High Density Residential zone under the relevant provisions of the HLEP 2013 and are consistent with the zone. The development however proposes a further variation to the Floor Space Ratio development standard under the HLEP 2013. The increase in floor area is derived from a reduction to the size of the approved balconies and is mainly within the approved building footprint. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

The development, as proposed to be modified, is considered to be substantially the same development as approved and modified and therefore satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

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 Section 4.56 Application 2016/496/3 seeking internal and external alterations to Building 4 on land at 1-7 & 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands, be Approved, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

 

 

Attachments

1.     Architectural Plans

2.     Draft Notice of Determination

3.     SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment

4.     Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

5.     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

6.     Development Consent 2016/496/1

7.     Endorsed Architectural Plans for Development Consent 2016/496/1

8.     Development Consent 2016/496/2

9.     Endorsed Architectural Plans for Development Consent 2016/496/2

10.   Development Consent 2016/496/5

11.   Development Consent 2016/496/6  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 1

Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 2

Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 3

SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 4

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 5

Holroyd Devlopment Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 6

Development Consent 2016/496/1


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 7

Endorsed Architectural Plans for Development Consent 2016/496/1


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 8

Development Consent 2016/496/2


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 9

Endorsed Architectural Plans for Development Consent 2016/496/2


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 10

Development Consent 2016/496/5


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP007/19

Attachment 11

Development Consent 2016/496/6


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

13 March 2019

 

Item No: LPP008/19

Section 4.56 modification to 1-7 and 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                              DA-2016/496/4  

 

 

Application lodged

18 April 2018

Applicant

Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd

Owner

Lot 11 Neil Street Pty Limited

Application No.

2016/496/4

Description of Land

1-7 Neil Street Merrylands (Lot 11, DP 228782) and 9-11 Neil Street Merrylands (Lot 1, DP 203553)

Proposed Development

S4.56 Modification seeking internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, and relocation of hydrant booster and substation kiosk

Site Area

15,763m2

Zoning

R4 – High Density Residential

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

The site is located adjacent to a local heritage item to the north being the former brickworks site known as Item I53 - Goodlet & Smith (brickmaking plant and chimney, Hoffman kiln & chimney).

 

The subject site is known as the Millmaster Feeds site and is identified as a local Archaeological site.

Principal Development Standards

Floor Space Ratio

Permissible: 3.5:1

Approved: 3.67

Proposed: 3.71:1

 

Height of Buildings

Permissible:                                            29m, 30m, and 39m

Proposed:   Building 3: 38.8m, Building 4: 38.85m

Issues

Exceedance to Floor Space Ratio

Figure 1 – Perspective from Railway Looking North (South: Ghazi Al Ali, 2018)

Summary:

Application No. DA-2016/496/4 was received on 18 April 2018 for a Modification Application under Section 4.56 (formerly Section 96AA) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 seeking consent for internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, and relocation of hydrant booster and substation kiosk at 1-11 Neil Street, Merrylands.

The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 21 days between 16 May 2018 to 6 June 2018. In response, no submissions were received.

The subject site is located adjacent to a heritage item to the north being the former brickworks site known as Item I53 - Goodlet & Smith (brickmaking plant and chimney, Hoffman kiln & chimney) under Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) 2013. The subject site is known as the Millmaster Feeds site and is identified as a potential Archaeological site.

On 26 April 2017, Development Application 2016/496 was considered by the Sydney West Central Planning Panel (SWCPP) for construction of a 2 x residential flat buildings (Buildings 3 & 4) over 3 levels of basement parking accommodating a total of 438 car parking spaces and 5 on-grade spaces; Building 3 being 12 storey accommodating 178 units and Building 4 being Part 6, Part 8 and Part 12 storeys accommodating 133 units. The application includes consolidation of 2 existing lots making up the overall site of 1-11 Neil Street and re-subdivision of the consolidated lot into 3 Torrens title lots and 4 Stratum Lots.

At its meeting, the SWCPP deferred the application for a number of reasons including concerns over site coverage, insufficient landscaped area and excessive bulk; a desire for taller and slimmer buildings; and a desire for an alternate unit mix with increased 3 bedroom units.

The applicant subsequently lodged a Class 1 Appeal against the deemed refusal of the DA with the NSW Land and Environment Court (appeal number 2017/132564) which was upheld with DA-2016/496 approved subject to conditions.

On 11 September 2017, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/2) was approved which sought minor alterations to the approved residential flat building development, predominately relating to the western elevation of Building 3.

On 14 August 2018, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/5) was approved, which sought amendments to the approved subdivision of the site from 7 lots to 6 lots.

On 4 October 2018, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/6) was approved, which sought the removal of the subdivision component of the development.

The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 55 (Remediation of Land), SEPP No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, SEPP (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 variations sought via the subject modification application are as follows:

 

Control

Maximum

Approved

Proposed

%Variation

Floor Space Ratio

3.5:1

3.67:1

3.71:1

1.1% (approved)/ 6% (maximum)

The increase in floor area improves the internal amenity of the apartments by providing additional storage areas, bathrooms and increased bedroom sizes. The increase in floor area is derived from a reduction to the size of the approved balconies and as a result, the amendments are mainly within the approved building footprint.

