Agenda of Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

27 March 2019

Item No: EEEEEELPP011/19

Development Application - 45-47 Hyde Park, Berala

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: DA-145/2018

Application lodged	18-May-2018
Applicant	Urbanlink Pty Limited
Owner	Mr H A Tu and Mrs L H Tu
Application No.	DA-145/2018
Description of Land	45 - 47 Hyde Park Road, BERALA, Lot 1 -2 DP 19185
Proposed Development	Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising 26 rooms (including a manager's room) over basement parking
Site Area	1045m²
Zoning	Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	No
Issues	Submissions, stormwater drainage, access to rear common open space, manager’s private open space, privacy and communal living room

Summary:

1. Development Application No.DA-145/2018 was received on 18-May-2018 for the Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising 28 rooms (including a manager's room) over basement parking.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 5 June and 19 June 2018. The application was renotified for a period of 14 days between 15 January and 29 January 2019. The notifications generated a total of 5 submissions in respect of the proposal.

ii)

3. The variations are as follows:

iii)

Control	Required	Provided	% variation
Manager’s Private Open Space	8sqm	7.686sqm	3.925%

4. The application is recommended for deferred commencement approval subject to the conditions as provided in the attached schedule to address the relocation of the communal living room, stormwater drainage, parking design, privacy, access to the rear common open space, amended BASIX and landscape plans. This will result in the decrease in number of overall rooms to 26.

iv)

5. The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal is considered to be contentious development.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site is identified as Lot 1 -2 DP 19185, known as 45 - 47 Hyde Park Road, BERALA. The subject site is located on the northern side of Hyde Park Rd between Campbell St to the west and Burke Ave to the east. The site is irregular in shape with a southern front boundary measuring 28.45m, northern angled rear boundary measuring 29.575m and western side boundary measuring 36.575 m and eastern side boundary measuring 39.58m. The site has an area of 1045m2 and the site falls from the street (south) towards the rear (north) by approximately 1.2m.

Lot 1 (no. 47) is occupied by a single storey detached dwelling with a detached garage at the rear with vehicular access provided along the western side. Lot 2 (no.45) is occupied by a single storey detached dwelling with a detached garage and carport at the rear of the site and vehicular access provided along the western side.

The subject site is adjoined by detached dwellings on either side. The locality is characterised by a variety of residential developments including a mix of older single storey dwellings and newer two storey residences. The rail line and Berala train station lies to the north and north-west.

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 the existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising 28 rooms (including a manager's room) over basement parking and includes:

Demolition:

· Demolition of the two single storey clad dwellings, carports and garage outbuildings at 45 and 47 Hyde Park Rd.

· Removal of three trees on site.

Construction:

· Basement: 13 boarding spaces, 1 accessible boarding space, 1 manager space, 6 motorcycle space, 8 bicycle spaces, bin storage room, fire stairs and lift to all floors.

· Ground floor: 11 double boarding rooms, 1 single boarding room, 1 single accessible boarding room, 1 manager room, communal area with access to an external communal area. Additional communal open space is also provided along the rear of the site. Each boarding room has a private bathroom, laundry, kitchen, desk and wardrobe.

· First floor: 12 double boarding rooms, 1 single boarding room and 1 single accessible boarding room. Each boarding room has a private bathroom, laundry, kitchen, desk and wardrobe.

· Total capacity of 51 lodgers (including the boarding house manager).

History

Site History:

There are no relevant previous applications relating to the subject site.

Application History:

· 18 May 2018: Application for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising 28 rooms house and with car parking for 7 vehicles lodged and publicly notified between 5 June 2018 to 19 June 2018.

· 12 June 2018: Application deferred to advise that the application was not supported due to non-compliance with the increased parking rates in State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

· 29 June 2018: Amended plans relocating and increasing parking provision on site to a basement level was submitted.

· 13 August 2018: Application was deferred for the applicant to provide a stage 2 detailed site investigation and hazardous materials report and a rail noise vibration and noise assessment, address requirements in the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and non-compliances with the FSR and SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

· 3 September 2018: Amended plans were received addressing the August deferral letter.

· 23 October 2018: Engineering issues were forwarded to the applicant to address.

· 21 December 2018: Amended plans were submitted to Council to address the engineering issues.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Pragma Planning dated 17 May 2018 (amended 26 June 2018) and the original was received by Council on 18 May 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 subject to deferred commencement conditions relating to creation of a drainage easement and amendments to parking/ access design and therefore can be supported subject to the imposition of those conditions.

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 subject to imposition of recommended conditions of consent which will be included in any approval.

Landscape Architect

The development application was referred to Council’s Landscape Architect for comment who has advised that approval is given for the removal of the three existing trees on site and the development proposal is satisfactory subject to:

· Both street trees and trees on adjoining properties to be protected in accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites

And therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent. It should however be noted that there are some level and architectural differences between the landscape plan and it will be conditioned for the landscape plan to be updated to be consistent with the architectural plans as part of the deferred commencement.

External Referrals

NSW Police

The application was referred to the NSW Police for comments as the application relates to Affordable Rental Housing. The Police have undertaken a general assessment against the Crime Prevention Guidelines and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and have recommended conditions to be imposed in their letter dated 5 June 2018, which will be included in conditions of consent where relevant.

Planning Comments

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

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

The site is located within the area to which the Sydney Harbour Catchment and SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 is applicable to the development application. The development application raises no issues or inconsistencies with the requirements and objectives of the associated DCP.

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
In the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (eg: 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
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site: The subject development has been supported by a Preliminary Site Investigation, prepared by Australian Geotechnical, job no AG-252_1 and dated 11-05-18, and a Detailed Site Investigation, prepared by Australian Geotechnical, job no AG-304_1 and dated 31-08-18. The DSI concluded that the site can be made suitable for the proposed two-storey boarding house subject to recommendations in section 15.0 in the DSI (T066948/2018). The application was referred to Councils Environment and Health Officers for comment. No concerns were raised subject to the imposition of recommended conditions which will be included in the consent. Council officers can therefore be satisfied that the provisions of Clause 7 of the SEPP have been satisfactorily addressed and consent can be granted.
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

Matter for Consideration

Yes/No

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

Yes

Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:

The subject development has been supported by a Preliminary Site Investigation, prepared by Australian Geotechnical, job no AG-252_1 and dated 11-05-18, and a Detailed Site Investigation, prepared by Australian Geotechnical, job no AG-304_1 and dated 31-08-18. The DSI concluded that the site can be made suitable for the proposed two-storey boarding house subject to recommendations in section 15.0 in the DSI (T066948/2018).

The application was referred to Councils Environment and Health Officers for comment. No concerns were raised subject to the imposition of recommended conditions which will be included in the consent. Council officers can therefore be satisfied that the provisions of Clause 7 of the SEPP have been satisfactorily addressed and consent can be granted.

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

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

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

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

As the site is approximately 51.8m from an operational rail track, consideration needs to be given to clause 87 of the SEPP in relation to impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development as the clause relates to residential accommodation. An acoustic report is required to be submitted to satisfy part 3.5.1 of the Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines to ensure that the LAeq levels comply with subclause (3) of clause 87.

The applicant submitted a Rail Noise and Vibration Assessment, prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics, ref: R180416, dated 24th August 2018. The assessment stated that based on the desktop noise study conducted and using standard building materials, the proposed development at 45-47 Hyde Park Road, Berala, is assessed to comply with the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 noise criteria without further acoustic treatments.