The subject proposal does not involve significant changes to the approved apartment layouts or built form. Minor changes to the visual articulation of the southern and eastern façades reflect the changes made to the apartment layouts with appropriate visual interest maintained.

The proposal is substantially the same development as the approved development and satisfies the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination, as it is a 4.56 modification application involving a variation to a developments standard.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Approve the Section 4.56 Application, subject to the Draft Notice of Determination contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject land is known as Lot 11, DP 228782 and Lot 1, DP 203553, 1-7 and 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands. The land is an irregular shaped lot and has a frontage of 110.82 metres to the southern Neil Street boundary; a 100.65 metre depth along the western side boundary; a 180.5 metre width along the northern rear boundary; and a 131.15 metre depth along the eastern boundary shared with the railway corridor. The total site area is 15,763sqm. The site is illustrated in Figure 2 below with the portion of the site of the approved residential flat Buildings 3 and 4 being the eastern half of the site, with the site of Buildings 3 & 4 marked with a star.

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

The subject site is currently under construction with partially constructed residential flat buildings 1 and 2 on the western half of the site. The land is split by the A’Becketts Creek watercourse which traverses the site in a north to south direction and forms a natural feature and constraint for the site.

The topography of the site is fairly consistent with a slight fall from south to north. The land is affected by Local Overland Stormwater Overflow.

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013, as shown in Figure 3 below:

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

The subject site is situated on the northern side of Neil Street, Merrylands, and is located within the Neil Street Precinct. The subject site is adjacent to a railway corridor that spans the eastern boundary of the site and approximately 350 metres north-east from Merrylands train station. The site is illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 below.

Figure 4 – Aerial view of subject site and surrounds (Source: Cumberland Council, 2018)

Figure 5 – Aerial Photo (Source: Nearmap, 2019)

The locality is characterised by existing low rise former industrial premises to the west along Neil Street; mixed use and residential flat building developments approved, under construction, and recently completed to the west and north; commercial and retail development to the south-west and residential to the east and south.

The subject site currently benefits from vehicular access directly from Neil Street. Vehicular access to the development is dependent on a proposed extension of Dressler Court at the north of the site, which will connect to a new road running through the site along the western side of the A’Becketts Creek watercourse.

The site is located adjacent to a heritage item to the north being the former brickworks site known as Item I53 - Goodlet & Smith (brick-making plant and chimney, Hoffman kiln & chimney). The subject site is known as the Millmaster Feeds site and is identified as a potential Archaeological site. Figure 6 below illustrates the location of the heritage item, listed above:


 

Figure 6 – Heritage Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2018)

Description of The Proposed Development

Development Application 2016/496/1 was approved via Land and Environment Court Appeal No. 2017/00132561 for construction of a 2 x residential flat buildings (Buildings 3 & 4) over 3 levels of basement parking accommodating a total of 438 car parking spaces and 5 on-grade spaces; Building 3 being 12 storey accommodating 178 units and Building 4 being Part 6, Part 8 and Part 12 storeys accommodating 133 units. The application includes consolidation of 2 existing lots making up the overall site of 1-11 Neil Street and re-subdivision of the consolidated lot into 3 Torrens title lots and 4 Stratum Lots.

On 11 September 2017, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/2) was approved which sought minor alterations to the approved residential flat building development, predominately relating to the western elevation of Building 3.

On 14 August 2018, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/5) was approved, which sought amendments to the approved subdivision of the site from 7 lots to 6 lots.

On 4 October 2018, Section 4.56 modification application (DA-2016/496/6) was approved, which sought the removal of the subdivision component of the development.

The changes sought via the subject Section 4.56 Application are as follows:

·        Modification to the internal configuration of a number of apartments.

·        Adjustment of balcony sizes to a number of apartments.

·        Alteration to the articulation of the building from the southern and eastern elevations due to the deletion of the balconies and the extension of a number of bedrooms.

·        Increase in Gross Floor Area (GFA) from 9,705sqm to 10,105sqm.

Specific details of the key proposed changes are as follows:

 

Level

Unit

Modifications

Basement 3

N/A

Footprint of the basement amended, with minor changes to the perimeter wall.

N/A

Change to the general layout and arrangement of parking.

N/A

Basement floor RL lowered to RL 6.30 (previously RL 7.10).

N/A

Reconfiguration of parking spaces and garbage rooms. Relocation of fire hydrant and valve room from Basement Level 1 to south-western corner of Basement Level 3.

Basement 2

N/A

Footprint of the basement amended, with minor changes to the perimeter wall.

N/A

Change to the general layout and arrangement of parking.

N/A

Basement floor RL lowered to RL 9.30 (previously RL 10.10).

N/A

Reconfiguration of parking spaces and garbage rooms. Relocation of fire hydrant and valve room to south-western corner.

Basement 1

N/A

iii)         Footprint of the basement amended, with minor changes to the perimeter wall.

N/A

Change to the general layout and arrangement of parking.

N/A

Basement floor RL lowered to RL 12.30 (previously RL 13.10).

N/A

Reconfiguration of parking spaces and garbage rooms. Changes to sizes of air supply fan room, and exhaust fan room.

Building 3 – Ground

N/A

Relocation of substation kiosks and hydrant / sprinkler booster to north-western boundary along the proposed road between Buildings 3 & 4.

N/A

Addition of fire control room adjacent to Building 3 entrance 1.

3.0.05

Reconfiguration of the unit, in particular the relocation of the kitchen and bathroom facilities.

3.0.07

Increase in unit size and provision of an additional bathroom, making the unit a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom unit.

3.0.08

Reconfiguration of the unit, in particular the relocation of the kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Building 3 – Levels 1 to 8

3.L.08

Increase in unit size and provision of an additional bathroom, making the unit a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom unit.

3.L.09

Increase in unit size and provision of an additional bathroom, making the unit a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom unit.

3.L.10

Increase in balcony area adjacent to bedrooms and change to internal laundry facilities.

Building 3 – Levels 9 to 11

3.L.08

Increase in unit size and provision of an additional bathroom, making the unit a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom unit.

3.L.09

Increase in unit size and provision of an additional bathroom, making the unit a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom unit.

3.L.10

Increase in balcony area adjacent to bedrooms and change to internal laundry facilities.

Building 3 – Roof

N/A

Provision of additional roof area above Units 3.L.01, 3.L.09 and 3.L.10.

N/A

Provision of maintenance access stairs at the eastern and western portions of the roof.

N/A

Change to the lift overrun height of all lifts to RL 54.20 (previously RL 53.60).

N/A

Additional skylights and hot water plant.

Building 4 – Ground

N/A

Provision of additional support structure and awning to south-eastern portion of ramp.

Building 4 – Level 6

N/A

RL of common area increased to RL 34.75 (previously RL 34.60). TOW surrounding common area adjusted to suit.

N/A

Increase in plant area.

4.6.01

Reconfiguration of the kitchen and laundry facilities.

Building 4 – Roof

N/A

Change to the lift overrun height of the northern lift to RL 41.60 (previously RL 42.20).

N/A

Decrease height of plant screen surrounding plant area to RL 54.00 (previously RL 66.00)

N/A

Additional hot water plant

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd dated 3 April 2018 and was received by Council on 18 April 2018 in support of the application.

The Statement of Environmental Effects was subsequently modified on 1 February 2019, following Council’s review of the submitted plans.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The modification application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.


 

Resource Recovery Officer

The modification application was referred to Council’s Resource Recovery Officer for comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported.

Building Certifier

The modification application was referred to Council’s Building Certifier for comments, who advised that the modified development shall comply with the Building Code of Australia.

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

The modification application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is satisfactory, subject to conditions.

Planning Comments

Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act)

A consent authority may, on application being made by the Applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the Court and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

Requirement

Comment

(a)  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

The development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.

(b)  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

The application was publicly notified in accordance with the Holroyd DCP 2013 for a period of 21 days between 16 May 2018 to 6 June 2018. In response, no submissions were received.

(c)  it has notified, or made reasonable attempts to notify, each person who made a submission in respect of the relevant development application of the proposed modification by sending written notice to the last address known to the consent authority of the objector or other person, and

All persons who made a submission in respect of the original application were notified of the proposed modification.

 

(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.

No submissions were received in response to the notification of the subject application.

(1A) In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15 (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. The consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The provisions of the applicable EPIs are discussed elsewhere in this report.

 

The provisions of the applicable DCP are discussed elsewhere in this report.

 

There are no planning agreements or draft planning agreements related to this application.

 

There are no relevant matters referred to in the regulations.

 

The likely impacts of the development as proposed to be modified are considered satisfactory.

 

The site is considered to be suitable for the development as proposed to be modified.

 

No submissions were received in response to the notification period, as noted above.

 

Approval of the subject application is not contrary to the public interest.

(1C) The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified.

Noted.

(2) After determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must send a notice of its determination to each person who made a submission in respect of the application for modification.

Noted.

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 55 for the consent authority to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development, was considered under the original application. The proposed modifications do not raise any new concerns regarding site contamination.

(b)    Statement Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65)

SEPP 65 applies to the development as the building is 3 storeys or more, and contains at least 4 dwellings. A design statement addressing the design quality principles prescribed by SEPP 65 was prepared by the project architect. Integral to SEPP 65 is the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which sets benchmarks for the appearance, acceptable impacts and residential amenity of the development.

Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, the proposal is considered compliant with the policies with mainly internal changes to the apartment layout and changes to the southern and eastern elevations. The proposal continues to satisfy design criteria including building amenity, apartment size and layout, private open space and balconies, storage and universal design. A comprehensive assessment against SEPP 65 and the ADG is contained in Attachment 3 of this report.

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the Modification Application. The proposed modifications do not affect the previous assessment regarding upgrading existing utility services including water, gas or telecommunications.

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 original proposed development also included a substation. As such, the Consent Authority is required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority. The modification application was referred to Endeavour Energy, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported, subject to conditions, in particular, for a detailed substation design to be provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

The application is subject to clause 85 of the ISEPP, as the subject site is located adjacent to a railway corridor. No changes are proposed to the development which would trigger a re-assessment against Clause 85 of the ISEPP.