The Assessment was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officers who did not raise any objections to the findings subject to the imposition of recommended conditions of consent.

(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 (Coastal Management) 2018

The subject site is not identified as a coastal wetland or land identified as proximity area for coastal wetlands or coastal management area.

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

BASIX Certificate 928637M_02 issued on 26 June 2018 has been submitted. The BASIX Certificate lists measures to satisfy BASIX requirements which have been incorporated into the proposal. An amended BASIX certificate will be required due to the reduction in the number of rooms resulting from the relocation of the communal living area. This will be included in the deferred commencement conditions. A standard condition is also recommended to be imposed ensuring the measures detailed in the BASIX Certificate are implemented.

(e) State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The relevant provisions are addressed below:

Requirement	Yes/No	Comments
Part 1 Preliminary
3 Aims of Policy The aims of this Policy are as follows: (a) to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing, (b) to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards, (c) to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing, (d) to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing, (e) to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing, (f) to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work, (g) to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.	Y	The development is not inconsistent with the aims of this policy.
Part 2 New affordable rental housing
Division 3 Boarding houses
26 Land to which Division applies This Division applies to land within any of the following land use zones or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones: (a) Zone R1 General Residential, (b) Zone R2 Low Density Residential, (c) Zone R3 Medium Density Residential, (d) Zone R4 High Density Residential, (e) Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre, (f) Zone B2 Local Centre, (g) Zone B4 Mixed Use.	Y	The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential.
27 Development to which Division applies (1) This Division applies to development, on land to which this Division applies, for the purposes of boarding houses. (2) Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area. (3) Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone that is not in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within 400 metres walking distance of land within Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B4 Mixed Use or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones.	Y	The site is zoned R3 but is also within an accessible area being approximately 350m walking distance from Berala Railway station.
28 Development may be carried out with consent Development to which this Division applies may be carried out with consent.	Y	Noted.
29 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent (1) A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than: (a) the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, or (b) if the development is on land within a zone in which no residential accommodation is permitted—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of development permitted on the land, or (c) if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, plus: (i) 0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less, or (ii) 20% of the existing maximum floor space ratio, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1. (2) A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds: (a) building height if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land, (b) landscaped area if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located, (c) solar access where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter, (d) private open space if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area): (i) one area of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers, (ii) if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres is provided adjacent to that accommodation, (e) parking if: (i) in the case of development carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and (ii) in the case of development carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and (iia) in the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and (iii) in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site, (f) accommodation size if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least: (i) 12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or (ii) 16 square metres in any other case. (3) A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room. (4) A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).	Y N/A N/A Y Y Y Y N – acceptable N/A N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y	Compliant. See discussion under the LEP. Residential accommodation is permitted on the land. Residential flat buildings are not permissible on the site. The proposed building height is compliant with the LEP height development standards. The majority of the front setback is proposed to be soft landscaped with a mix of trees shrubs and ground cover which assists is softening the built form presentation to the street. The site is north-south oriented and thus the shadow diagrams show that the communal living areas will receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter. However, as discussed later, the communal living area is not supported and should be a communal living room as per the definition in the SEPP. This will be addressed as part of deferred commencement conditions where the new living rooms will have a north-western aspect to ensure sufficient solar access. There are two private open spaces, a paved area to the west accessed from the common area and a landscaped area within the rear setback. Both areas are well in excess of the required 20sqm and meet the minimum 3m dimension. The plans show that a private open space is provided adjacent to the boarding house manager’s room is just short of the required 8sqm and is calculated to be 7.686sqm (2.745x2.8m) but meets the minimum 2.5m dimensions. The shortfall is minor is considered acceptable as the private open space remains functional. Development is not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider. The development has 27 boarding rooms plus one room for the boarding manager and thus requires 13.5 parking spaces for the boarding rooms plus one space for the boarding house manager. A total of 14.5 (rounded up to 15) parking spaces are required which has been accommodated within the basement. One space has been allocated for the boarding house manager within the basement. All single and double rooms meet the minimum gross floor area. All boarding rooms have private bathroom and kitchen facilities. Noted.
30 Standards for boarding houses (1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following: (a) if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided, (b) no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres, (c) no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers, (d) adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger, (e) if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager, (f) (Repealed) (g) if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use, (h) at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms. (2) Subclause (1) does not apply to development for the purposes of minor alterations or additions to an existing boarding house.	N – conditioned Y Y Y Y N/A Y N/A	See discussion below. No boarding room has a GFA of more than 25sqm Plans show that only single and double rooms are proposed. Conditions will be imposed in regard to maximum occupancy. All boarding rooms have private bathroom and kitchen facilities. The boarding house has capacity to accommodate 50 lodgers and thus a boarding room has been allocated on site for a boarding house manager. The land is not primarily zoned for commercial purposes. 27 boarding rooms requires 6 spaces each for motorcycles and bicycles and 6 motorcycle and 8 bicycle spaces have been provided and is thus compliant. This application is for a new boarding house.
30AA Boarding houses in Zone R2 Low Density Residential A consent authority must not grant development consent to a boarding house on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone unless it is satisfied that the boarding house has no more than 12 boarding rooms.	N/A	Under the savings provisions, this clause is not applicable to this application as this application was made before the commencement of these provisions which were introduced as part the 2019 amendments to the SEPP. Additionally, the site is zoned R3 and thus this clause is not applicable.
30A Character of local area A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.	Y	See discussion below.

Requirement

Yes/No

Comments

Part 1 Preliminary

3 Aims of Policy

The aims of this Policy are as follows:

(a) to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,

(b) to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards,

(d) to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing,

(e) to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,

(f) to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work,

(g) to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

The development is not inconsistent with the aims of this policy.

Part 2 New affordable rental housing

Division 3 Boarding houses

26 Land to which Division applies

This Division applies to land within any of the following land use zones or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones:

(a) Zone R1 General Residential,

(b) Zone R2 Low Density Residential,

(d) Zone R4 High Density Residential,

(e) Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre,

(f) Zone B2 Local Centre,

(g) Zone B4 Mixed Use.

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential.

27 Development to which Division applies

(1) This Division applies to development, on land to which this Division applies, for the purposes of boarding houses.

(2) Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area.

(3) Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone that is not in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within 400 metres walking distance of land within Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B4 Mixed Use or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones.

The site is zoned R3 but is also within an accessible area being approximately 350m walking distance from Berala Railway station.

28 Development may be carried out with consent

Development to which this Division applies may be carried out with consent.

Noted.

29 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1) A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than:

(a) the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, or

(b) if the development is on land within a zone in which no residential accommodation is permitted—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of development permitted on the land, or

(c) if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, plus:

(i) 0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less, or

(ii) 20% of the existing maximum floor space ratio, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1.

(2) A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

(a) building height if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land,

(b) landscaped area if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located,

(c) solar access where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,

(d) private open space if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

(i) one area of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers,

(ii) if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres is provided adjacent to that accommodation,

(e) parking if:

(i) in the case of development carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(ii) in the case of development carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iia) in the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iii) in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site,

(f) accommodation size if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

(i) 12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

(ii) 16 square metres in any other case.

(3) A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.

(4) A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).

N/A

N – acceptable

N/A

Compliant. See discussion under the LEP.

Residential accommodation is permitted on the land.

Residential flat buildings are not permissible on the site.

The proposed building height is compliant with the LEP height development standards.

The majority of the front setback is proposed to be soft landscaped with a mix of trees shrubs and ground cover which assists is softening the built form presentation to the street.

The site is north-south oriented and thus the shadow diagrams show that the communal living areas will receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter. However, as discussed later, the communal living area is not supported and should be a communal living room as per the definition in the SEPP. This will be addressed as part of deferred commencement conditions where the new living rooms will have a north-western aspect to ensure sufficient solar access.

There are two private open spaces, a paved area to the west accessed from the common area and a landscaped area within the rear setback. Both areas are well in excess of the required 20sqm and meet the minimum 3m dimension.

The plans show that a private open space is provided adjacent to the boarding house manager’s room is just short of the required 8sqm and is calculated to be 7.686sqm (2.745x2.8m) but meets the minimum 2.5m dimensions. The shortfall is minor is considered acceptable as the private open space remains functional.

Development is not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider.

The development has 27 boarding rooms plus one room for the boarding manager and thus requires 13.5 parking spaces for the boarding rooms plus one space for the boarding house manager. A total of 14.5 (rounded up to 15) parking spaces are required which has been accommodated within the basement.

One space has been allocated for the boarding house manager within the basement.

All single and double rooms meet the minimum gross floor area.

All boarding rooms have private bathroom and kitchen facilities.

Noted.

30 Standards for boarding houses

(1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following:

(a) if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided,

(b) no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres,

(d) adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger,

(e) if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager,

(f) (Repealed)

(g) if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use,

(h) at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply to development for the purposes of minor alterations or additions to an existing boarding house.

N – conditioned

N/A

See discussion below.

No boarding room has a GFA of more than 25sqm

Plans show that only single and double rooms are proposed. Conditions will be imposed in regard to maximum occupancy.

All boarding rooms have private bathroom and kitchen facilities.

The boarding house has capacity to accommodate 50 lodgers and thus a boarding room has been allocated on site for a boarding house manager.

The land is not primarily zoned for commercial purposes.

27 boarding rooms requires 6 spaces each for motorcycles and bicycles and 6 motorcycle and 8 bicycle spaces have been provided and is thus compliant.

This application is for a new boarding house.

30AA Boarding houses in Zone R2 Low Density Residential

A consent authority must not grant development consent to a boarding house on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone unless it is satisfied that the boarding house has no more than 12 boarding rooms.

N/A

Under the savings provisions, this clause is not applicable to this application as this application was made before the commencement of these provisions which were introduced as part the 2019 amendments to the SEPP. Additionally, the site is zoned R3 and thus this clause is not applicable.

30A Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

See discussion below.

Clause 30(1)(a) Communal living room

Clause 25 of the SEPP defines communal living room to mean a room within a boarding house or on site that is available to all lodgers for recreational purposes, such as a lounge room, dining room, recreation room or games room. The proposed communal area with lounges, TV and coffee tables, is provided within the open circulation area on the ground floor which is not supported as it is not an enclosed room. The location of the communal area within an open circulation area is inappropriate given the potential noise and amenity impacts to adjoining rooms arising from the use of the space and the transfer of noise through to the floor above via the first floor void.

As part of the deferred commencement, it will be conditioned that the north-western rooms (which given the orientation will receive sufficient sunlight as per cl29(2)(c)) on the ground and first floors (rooms G07 and 107, respectively) be converted into a communal living room for the recreation of the lodgers. Given the small size of these rooms and boarding house capacity, it is considered appropriate to require two rooms, one on each floor to service the recreation needs of the lodgers on each level.

Clause 30A Character of local area

The SEPP requires Council to consider whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. There are no guidelines associated with the SEPP to provide Council with guidance in the determination of what is compatible development with the character of the local area. However, the Land and Environment Court has issued a planning principle on this matter that is a useful guide for the purposes of this assessment. The character assessment for the current proposal is provided in the following section:

Part A – Identify the local area

The local area for the purposes of this application is outlined on the zoning map below:

Berala railway station and small village lies to the north and north-east of the subject site.

Part B – Determine the character of the local area.

The identified character area is on a zone boundary change where the subject site (hatched in blue and light grey) is within a R3 Medium Density Residential zone and on the southern side of Hyde Park Rd is the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The development on the southern side of the outlined locality consists of newer two storey and older single storey detached dwellings. These dwellings on the southern side (see photos below) have subdivisions that are oriented to the streets running perpendicular to Hyde Park Rd and thus have their secondary frontages facing Hyde Park Rd.

20190219_095143 20190219_095147

On the northern side of Hyde Park Rd, whilst it is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, the dominant built form remains to be older single storey detached dwellings (see photos below) such as that which exists on the subject site and on immediately adjoining neighbours to the east and west. A one and two storey multi-dwelling development also exists on the eastern edge of the outlined locality.

20190219_095054 20190219_095132

The area is undergoing transition and it is likely that the dwellings will be redeveloped. Future built forms in the surrounding areas are likely to incorporate a mixture of dwellings and multi-dwelling developments with similar built forms.

Part C – Determine if development is compatible with character of the local area.

Compatibility within the urban environment is an issue that has been given detailed consideration by the Land and Environment Court. In the decision of Project Ventures Development Pty Limited and Pittwater Council, the Senior Commissioner of the Court was asked to consider the process of deciding whether a building is compatible with its surroundings. This led to the development of a Planning Principle that planners could refer to as a guide on this particular issue.

The planning principle states there are two important aspects of compatibility that need to be satisfied:

1. Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable?

Physical impacts generally include noise, overlooking, overshadowing and constraining development potential.

In terms of the physical impacts of the development, the following points are made:

- Noise impacts are reduced through siting at grade open space areas to the north and north-west of the site adjoining neighbouring open space areas.

- Privacy impacts are mitigated through the use of adequate privacy treatment, building separation, landscaping and boundary fencing.

o Rear: Windows facing the rear have minimum sill heights of 1.6m to provide privacy to and from the boarding rooms.

o Western side: To the western side elevation, 1.7m high sill heights have been provided to the ground floor and on the first floor there are sliding doors with access to a Juliet balcony with 1m high solid balustrades and screen blades parallel above the balustrade parallel to the location of the sliding doors. No issues are raised with provision of Juliet balconies on the western elevation as they are substantially setback (11.8m) from the western side setback to mitigate direct views to the neighbouring site. However, it is noted that the elevated western paved communal space may provide views to the neighbours property due to the proximity to the boundary and deferred commencement conditions will be imposed to ensure that a privacy screen with maximum 25% openings is provided above the proposed solid balustrade/wall to a height of 1.8m above the finished floor level of the common area facilities located to the west of the site with access from the circulation area. In addition, there are inadequate privacy details between the external paved common area and the boarding house manager private open space. Deferred commencement conditions are recommended to ensure that there is a 1.8m high privacy fence between the external paved common area and the boarding house manager’s private open space. No issues are raised with the windows to the first floor circulation area near the lift as they pertain to a void and the rear facing windows adjacent to the lift overlook the common areas.

o Eastern side: It is noted that the first floor windows are provided with privacy screens, however no details have been provided as to the design and on elevations it appears louvered. Deferred commencement conditions will be imposed to ensure that the louvres are fixed at 45 degrees to the sky to improve solar access into the rooms. As the building is raised due to overland flow, there are potential overlooking issues between ground floor windows of the subject property and windows and private open space of adjoining properties. In this regard, conditions will be imposed for fixed privacy screening to a height of 1.5m from the finished floor level to mitigate privacy impacts.

Subject to the above recommended conditions, privacy impacts are considered acceptable.