Clause 86 – Excavation in, above, below or adjacent to rail corridors

The application is subject to clause 86 of the ISEPP as the proposed redevelopment of the site involves excavation to a depth of at least 2m below ground level (existing), on land within 25m (measured horizontally) of a rail corridor. No changes are proposed to the development which would trigger a re-assessment against Clause 86 of the ISEPP.

Clause 87 – Impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development

The application is subject to clause 87 of the ISEPP as the site is in or adjacent to a rail corridor or is likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration. No changes are proposed to the development which would trigger a re-assessment against Clause 87 of the ISEPP.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

The application is not subject to clause 101 of the ISEPP as the site does not have a frontage to a classified road.

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

The application is not subject to clause 102 of the ISEPP as the annual average daily traffic volume of Neil Street is less than 40,000 vehicles.

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

The original DA proposed over 300 dwellings and over 400 parking spaces and accordingly was referred to the RMS for comment in accordance with Clause 104 pf the ISEPP. No changes are proposed to the development which would trigger a re-assessment against Clause 104 of the ISEPP.

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

A BASIX Certificate has been lodged and endorsed as a part of Development Application 2016/496/1. An amended BASIX Certificate was not lodged with the subject application, which has been conditioned in the Draft Notice of Determination.

(e)    Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The subject site is identified as being located within the area affected by the Sydney Regional 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 SEP is not directly relevant to the proposed development.

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

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to HLEP 2013. The subject development continues to be characterised as 2 x residential flat buildings.

Residential flat building means a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing.

Note. Residential flat buildings are a type of residential accommodation – see definition of that term in the dictionary.

The development complies with the development standards contained within the HLEP 2013, with the exception of the Floor Space Ratio development standard. A comprehensive assessment against the HLEP 2013 is contained in Attachment 4 to this report.

Floor Space Ratio

·        The proposal is generally consistent with the provisions of the HLEP 2013 as approved, with a continued non-compliance with the FSR development standard. The subject modification proposes an increase in the GFA by 401sqm which increases the FSR variation from 3.67:1 (approved under DA2016/496/2) to 3.71:1.

A Clause 4.6 request is not required as the application is made under Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

The proposal would further exceed the maximum permitted FSR under the HLEP 2013 by a further 0.042:1, increasing the total exceedance from 0.17 (4.86%) to 0.21:1 (6%) which is a relatively minor increase considering the overall development. As noted earlier, the additional GFA and increased FSR are a result of improving internal amenity of some units within the development which would achieve a net positive outcome for the development from the modifications proposed.

Furthermore, the additional GFA does not amount to any net increase in the building footprint such that additional yield would be achievable.

It should be noted that FSR and GFA averaging has been previously applied across the entire site for the overall 4 buildings that form the original development and a condition was imposed on the original consent granted requiring a positive covenant to be imposed on the lot containing Building 1 to preclude any future applications adding GFA to that building. Of note, when assessed against the average across the site, the proposed amendments remain compliant, with an overall maximum permitted average equivalent to 45,177m², and a proposed average of 42,442.4m² proposed.

Council is satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest, as it is consistent with the objectives of the FSR development standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

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 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 ‘Sydney Regional Environ-mental 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 Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP 2013) provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the HLEP 2013. The proposed development complies with the relevant provisions of HDCP 2013 and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning view point. A detailed assessment against the provisions of the Holroyd DCP 2013 is contained in Attachment 5 to this report.

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 Reg).

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 proposed modifications are minor in nature and are mostly internal changes resulting in improved amenity for future residents.

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. The proposal seeks modification to Buildings 3 and 4 of the approved residential flat building development. Modifications are minor in nature and will not create adverse impacts on the surrounding 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

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. A condition was imposed on the original consent requiring the payment of contributions. The dwelling yield and unit mix is not proposed to change, and therefore, the value of the contributions do not change as a result of the proposed modifications.

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. Further, the subject site continues to be suitable for the development.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R4 High Density Residential zone under the relevant provisions of the HLEP 2013 and are consistent with the zone. The development however proposes a further variation to the Floor Space Ratio development standard under the HLEP 2013. The increase in floor area is derived from a reduction to the size of the approved balconies and is mainly within the approved building footprint. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

The development, as proposed to be modified, is considered to be substantially the same development as approved and modified and therefore satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

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 Section 4.56 Application 2016/496/4 seeking internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, and relocation of hydrant booster and substation kiosk on land at 1-7 & 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands, be Approved, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

 

 

Attachments

1.     Architectural Plans

2.     Draft Notice of Determination

3.     SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment

4.     Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

5.     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

6.     Development Consent 2016/496/1

7.     Endorsed Architectural Plans for Development Consent 2016/496/1

8.     Development Consent 2016/496/2

9.     Endorsed Architectural Plans for Development Consent 2016/496/2

10.   Development Consent 2016/496/5

11.   Development Consent 2016/496/6  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 1

Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 2

Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 3

SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 4

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 5

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 6

Development Consent 2016/496/1


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 7

Endorsed Architectural Plans for Development Consent 2016/496/1


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 8

Development Consent 2016/496/2


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 9

Endorsed Architectural Plans for Development Consent 2016/496/2


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 10

Development Consent 2016/496/5


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP008/19

Attachment 11

Development Consent 2016/496/6


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019

 

Item No: LPP009/19

Planning Proposal for 100 Woodville Road

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Strategic Planning

File Number:                              PP-2/2018  

 

 

Lodged

26 September 2018

Proponent

Mecone

Owners

Trustees of the Missionary Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary Queen of the World.