- Overshadowing: The subject site has a slight north-south orientation and solar amenity impacts to and from the development is considered acceptable. Submitted shadow diagrams show that the western neighbour will retain afternoon sun and the eastern neighbour will maintain morning sun.

The proposal will not impact on the development potential of adjoining sites by unduly constraining them through site design. The development will have acceptable impacts on neighbouring developments.

2. Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

Whilst it is noted that the area as existing is predominantly characterised by detached dwellings, the subject site is zoned R3 for medium density residential development such as multi-dwellings. The proposal’s impact on the streetscape remains compatible with the surrounding buildings and the character of the street and the future character of the R3 zone.

· The building with a flat roof design provides a contemporary architectural style to the locality. The proposal maintains a two storey form to the street with low fencing and a landscaped front setback, not dissimilar to newer two storey dwellings being constructed in the area and potential future character of multi-dwelling development in the zone.

· An L-shaped arrangement has been proposed for the boarding house in a similar manner to that envisaged for multi dwelling development.

· Compliant front setbacks of 4m have been provided and similar rear setbacks of 4m have been observed similar to that required for multi-dwelling development on the site. It is noted that there is a minor encroachment into the 4m rear setback at the north-western corner where the setback is reduced to 3.7m due to the angled rear boundary which is acceptable as sufficient open space is provided for the development.

· The proposed side setbacks are also acceptable. A larger side setback has been provided to the western side (7.6 – 12.3m) to offset the reduced eastern side setback to accommodate the driveway and basement ramp as well as recreational open space. The reduced eastern side setback of 1.5m can be supported as unlike multi-dwellings the boarding house does not require a common access pathway to access individual dwellings entries. Furthermore, solar access to adjoining development is considered acceptable and deferred commencement conditions are recommended to address any privacy impacts between developments.

· The mix of materials and finishes and articulation with framing and balconies assists in adding visual interest to the streetscape.

It is considered that the area is undergoing transition and given the desired future character of the area is medium density residential development and in light of the above points, the proposal is considered to be in harmony with the existing and emerging surrounding development.

Subject to recommended conditions and deferred commencement conditions as discussed variously in this report, the proposal will be visually compatible within its context, and will respond to the varied elements that make up the desired future character of the surrounding environment.

Local Environmental Plans

Auburn Local Environmental Plan (ALEP) 2010

The provisions of Auburn LEP 2010 are applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone which seek to:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

· To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

The proposal is well located within walking distance of Berala railway station and small village. The development provides for affordable rental housing options within a medium density residential environment.

Permissibility:-

The proposal is defined as a boarding house, which is permitted with consent in the zone. Notwithstanding, the proposed use is also permissible in the zone under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

The relevant matters to be considered under Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 for the proposed development are outlined below.

Figure 4 – Auburn LEP 2010 Compliance Table

Provision	Compliance	Comment
Part 1 Preliminary
1.2 Aims of Plan	Yes	The proposal is not inconsistent with regards to the aims of the plan.
Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development
2.7 Demolition requires development consent	Yes	The application seeks demolition of structures on site, which is permissible with consent.
Part 4 Principal development standards
4.3 Height of buildings · 9m	Yes	The proposed height is 8.8m.
4.4 Floor space ratio · 0.75:1	Yes	The proposed FSR is 0.75:1 (781sqm)
Part 6 Additional local provisions
6.1 Acid sulfate soils · Class 5	Yes	The proposed development does not involve the carrying of works within 500m of adjacent class 1-4 land that is below 5m AHD and by which the watertable is likely to be lowered below 1m AHD. No further investigation is necessary in this instance.
6.2 Earthworks	Yes	Earthworks associated with the basement are proposed. The basement excavation is located within the boundaries of the site and is not considered to have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses. Standard conditions of consent will be imposed regarding the excavation.

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

The Auburn DCP 2010 is of limited applicability to boarding houses and amenity impacts have assessed on merit previously under cl 30A Character of local area in SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. An assessment against the relevant parts of the DCP is as follows:

· Access and Mobility

The relevant requirements and objectives of the Access and Mobility part have been considered in the assessment of the development application. The development application is supported by an Accessibility Report prepared by Access Link Consulting, rep no 18-023, issue C, dated 26.05.2018 which shows that the development complies with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards. Plans show that given the raised nature of the building, a chairlift will be provided to overcome the stairs at the main entrance. However, it is unclear as to how accessibility to the rear communal open space has been addressed. In this regard, suitable conditions and deferred commencement conditions will be imposed on the development to ensure that suitable access is provided to and from and within the development in accordance with the relevant access and mobility provisions in the BCA, Australian Standards and Disability Discrimination Act. Council officers can thus be satisfied that the relevant provisions of this part of the ADCP 2010 have been satisfied.

· Parking and Loading

The Parking and Loading part of the DCP has been considered in the assessment of the application. The proposal complies with the minimum parking rates in SEPP ARH as discussed previously in the report and the proposed basement accommodates sufficient parking to support the proposal. The design of parking and loading within the development has been assessed by Council’s Engineers and is acceptable subject to the imposition of recommended conditions and deferred commencement conditions.

· Stormwater Drainage

The Stormwater Drainage part of the DCP has been considered in the assessment of the application. Council’s Development Engineer has recommended conditions of consent and deferred commencement conditions be imposed to ensure that the method of stormwater drainage from the site complies with DCP.

· Tree Preservation

The Tree Preservation part of the DCP has been considered in the assessment of the application. As discussed previously under internal referrals, Council’s Landscape Architect has supported the removal of three onsite trees but has recommended conditions for both street trees and trees on adjoining properties to be protected in accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites. The landscape plan was also considered satisfactory.

· Waste

The Waste part of the DCP has been considered in the assessment of the application. Satisfactory provision is made for waste collection with provision of a basement bin store room and the waste management plan as well as the plan of management states that the onsite caretaker/manager will be responsible for ensuring that bins are emptied, cleaned and return to the bin room.

The proposed development generally complies with the provisions of Council’s Auburn DCP 2010 and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning view point.

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 5 June and 19 June 2018. The application was renotified for a period of 14 days between 15 January and 29 January 2019. The notifications generated a total of 5 submissions in respect of the proposal. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

1. Issue: Insufficient parking and on-street parking congestion.

Planner’s comment: Adequate parking has been provided in the basement to comply with the SEPP requirements.

2. Issue: Privacy.

Planner’s comment: See discussion previously under clause 30A of the SEPP. It is considered that privacy concerns are addressed via deferred commencement conditions for appropriate screening.

3. Issue: Boarding house out of character with the residential area.

Planner’s comment: See discussion previously under clause 30A of the SEPP. It is considered that the proposal is compliant with the existing and desired future character of the area.

4. Issue: Safety concerns and increased crime risk.

Planner’s comment: See discussion under external referrals. Application was referred to NSW Police for comment and no objections were raised subject to imposition of recommended conditions.

5. Issue: Proposal is not in line with Council’s policy.

Planner’s comment: An assessment has been undertaken against relevant policies and the application is acceptable on merit as discussed variously in this assessment.

6. Issue: Air conditioning has not been shown

Planner’s comment: None have been proposed or shown as part of this application.

7. Issue: Management of noise sources

Planner’s comment: This is addressed in the submitted Plan of Management and there will be an onsite manager who will assist in managing noise from the development. In additions, standard operating conditions will be imposed on any consent to address noise amenity.

8. Issue: Noise from the waste collection.

Planner’s comment: Waste will be collected in a similar manner to other residential waste collection and is not anticipated to generate excessive noise.

9. Issue: No acoustic report.

Planner’s comment: An acoustic assessment in regards to rail noise and vibration was submitted due to the proximity to the rail corridor. Standard operating conditions will be imposed on any consent to address noise amenity.

10. Issue: Relevance of a waste management plan on a Canterbury Bankstown letterhead

Planner’s comment: This was corrected in amended plans submitted.

11. Issue: Laundry drying area.

Planner’s comment: External clothes lines are provided within the common open space in the north-eastern corner of the site.

12. Issue: Height, bulk and scale.

Planner’s comment: As discussed in the LEP, the proposal complies with the height and FSR standards. The bulk and scale of the building is not inconsistent to that of a new 2 storey dwelling or potential multi-dwelling development as permitted in the zone.

13. Issue: Inadequate notification and missing site notice.

Planner’s comment: Application has been notified in accordance with the DCP as discussed elsewhere in this report. One site notice is provided per site and evidence is on file attesting to the erection of a proper site notice and details at the start of the exhibition periods. The application was also notified on Council’s website.

14. Issue: Permissibility of high density living in this area.

Planner’s comment: Proposal is permissible on the site as discussed under SEPP (ARH) 2009 and Auburn LEP 2010.

15. Issue: Inadequate notification material where only external elevations were provided.

Planner’s comment: Internal floor plans are not usually provided on public exhibition as they do not comply with the requirements of Schedule 1 - Section 3 of the Government Information (Public Access) Regulation 2009.

16. Issue: Keep the zoning as low density residential.

Planner’s comment: The zoning of the subject sites are R3 Medium Density Residential and this is not proposed to be changed under this application.

17. Issue: Concern that the proposal is not intended to provide low cost accommodation.

Planner’s comment: This application is for a boarding house development and is considered to be a low cost housing option as per SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

18. Issue: Traffic congestion.

Planner’s comment: The proposal provides compliant onsite parking and is in an accessible area as defined by SEPP (ARH) 2009 and thus is in proximity to public transport. It is unlikely to have an adverse impact to local traffic.

19. Issue: Impact on neighbours from fumes and noise from residents sitting idle in their car on the driveway waiting for the basement gate to open.

Planner’s comment: There is unlikely to be significant wait time given the small size of the basement.

20. Issue: Handling of asbestos in shed outbuildings to be demolished.

Planner’s comment: Standard conditions will be imposed in regards to asbestos handling and disposal in the demolition process.

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.

The calculation is based on:

· 28 x 1 bedroom dwellings

As at 21 February 2018, the fee payable is $90,945.91. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The attached draft determination 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 development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, SEPP (ARH) 2009, Auburn LEP 2010 and Auburn DCP and is considered to be satisfactory for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone under the relevant provisions of the Auburn LEP 2010. The proposal is generally consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. Minor non-compliances with boarding house provisions in the SEPP have been discussed in the body of this report. 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.

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 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 Development Application No. DA-145/2018 for Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising 26 rooms (including a manager’s room) over basement carparking on land at 45 - 47 Hyde Park Road, BERALA be deferred commencement approved subject to attached conditions.

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, shadow diagrams and survey plan ⇩

3. Stormwater/Engineering Plans ⇩

4. Landscape Plans ⇩

5. Submissions Received ⇩

Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

27 March 2019

Item No: EEEEEELPP012/19

Development Application for Shop 27/22 Northumberland Road, Auburn

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: DA-249/2018

Application lodged	16 August 2018
Applicant	Auburn Tutoring Centre
Owner	Mr R Thangavelautham and Mrs T Ravi
Application No.	DA-249/2018
Description of Land	Shop 27/22 Northumberland Road, AUBURN NSW 2144, Lot 27 SP 91332
Proposed Development	Change of use and fitout of an existing commercial tenancy (Unit 27) for a tutoring centre and associated business identification signs.
Site Area	245sqm (including outdoor area)
Zoning	Zone
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	No
Principal Development Standards	FSR Permissible: 3.6:1 Proposed: no changes to existing floor space Height of Building Permissible: 32 metres Proposed: no changes to existing height of building
Issues	Traffic and car parking Submissions

Summary:

1. Development Application No.DA-249/2018 was received on 16 August 2018 for the change of use and fitout of an existing commercial tenancy (Unit 27) to a tutoring centre with associated business identification signs. The proposed hours of operation are 9:00am to 9:00pm, 7 days a week.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 28 August 2018 and 11 September 2018. In response, 1 individual submission and 1 submission from KYS Properties Pty Ltd representing 11 units within the building and 1 petition involving 17 signatures was received. It is noted that the majority of the units’ occupants represented by KYS Properties Pty Ltd are signatories to the petition.

3. The application is recommended for conditional approval subject to the conditions as provided in the attached schedule.

ii)

4. The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal is considered to be contentious/sensitive development due to the number of submissions received from the public during the notification period.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site forms Lot 27 SP91332 and is known as Shop 27/22 Northumberland Road, Auburn. The subject site is one of two shops located on the ground floor of a mixed-use development building comprising of residential apartments on the floors above. The commercial and residential components of the building is serviced by a basement car park that is assessable from Northumberland Road. The subject business premises has a total floor area of 108.3sqm of commercial floor space.

The surrounding developments include a range of developments in terms of scale, form, age and use. Adjoining the site to the north is a mixed-use building. The development consists of ground-floor tenancies with residential units above. To the south of the subject site is a two-storey commercial building with various tenancies. Located to the west is a mixed-use development with ground floor commercial/retail tenancies and residential units above. To the east (across) Northumberland Road is the Auburn RSL Club and car park recently approved for a 12 storey mixed-use building comprising of commercial tenancies on the ground floor and residential units above.

The subject site is located within the Auburn Town Centre in which a number of high-density commercial/residential developments exists.

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 change of use and fitout of an existing commercial tenancy (Unit 27) for a tutoring centre and associated business identification signs. The proposed hours of operation are 9:00am to 9:00pm, 7 days a week.

The fit out of the premises incorporates partitioning of the tenancy for the purposes of providing five (5) classrooms, a reception, tea and waiting area. The proposal is to take advantage of the existing ground floor facilities, being the unisex toilets and disabled toilets both provided within a common area. Unit 27 was originally approved as a commercial tenancy with a floor area of 108.3sqm (under DA-227/2013).

The existing mixed-use building incorporates a basement level parking in which a total of 2 car spaces have been allocated towards the commercial component (Unit 27 and Unit 26) of the building and 1 of the 2 car spaces have been allocated towards Unit 27.

The use of the tenancy will be supported by a maximum of 4 staff members and 34 students to cater for a maximum of an estimate of 38 persons between the hours of 9:00am to 9:00pm 7 days a week.

The classes expected to run within the tenancy include general tutoring subjects for primary and high school students and may be used for adult arts and crafts classes during day time school hours.

The applicant contends that the use of the tenancy will primarily be for those based within the Auburn locality whereas students will access the tenancy by foot or by Auburn Railway Station which is within 200 metres of the development.

The proposed use does not rely on the ongoing deliveries of goods/materials and therefore, loading and unloading areas will not be required. The proposed use is not seen to impact on the existing operation of Northumberland Road.