Description of Land

100 Woodville Road, Granville.

 

Lot D DP 150974       Lot 1 DP 780942         Lot 1 DP 781277

Lot 8 DP 521888       Lot 6 DP 975141

Lots 1000 & 1001 DP 1093851

Site Area / Description of existing use

The site currently has a convent and some detached dwellings on the site, and has existing use rights.

 

The total site area is approximately 2,900 m2

Planning Controls

Planning Controls

Existing Control

Proposed Control

Zoning

R2 Low Density

R3 Medium Density

Height

9 m

12 m

FSR

0.5.1

1:1

Heritage

There are no Heritage Items on the site

 

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

N/A

Previous Considerations

N/A

Summary:

A planning proposal (the proposal) was submitted to Council seeking to amend the zoning of the site at Woodville Road, Granville, from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential. The proposal also seeks to amend the Height of Building control from 9 metres to 12 metres and the Floor Space Ratio control from 0.5:1 to 1:1.

 

The proposal seeks to facilitate the redevelopment of an existing convent to a new 3-4 storey convent building with 30 new rooms. The proponent is seeking an amendment to the Parramatta LEP 2011 as the R2 zone does not permit the land use of ‘Hostel’ or ‘Place of Public Worship’, which are the most appropriate land use definitions for the convent component of the proposal.

The proposal will also allow for the development of 7 two storey townhouses.

The status of the planning proposal is outlined in Figure 1a. 

Figure 1a: Planning Proposal Status

Report:

1.     The Site and its Context

 

The site is located at 92-100 Woodville Road and 63 and 65 Grimwood Street, Granville and comprises seven lots bounded by Grimwood Street to the south, Woodville Road to the east and William Street to the west. The total site area is approximately 2,900 m2.

Existing development includes a convent and three detached houses (related to the convent use) and associated vegetable gardens, landscaped garden and lawn areas, and storage sheds.

Figure 1b: The site

Local Context

The site is located approximately 900 metres from Granville and Merrylands town centres, and approximately 1 kilometre from Parramatta CBD.

The surrounding locality is characterised by low to medium density housing as well as three large educational uses, namely Delaney College, Holy Trinity Primary School and Granville TAFE.

2.     Planning Controls

Parramatta LEP 2011 applies to the site. The site is currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential  with a maximum Height of Building control of 9 metres and a maximum Floor Space Ratio control of 0.5:1.

 

  

Figure 2: Current Zoning Map                                     Figure 3: Current Height of Buildings Map     (J1 = 9metre)

 

Figure 4: Current FSR Map (D = 0.5:1)

 

Proposed Planning Controls

The proposal seeks to facilitate the rezoning of the site from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential, change the Height of Building control from 9 metres to 12 metres and the Floor Space Ratio Control from 0.5:1 to 1:1.

 

 

Figure 5: Proposed zoning                                 Figure 6: Proposed Height of Buildings

                                                                             (M = 12 metres)   

Figure 7: Proposed   (FSR N = 1.0)

 


 

3.     Strategic Merit Assessment

Draft Woodville Road Strategy

The Draft Woodville Road Strategy that was prepared by Parramatta City Council prior to amalgamation and exhibited in 2016 recommends R4 High Density Residential zoning, a maximum building height of four to five storeys and a maximum FSR of 1.4:1 to be applied to the site and surrounding properties. Cumberland Council is yet to endorse this strategy, however it will be considered in detail as part of the preparation of the new Cumberland LEP.

Figure 8: Proposed zone and building heights of the Draft Woodville Road Strategy

 

Figure 9:  Indicative scale of this proposal

This proposal seeks a scale of development less than what is proposed by the draft Strategy.

It is recommended that this proposal progress to the next phase of assessment as the scale of the proposal:

 

·        is unlikely to impede the implementation of the Draft Strategy for neighbouring properties, if Council chooses to adopt this strategy, and 

 

·        is unlikely to have a significant impact on the surrounding neighbourhood, if Council choose not to adopt the draft strategy and maintain the existing urban form.

Traffic and Transport

There is strategic merit in progressing this proposal to the next phase of assessment as:

·        the site is located within walking distance to bus services along Woodville Road, William Street and The Avenue that provide services to Parramatta, Granville and Merrylands stations; and

 

·        the proposal is expected to result in additional traffic generation of nine vehicle trips in the critical peak hours (or approximately one trip per six to seven minutes). This level of increase is well within typical fluctuations in background traffic volumes. It is anticipated that no external road works will be required to facilitate this proposal.