History

The existing eight (8) storey mixed-use building was approved under DA-279/2003 and DA-227/2013 which was approved dated 6 December 2004 and 17 March 2014 respectively. There have been a number of modification applications lodged with respect to DA-279/2003 which involved the internal and external alterations to the building. However, Unit 27 is vacant and has no previous approvals for a fit out or use of the premises.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Sam Romanous Architects dated 10 August 2018 and was received by Council on 16 August 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 and have advised that the development proposal is not supported due to the supposed shortfall of on-site car parking spaces. Discussion surrounding traffic and car parking is provided below and as result, the proposed development is supported subject to conditions imposed.

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)

Matter for Consideration	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
Conclusion: The proposed change of use does not alter the original conclusions (as nominated under DA-279/2003 and subsequent modifications) in terms of contamination or generate the requirement for any further analysis to be undertaken. Therefore, the application is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives and requirements of the SEPP.

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

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

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

The application is not subject to clause 85 of the ISEPP, because the subject site is not in or adjacent to a railway corridor.

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

The application is not subject to clause 86 of the ISEPP as the proposed redevelopment of the site does not involve excavation to a depth of at least 2m below ground level (existing), on land within, below or above a rail corridor, or within 25m (measured horizontally) of a rail corridor.

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

The subject site is located approximately 150 metres away from an active railway corridor and due to this distance, the application is not 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.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

The application is not subject to clause 101 of the ISEPP as the site has 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 is greater than 40,000 vehicles.

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

The application is not subject to clause 104 as the proposal does not trigger the requirements for traffic generating developments listed in Schedule 3 of the ISEPP.

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

The subject site does not adjoin land zoned or reserved for public open space.

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

The proposal does not involve the removal of any vegetation.

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

The subject site is identified as a coastal wetland or land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands” or land identified as such by the Coastal Vulnerability Area Map.

(f) State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage

The development application includes the erection of 4 signs as shown in the table below:

Type and detail of sign	Dimensions and Size	Quantity	Location
Sign 1: Wall Sign (printed on metal sheet)	1.3m x 1.5m with an area of 1.95sqm.	1	Entrance to basement car park – along the southern elevation of the building.
Sign 2: Under awning sign (illuminated box sign)	1.6m x 0.6m with an area of 0.96sqm.	1	Suspended from awning over pedestrian footpath along Northumberland Road.
Sign 3: Wall sign (printed on metal sheet)	2m x 0.7m with an area of 1.4sqm.	1	Structural column orientated towards the southern property at 20 Northumberland Road. Due to the number of signs proposed within close proximity to each other, this sign is not supported and will be conditioned to be removed.
Sign 4: Wall sign (printed sign)	0.4m x 0.6m with an area of 0.24sqm	1	Inside the building fixed on the wall at the entrance to Shop 27. This sign is not visible from the street.

A comprehensive assessment of SEPP 64 Schedule 1 is contained in Appendix 1.

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.

Local Environmental Plans

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010

The provisions of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 are applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zoning.

(a) Permissibility:-

The development application is for the change of use and fitout of an existing commercial tenancy to a tutoring centre with associated business identification signage. The proposed development is therefore, defined as a business premises (a type of commercial premises) and is permissible in the B4 – Mixed Use zone with consent.

A business premises means a building or place at or on which:

a) An occupation, profession or trade (other than an industry) is carried on for the provision of services directly to members of the public on a regular basis, or

b) A service is provided directly to members of the public on a regular basis,

And includes a funeral home and, without limitation, premises such as banks, post offices, hairdressers, dry cleaners, travel agencies, internet access facilities, betting agencies and the like, but does not include an entertainment facility, home business, home occupation (sex services), medical centre, restricted premises, sex service premises or veterinary hospital.

The relevant matters to be considered under Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.

Figure 4 – Auburn LEP 2010 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD	COMPLIANCE	DISCUSSION
4.3 Height of Buildings Maximum height of buildings: 32 metres	N/A	The maximum height of building is 32 metres. The development proposal does not involve changes to the existing height of building
4.4 Floor Space Ratio Maximum floor space ratio: 3.6:1	N/A	The maximum floor space ratio is 3.6:1. The development proposal involves the fitout of Unit 27 without modifying the existing floor space.
5.1 Heritage Conservation	N/A	The subject site is not a heritage item or is located within a heritage conservation area
6.3 Flood Planning	N/A	The subject site is not identified as being flood prone

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)

• 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 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 Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. It is noted that the development achieves general compliance with the key controls of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 and the following Parts of the ADCP 2010 are applicable to the proposed development and an assessment for each Part are as follows:

• Local Centres

• Parking and Loading

• Advertising and Signage Controls

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Appendix 2.

Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 - Parking and Loading

The Parking and Loading part of the ADCP 2010 has been considered in the assessment of the application.

The development proposes fitout of Unit 27 to a tutoring centre with a maximum of 38 persons including 4 staff to be onsite at any one time. It is noted that Unit 27 currently has a total of 1 allocated car parking space located at the basement level for visitors/staff vehicles.

A private tutoring centre falls under the definition of a ‘business premises’ and the umbrella term being ‘commercial premises’ as defined under Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. In this regard, a parking calculation of 108.3/40 applies, creating the need for 2.7 spaces (3 spaces).

1 car parking space was allocated to Unit 27 under the approved development of the building. It is noted that Section 7.11 Contributions was paid under DA-279/2003 in lieu of the shortfall of 6 commercial parking spaces for the building. Therefore, as the proposed change of use does not involve the increase in commercial floor space, no additional car spaces is required to be provided under ADCP 2010.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposal for a maximum of 38 persons to be onsite at any one time is considered to be excessive for a commercial premises of only 108.3sqm with 1 allocated car parking space and minimal sanitary/toilet facilities. The Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions for calculation of the number of facilities to be provided per occupant under the National Construction Code 2016 Volume One (NCC 2016 Volume One), have been utilised as a guide in determining a suitable number of persons for Unit 27. The current ground floor facilities include a total of 3 unisex toilets available for use between the two commercial tenancies. The NCC 2016 Volume One requires 1 toilet per 20 male employees, 1 toilet per 5 female employees, 1 toilet per 25 male students and 1 toilet per 10 female students. In this regard, it is recommended (and an agreement have been made between the applicant and Council) that the maximum number of students and staff proposed be reduced from 38 to 25 persons. This will minimise any potential noise and security concerns raised by the residents of the building.

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))

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 fourteen (14) days between 28 August 2018 and 11 September 2018. In response, 1 individual submission and 1 submission from KYS Properties Pty Ltd representing 11 units within the building and 1 petition involving 17 signatures was received. It is noted that the majority of the units’ occupants represented by KYS Properties Pty Ltd are signatories to the petition.

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

1. Issue: Signage – The proposed sign No.1 will be located where an existing sign approved under DA-508/2016.

Planner’s comment: The proposed under awning sign (Sign No. 2) is currently located approximately 600mm away from the existing sign for Unit 26. Therefore, Sign No. 2 will be conditioned to be shifted south to ensure a minimum distance of 1.5 metres from the existing sign is provided.

2. Issue: Lack of parking as there is too much hassle and very restricted parking spots available for existing tenants as not everyone in building got allocated parking inside the building.

Planner’s comment: Whilst 1 parking space is allocated to the tenancy under the Strata Plan, it is noted that the subject site is located within Auburn Town Centre and is within walking distance from public transport (Auburn Train Station). Due to the nature of the proposed use and also a condition of consent to reduce the maximum number of persons onsite, it is anticipated that the traffic generation would be minimal.

3. Issue: Breach of security and privacy as the current building is safe and no one else can enter into the building except tenants and authorised persons.

Planner’s comment: The lift to the residential apartments above the commercial premises will not be available for the use of the public. The applicant notes that access to above floors is currently controlled through the use of lift passes which is available to owners and residents within the building only.

4. Issue: Noise pollution as the tutoring centre basically brings more people into the building and as Unit 27 is inside the building it will be just going to create unnecessary noise.

Planner’s comment: The noise generated from the commercial use is considered minimal as the number of persons will be reduced from 38 to 25. Also, consideration to the proposed hours of operation have been made and as the mixed-use building is predominantly residential with adjoining residential developments, it is considered appropriate to reduce the weekend operating hours and impose a 12 months trial period for the proposed hours of operation being 9:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 7:00pm Saturdays and 10:00am to 5:00pm Sundays. The purpose of the trial period is to gauge the impact of the trading hours on the occupants of the building, management performance and consideration to any future complaints. Therefore, no late night operation have been proposed and no activity will be undertaken during the hours before 9:00am and after 9:00pm Monday to Friday, no later than 7:00pm on Saturdays and no later than 5:00pm on Sundays. This is considered to be sufficient in limiting noise impacts towards the residential use above and an appropriate condition have been included in the consent in this regard.

5. Issue: Restricted infrastructure as there is only one entry/exit point to the building and not much infrastructure available it will be creating unwanted traffic for existing tenants.

Planner’s comment: Residents and pedestrian activity is not considered to be adversely impacted from the proposed tutoring centre. The ground floor of the building have been previously approved for commercial uses and additional foot traffic on this level is expected.

6. Issue: Insufficient existing amenities and amenities are not intended for the use of the visitors to the building.

Planner’s comment: The toilet facilities located on the ground floor was approved for staff/visitors to the commercial tenancies and residents within the building under DA-279/2003 and subsequent modifications. It is noted that the maximum number of persons for Unit 27 have been reduced from 38 to 25 persons to cater to the limited number of facilities available onsite.

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

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 does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 7.11 Contributions Plans.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage, Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the B4 Mixed Use zone under the relevant provisions of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. The proposal is consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. 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.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

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

Communication / Publications:

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

Report Recommendation:

That Development Application No. DA-249/2018 for the change of use and fitout of an existing commercial tenancy (Unit 27) for a tutoring centre and associated business identification signs on land at Shop 27/22 Northumberland Road, AUBURN NSW 2144 be approved subject to attached conditions.

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

Attachments

1. SEPP 64 Compliance Table ⇩

2. ADCP 2010 Local Centres Compliance Table ⇩

3. Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

4. Architectural Plans ⇩

5. Submissions Received ⇩

Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

27 March 2019

Item No: EEEEEELPP013/19

Development Application - 70 Cardigan Street, Guildford

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: DA 2018/293

Application lodged	21 August 2018
Applicant	Baini Design
Owner	Khaled Chaouk
Application No.	DA 2018/293
Description of Land	70 Cardigan Street Guildford, lots 26 & 27, section 7, DP 734
Proposed Development (as amended)	Demolition of existing structures, consolidation of two lots into 1 lot and construction of a 4 storey boarding house accommodating 11 rooms and manager's accommodation, over basement parking accommodating 6 parking spaces and 2 motorcycle spaces
Site Area	442.6 m² (422.5 m² after road widening)
Zoning	R4 – High Density Residential
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	N/A
Principal Development Standards	FSR - 1.2:1 (1.7:1 with ARH bonus) Height of Building - 15 m
Issues	· SEPP ARH non-compliance o Local character o Landscaping o Motorbike and bicycle parking · Isolated site · Building separation · Public submissions (10)

Summary:

1. Development Application No. 2018/293 was received on 21 August 2018 for the demolition of existing structures, consolidation of two lots into 1 lot and construction of a 5 storey boarding house accommodating 13 rooms (20 lodgers) and a manager's room, over basement parking accommodating 7 parking spaces and 3 motorcycle spaces at 70 Cardigan Street Guildford.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 12 and 26 September 2018. In response, 10 submissions were received, including one petition with 4 names.

3. There are no heritage items in the vicinity of the subject site and the site is not located within a heritage conservation area.

vi)

4. Correspondence was sent to the applicant on 20 December 2018 advising that the application could not be supported, and inviting its withdrawal. That correspondence also set out Council’s concerns with the application in detail. The issues included excessive height, inadequate landscaped area, overshadowing impacts, and unacceptable streetscape presentation.

vii)

5. The applicant elected not to withdraw the application, and instead submitted (on 1 February 2019) additional information and amended plans to address the issues identified in the 20 December correspondence.

viii)

6. The amended plans provided for deletion of the top floor, compliance with the height standard, reduction in the number of boarding rooms from 13 to 11, reduction in the number of parking spaces from 7 to 6, and increased landscaping along the rear boundary.

ix)

7. The proposal involves the following numerical non-compliances which are not considered supportable as discussed elsewhere in this report:

xi)

xii) Control	xiii) Required	xiv) Provided	xv) % variation
xvi) Solar access to communal room	xvii) Minimum 3 hours	xviii) Less than 3 hours (unable to calculate)	xix) -
xx) Size of boarding room	xxi) Maximum 25 m²	xxii) 30.6 m²	xxiii) 22.4%
xxiv) Bike and motorbike parking	xxv) Minimum 3 spaces	xxvi) 2	xxvii) 33.3%
xxviii) Landscaped area (HDCP)	xxix) Minimum 30%	xxx) 8.7%	xxxi) 70.8%
xxxii) Solar access to adjacent dwellings (living area and POS) (HDCP)	xxxiii) Minimum 3 hours	xxxiv)0 hours	xxxv) 100%
xxxvi)Fill outside building envelope (HDCP)	xxxvii) Maximum 600 mm	xxxviii) 1000 mm	xxxix)66%
xl) Site coverage (HDCP)	xli) Maximum 30%	xlii) 35%	xliii) 17%
xliv) Building separation (HDCP)	xlv) Minimum 12 m	xlvi) 7 m	xlvii) 41.6%
xlviii) Basement setback (HDCP)	xlix) Minimum 3m	l) 410 mm	li) 86.3%
lii) Ceiling height (HDCP)	liii) Minimum 2.7 m	liv) 2.6 m	lv) 3.7%

8. The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons provided in the draft determination.

lvi)

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

Report:

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 70 Cardigan Street Guildford. The legal description of the site is lots 26 and 27, section 7, DP 734. The site is zoned R4 – High Density Residential under the provisions of HLEP 2013, as are all surrounding sites. The site has frontage of 13.41 m to Cardigan Street, and total area of 442.6 m2. The site area will be reduced to 422.5 m2 after the dedication of a 1.5 m strip of land along the Cardigan Street frontage for road widening.

The site is relatively flat, with a gentle cross slope to the north. There is one existing tree in the rear yard that is proposed to be removed as part of the subject application.

The site currently contains a single storey dwelling house and associated outbuildings. All existing structures are proposed to be demolished as part of the development. Surrounding sites are a mixture of one and two storey dwellings, and 2-3 storey residential flat buildings. The site on the opposite side of Cardigan Street is currently vacant.

Figure 1: Zoning map of subject site

Figure 2: Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3: Street view of subject site

Description of The Proposed Development

The proposal (as amended) is for demolition of existing structures, consolidation of two lots into 1 lot and construction of a 4 storey boarding house with 11 boarding rooms (accommodating 15 lodgers) and manager’s accommodation, over basement parking accommodating 6 parking spaces and 2 motorcycle spaces.