Central City District Plan

There is strategic merit in forwarding this proposal to DP&E for a Gateway Determination as the proposal can be considered to be consistent with the following Planning Priorities of the Central City District Plan:

 

·        C4 Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities: the planning proposal promotes a healthy community by providing for additional housing in a walkable residential neighbourhood in close proximity to recreational opportunities at Granville Park. The planning proposal will also provide for new accommodation for the Missionary Sisters, which provides a positive presence in the neighbourhood;

 

·        C5. Providing housing supply, choice and affordability, with access to jobs and services: the proposal provides for additional dwellings in close proximity to a large range of employment and services in Parramatta CBD;

 

·        C6. Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage: the proposal facilitates redevelopment of an existing urban site including communal open space areas, presenting opportunities for social interaction;

 

·        C9. Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city:

 

·        the proposal supports this priority by placing housing in a location less than 30 minutes by public transport (bus) to access Parramatta CBD; and

 

·        C16. Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections: the proposal facilitates redevelopment of the site, including increased landscaping and tree canopy cover.

Greater Sydney Region Plan

There is strategic merit in forwarding this proposal to DP&E for a Gateway Determination as the proposal can be considered to be consistent with the following Planning Directions of the Greater Sydney Region Plan:

·        A City for People and Housing the City: The proposal provides for seven new townhouse dwellings and an enlarged convent with additional bedrooms, which will contribute to supply, diversity and affordability of housing in the area;

 

·        A well-connected city: The proposal supports this objective by placing new housing in a location less than 30 minutes by public transport from the jobs and services and in Parramatta CBD; and

 

·        A city and its landscape: The proposal proposes to increase landscaping and tree canopy cover in redeveloping the site.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the planning proposal be reported to Council seeking a resolution that the proposal be forwarded to DP&E for a Gateway Determination. This recommendation is being made as:

·        the scale of the proposal is unlikely to create significant impact for surrounding development;

 

·        the proposal is unlikely to impede the implementation of the Draft Woodville Road Strategy, should Council choose to implement the Strategy;

 

·        the site is located within walking distance of bus services on Woodville Road, William Street and The Avenue that provide services to Parramatta, Granville and Merrylands stations;

 

·        the proposal is expected to result in additional traffic generation and it is anticipated that no external road works will be required to facilitate this proposal; and

 

·        the proposal is generally consistent with the broad strategic direction set by the Central City District Plan and the Greater Sydney Region Plan.

Consultation:

The preliminary public exhibition was carried out between 9 October 2018 and 7 November 2018. The proposal was made available for public viewing at Council’s libraries, customer service and website; and letters were sent out to adjoining landowners.

In response to the preliminary exhibition, only one concern was raised relating to inadequate parking and an increase in traffic congestion. Although an analysis has been undertaken as part of the traffic report submitted as part of the rezoning, and Council engineers have not raised any concerns, the provision of on-site parking (a requirement at development application stage) would ensure that the proposal does not create adverse impact on the surrounding local network.

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

Should the proposal be endorsed by Council and proceed to a Gateway determination, it is likely to result in an LEP amendment.

Communication / Publications:

The final outcome of this matter will be publicly notified in the newspaper. The submission authors will also be notified in writing of the outcome.

 

Recommendation:

That this matter be reported to Council seeking a resolution to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

 

Attachments

1.     Proponent's Planning Proposal  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP009/19

Attachment 1

Proponent's Planning Proposal


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

13 March 2019

 

Item No: LPP010/19

Planning Proposal Request For 2 Bachell Avenue, Lidcombe - Preliminary Public Exhibition and Technical Assessment

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Strategic Planning

File Number:                              PP-3/2018  

 

 

Lodged

30 October 2018

Proponent

Pacific Planning

Owner

Raad Property Acquisition No 10 Pty Ltd

Description of Land

2 Bachell Avenue Lidcombe (Lot 2 DP 219413)

Site Area

Approximately 8,750m2

Site Description and Existing Use

The site contains a freestanding warehouse constructed in 1973 and has been used for a commercial laundromat since 2016. The site is identified within the Flood Planning Area and includes a part of land identified as below Foreshore Building Line. The existing stormwater channel/culvert runs through the site in a south to north-west direction and partly covered in adjacent to and below the freestanding warehouse.

Proposal Summary

Seeks to amend the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Auburn LEP 2010) by:

·   Amending the Land Use Table to include B5 Business Development zone;

·   Rezoning the site from IN1 General Industrial to B5 Business Development; and

·   Amending the floor space ratio (FSR) control for the site from 1:1 to 3:1.

Existing and Proposed Planning Controls

Planning Controls

(Auburn LEP 2010)

Existing controls

Proposed controls

Zoning

IN1 General Industrial

B5 Business Development

Height of Building

N/A

N/A

Floor Space Ratio

1:1

3:1

Foreshore Building Line

Present

Exclude

Heritage

Nil

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil

Previous Consideration

On 2016, the proponent lodged a planning proposal seeking a rezoning of the site to B1 Neighbourhood Centre to accommodate residential dwellings and commercial/retail premises. Council resolved not to support the planning proposal at its meeting of 1 February 2017, following the review of the preliminary public consultation and council officer’s technical assessment report.

Summary:

This report seeks to provide an overview of a planning proposal submitted to Cumberland Council on 30 October 2018. The proposal seeks to amend the Auburn LEP 2010 by:

·        Rezoning the site from IN1 General Industrial to B5 Business Development;

·        Introducing new B5 Business Development zone in the Land Use Table;

·        Amending the floor space ratio (FSR) control for the site from 1:1 to 3:1; and

·        Removing the Foreshore Building Line that applies to this site.

 

Figure 1a: Planning Proposal Status

 

Report:

1.     The site and its context

The subject site (the site) is located at 2 Bachell Street, Lidcombe. The site currently contains a freestanding warehouse, utilised by a laundrette, with a footprint of approximately 2,500m². The warehouse is located in the middle of the site with land on either side vacant. The site is an irregular triangular shape measuring approximately 8,738m² in area.

 

Figure 1b. Aerial map of the site and immediate surrounds (The subject site outlined in black)

Figure 2. Map showing an existing stormwater channel runs through the site

Local Context

The site is located on the southern end of the Lidcombe East Industrial Precinct, and is adjacent to a residential area (to the west) and railway infrastructure (to the south).

The site is located approximately 1 kilometres from Lidcombe train station.

Regional Context

The site is located in the suburb of Lidcombe within the Local Government Area of Cumberland Council, approximately 6 kilometres east of Parramatta CBD and 16 kilometres west of the Sydney CBD.

2.     Planning Controls (Auburn LEP 2010)

The site is currently zoned IN1 General Industrial with an FSR of 1:1. No maximum height of building control applies to the site.

The site is identified on the Flood Planning Area Map and the Foreshore Building Line Map.

Figure 3. Existing Land Zoning Map

Figure 4. Existing Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map

Figure 5. Existing Flood Planning Area Map

Figure 6. Foreshore Building Line Map

3.     The Planning Proposal

The proposal seeks to:

·        rezone the site from IN1 General Industrial to B5 Business Development;

·        introduce new B5 Business Development zone in the Land Use Table. (The proponent is suggesting the use of the land use table from the Holroyd LEP);

·        amend the floor space ratio (FSR) control for the site from 1:1 to 3:1, and

·        remove the Foreshore Building Line that applies to this site.

The intended outcomes for this Planning Proposal Request are:

·        to enable a mix of business and warehouse uses and specialised retail premises;

·        to support a transition of the site’s current industrial-only use of site to a mix of higher order employment land uses;

·        to provide a compatible land use and appropriate employment density for the site without threatening the economic viability of the Lidcombe Town Centre;

·        to enable the redevelopment of the site for a mix of higher order employment land uses and provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area;

4.     B5 Business Development Zone

The Auburn LEP 2010 currently does not contain B5 zone. The B5 Business Development Zone is a standard instrument zone and the planning proposal seeks the inclusion of the Holroyd LEP 2013 B5 Business Development Zone within the Auburn LEP 2010.

1.     Objectives of zone

·        To enable a mix of business and warehouse uses, and specialised retail premises that require a large floor area, in locations that are close to, and that support the viability of, centres.

·        To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area.

2.     Permitted without consent

Nil

3.     Permitted with consent

Centre-based child care facilities; Food and drink premises; Funeral homes; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Neighbourhood shops; Passenger transport facilities; Plant nurseries; Respite day care centres; Roads; Self storage units; Specialised retail premises; Timber yards; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4.

4.     Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Animal boarding or training establishments; Biosolids treatment facilities; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Eco-tourist facilities; Electricity generating works; Entertainment facilities; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Function centres; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home businesses; Home industries; Home occupations; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial retail outlets; Industries; Information and education facilities; Jetties; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Mortuaries; Open cut mining; Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Registered clubs; Research stations; Residential accommodation; Resource recovery facilities; Restricted premises; Rural industries; Sewage treatment plants; Sex services premises; Storage premises; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Vehicle body repair workshops; Waste disposal facilities; Water recreation structures; Water recycling facilities; Water supply systems; Wharf or boating facilities

5.     Strategic Merit Assessment.

Consistency with the Draft Employment and Innovation Lands Strategy 2017

The site is situated within Lidcombe East Industrial Precinct as recognised in the draft Cumberland Employment and Innovation Lands Strategy 2017 (draft EILS 2017). The draft EILS 2017 sets a vision for this precinct for ‘Cumberland Creative Cluster’. The vision encourages the retention of existing industrial land uses in some areas and targeting advanced manufacturing, supporting food and beverage and creative industries.

There is strategic merit in progressing this proposal to the next phase of assessment as:

·        The proposed rezoning to B5 Business Development would increase employment opportunities and would create business opportunities in the area through the provision of new and more diversified floor space.

·        The redevelopment of the site may achieve the draft EILS’s vision of a creative cluster in this area through the creation of new and diversified floor space.

·        The proposed employment uses creates range of jobs that could contribute to the local job target and job diversity, which potentially generates greater job opportunities for local residents.

Addition of the B5 zone to the Auburn LEP 2010

There is strategic merit in adding the B5 zone to the Auburn LEP as both the Holroyd and Parramatta LEPs have the B5 zone.  This zoning would continue to be provided as part of the new Cumberland LEP. 

Traffic, Parking and Transport

There is strategic merit on progressing this planning proposal to the next phase of assessment as:

·        The site is approximately 1 kilometre from Lidcombe train station, which has direct train services to Central Sydney and Parramatta. Bus services between Lidcombe and Sydney Olympic Park (route 401) are approximately 500 metres away on Nicholas Street.

·        Road network and SIDRA analysis of anticipated traffic generation found there would be a minor impact on the intersections studied as a result of the proposal.

·        Many of the workers that are employed in the East Lidcombe Industrial use Bachell Avenue and adjoining streets for parking. This creates a conflict with local residents and visitors wishing to use local streets for parking. The rezoning of the site will facilitate the redevelopment of the site and future development will need to provide onsite parking. This may assist in reducing the current level of demand for on street parking.

Flood Planning

Part of the site is designated as being within the flood planning area under Auburn LEP. However, there is merit in progressing this proposal to the next stage of assessment as:

·        Any future development proposal will need to address Council’s flood planning controls.

·        Whilst the proposal seeks to intensify the employment activities on the site, it is not considered that this intensification will amplify the flood affectation on the site or for neighbouring properties.

·        The proposed realignment and covering of the stormwater culvert has the potential to mitigate flood affectation of 12 neighbouring residential properties.

Council’s engineers have advised that they raise no flood-related concerns at this stage; however, they noted that there would be a detailed assessment at the development stage.

Removal of the Foreshore Building Line

The subject site includes a part of land identified as below the foreshore building line under the Auburn LEP 2010’s in the Foreshore Building Line Map.

There is strategic merit in considering the removal of the Foreshore Building Line as follows:

·        The existing stormwater channel/culvert runs through the site is already partly covered and runs below the freestanding warehouse.

·        The stormwater channel that runs through the site is unlikely to be repatriated into a natural watercourse due to the urban form surrounding the site. Rail lines and roads to the south require piping and the subdivision pattern to the northwest creates a narrow corridor which is unlikely to provide the space to allow for the stormwater channel to be transformed into a natural watercourse.

Consistency with A Metropolis of Three Cities - Greater Sydney Region Plan

There is strategic merit in progressing this planning proposal to the next phase of assessment as it is consistent with the following planning directions in A Metropolis of Three Cities:

·        Jobs and Skills for the City - the site is with the Lidcombe East Industrial Precinct, which is identified as the ‘Cumberland Creative Cluster’ in Council’s draft Employment and Innovation Lands Strategy. The proposal will also facilitate and encourage job diversity and growth within research and innovation employment sectors, and will facilitate the redevelopment of an underutilised site.

·        City supported by infrastructure - the redevelopment of the site provides access to essential goods and services for existing local residents and workers within the surrounding area.

Consistency with the Central City District Plan

There is strategic merit in progressing this planning proposal to the next phase of assessment as consistent with the following Planning Priorities of the Central City District Pan:

·        Planning Priority C2 Planning for a city supported by infrastructure - the proposal seeks to rezone land within an established employment precinct well supported by existing infrastructure.

·        Planning Priority C5 Providing housing supply, choice and affordability with access to jobs, services and public transport - the planning proposal seeks to deliver additional jobs and diversity of employment opportunities in proximity to established employment precincts, residential neighbourhoods and Lidcombe town centre.

·        Planning Priorities C10 Maximising opportunities to attract advanced manufacturing and innovation in industrial and urban services land - the proposal has the potential to generate employment opportunities and create business opportunities in the area through the provision of new and more diversified floorspace.

·        Planning Priority C12 Supporting growth of targeted industry sectors - the proposal seeks to facilitate diversity and growth of creative and innovative businesses.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the Proposal be reported to Council seeking a resolution to progress the proposal to DP&E for a Gateway Determination. This recommendation is made on the following basis:

·        the proposed rezoning to B5 Business Development would increase employment opportunities and would create business opportunities in the area through the provision of new and more diversified floorspace;

·        the proposal has the potential to attract up to 550 jobs;

·        the proposed employment uses are anticipated to create a range of jobs that could contribute to the local job target and job diversity, potentially generating greater job opportunities for local residents;

·        there is merit in adding the B5 zone to the Auburn LEP as the B5 zone is a standard instrument zone which exists in both the Holroyd and Parramatta LEPs (soon to be harmonised in a single Cumberland LEP);

·        the stormwater channel that runs through the site is unlikely to be repatriated into a natural watercourse due to the urban form surrounding the site;

·        traffic generation is likely to have a minor impact only on surrounding intersection performance; and

·        the proposal is generally consistent with the broad strategic direction set by the Central City District Plan and the Greater Sydney Region Plan, and is both compatible with and contributes to the longer term viability of the broader Lidcombe East employment precinct.

Consultation:

Preliminary Exhibition of Planning Proposal Request

The proposal was publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days from 13 November 2018 to 11 December 2018, in accordance with Cumberland Council’s Planning Proposal Notification Policy.

Council received no written submissions during or after the exhibition period.

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

This report recommends that this matter be reported to Council for further consideration. Should Council resolved to forward this planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination, there will be a number of policy implications associated with the subsequent stages of the planning proposal process. These will be outlined in subsequent Council reports.

Communication / Publications:

There are no communication / publication implications for Council associated with this report.

 

Report Recommendation:

That the Planning Proposal Request proceed to the next stage of assessment   and be reported to Council seeking a resolution to forward the planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

 

Attachments

1.     Planning Proposal Request  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP010/19

Attachment 1

Planning Proposal Request


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 13 March 2019