History

Date	Action
21 August 2018	Subject application lodged with Council
3 September 2018	Subject application referred to Council’s internal departments, and to NSW Police for review
10 to 27 September 2018	Subject application publicly notified. A total of 10 submissions were received.
20 December 2018	Correspondence sent to the applicant advising that the proposal could not be supported, and inviting withdrawal of the application. This correspondence set out Council’s concerns with the application in detail.
1 February 2019	The applicant submitted amended plans and additional information in response to the issues detailed in the correspondence dated 20 December 2018. The amended plans were not required to be renotified.
27 March 2019	Referred to CLPP for determination

The subject site was isolated when development application 2004/786 was approved for a flat building at 64-68 Cardigan Street. The developer of that project satisfied Council at the time that they had made reasonable attempts to purchase 70 Cardigan Street but the owner was not willing to sell. 70 Cardigan Street was sold to the current owner in 2015, after the surrounding flat buildings had been constructed.

A Pre-DA meeting was held 23 March 2016 for a 4 storey residential flat building with 6 units under SEPP (ARH) 2009. The Pre-DA notes provided following that meeting highlighted significant non-compliances with DCP and ADG controls and identified that the site was not suitable for that scale of development.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

The applicant provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 15 August 2018 in support of the application. Additional correspondence from Think Planners dated 31 January 2019 was submitted in support of the amended application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineering

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment. The response received 7 December 2018 advising that the proposed stormwater design is satisfactory, subject to conditions.

Traffic Engineering

The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment. The response received 15 October 2018 indicates that the proposal complies with the minimum parking requirements under the SEPP and that the access and manoeuvring arrangements are satisfactory subject to conditions.

Environmental Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment. The response received on 6 September 2018 indicates that the acoustic report submitted with the application was prepared in accordance with the NSW EPA Noise Policy for Industry. Subject to compliance with the recommendations of the acoustic report, and Council’s standard consent conditions, the EHO was satisfied that the proposal would perform adequately in terms of its impacts on surrounding properties during the demolition, construction and use phases of the development.

Landscape and Tree Management

The application was referred to Council’s Landscape and Tree Management Officer for comment. Response received 11 December 2018 recommends that the application be deferred seeking additional setback from the rear boundary of a minimum 2 m to allow for planting of suitable screening trees (minimum 6 m mature height). These issues were addressed by the applicant’s amended plans which provide for a 2 m setback (from the BBQ area) to the rear boundary, and planting of 4 x medium sized trees within that setback.

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment. The response received 11 September 2018 recommended that the application be deferred as the gradient of the driveway would require provision of a bin tug for transferring bins from the basement to the collection point. The amended plans submitted by the applicant provide for a bin tug.

External Referrals

Sydney Water

The application was referred to Sydney Water for comment due to the proximity of the development to existing Sydney Water assets. The response received on 24 December 2018 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

NSW Police

The application was referred to NSW Police for a Safer by Design Evaluation. The response dated 24 September 2018 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

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

(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. Refer to the DCP compliance table for further comment.

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

The subject site is not identified as a coastal wetland and is not or land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands”.

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

BASIX certificate number 949112M dated 17 August 2018 prepared by Outsource Ideas P/L was submitted with the application. The project achieves the target scores and is consistent with the architectural plans.

(e) State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The proposed development is defined as a ‘boarding house’ under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The non-compliances with the SEPP (ARH) have been detailed in the following table.

Clause	Yes	No	N/A	Comment
Part 2 New Affordable Rental Housing - Division 3 Boarding Houses
29 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent (2) A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:
landscaped area if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located,				The landscape treatment of the front setback area is considered to be incompatible with the streetscape in which the building is located. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
solar access where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,				On the basis of the information provided, it appears that the communal room will receive less than 3 hours direct solar access between 9 am and 12 pm at mid-winter. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
30 Standards for boarding houses (1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following:
(b) no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres,				Rooms 4 and 7 have gross floor area greater than 25m². This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
(d) adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger,				Each room has its own bathroom and kitchenette. However, the kitchen facilities do not appear to be adequate given that there is no communal kitchen provided. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
(h) at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.				A minimum or 2.2 (3) motorbike and 2.2 (3) bicycle spaces are required. Only two bicycle and two motorbike spaces are proposed. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
30A Character of local area Consent must not be granted unless the proposal is consistent with the character of the local area.				The proposal is not consistent with the character of the local area and this is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

Character of The Local Area

A consent authority must not consent to development for the purpose of a boarding house unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

The SEPP (ARH) does not contain any guidance for assessing whether a proposal is compatible with the character of the local area. However, a planning principle for assessing compatibility in the urban environment was established by Senior Commissioner Roseth of the Land and Environment Court in the judgement for Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191. This involves asking the following two questions:

· Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

· Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

A merit assessment of the character of the local area should consider the following 3 steps:

· Step 1 – Identify the ‘local area’.

· Step 2 – Identify the character of the ‘local area’.

· Step 3 – Determine whether the design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the ‘local area’.

An assessment against each step is provided below:

Step 1 – Identify the ‘local area’

The local area is identified in the map below as the area within the yellow lines.

Step 2 – Identify the character of the ‘local area’.

All sites within the local area are zoned R4 – High Density Residential pursuant to HLEP 2013.

Whilst there are a number of one and two storey dwellings within the locality, the area is transitioning to higher density developments in accordance with the planning controls that currently apply. The area is subject to a maximum height limit of 15 m and maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.2:1. The emerging character of the area is generally that of small, (3-4) storey residential flat buildings.

Step 3 – Determine whether the design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the ‘local area’

The following questions assist in determining whether a building is compatible with its surroundings:

· Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable?

The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

In terms of the physical impacts of the development:

o The proposal has site coverage equal to 35% of the total site area. HDCP 2013 provides for maximum site coverage of 30% of total site area for residential flat buildings. Whilst the proposal is not for a residential flat building, the controls in the DCP for residential flat buildings are helpful in establishing the desired built form for the area. The excessive site coverage is associated with limited side setbacks and inadequate landscaping to the side boundaries. Together, these non-compliances result in unacceptable visual and acoustic privacy outcomes for occupants of the existing adjoining dwellings, as well as occupants of the proposed boarding house.

lvii)

o Shadows from the proposed development fall on the property to the south (72-78 Cardigan Street), resulting in two of the existing north facing units receiving no solar access at mid-winter.

lviii)

· Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

The subject site and surrounding properties are subject to a 4 storey control under HDCP 2013. The surrounding flat buildings sit well below the 15 m height limit, and the majority (including all the buildings within the visual catchment of the subject site) have a maximum of 3 storeys. The proposal as amended has 4 storeys, which complies with the maximum number of storeys control. The amended proposal also complies with the height standard. However, the proposal has a tall, narrow form; in strong contrast to the surrounding flat buildings which are provided with much wider frontages and more generous side setbacks.

The existing flat buildings in the locality are sensitively designed with articulation to all facades, deep balconies to the street, and either skillion or hipped roof forms which provide a clear ‘top’ for the building and shade for the upper floor habitable rooms. The proposal does not replicate or respond appropriately to any of the positive elements in the streetscape.

The ground level of the proposed building is elevated approximately 1 m above street level which does not allow for disabled access to the building from street level.

Given the very narrow width of the site, the front setback area is comprised mostly of hard paved surfaces. Both side setbacks are also paved almost to the boundary. This is inconsistent with the prevailing landscape character of the area, and does not serve to soften the visual impact of the development either from the street, or from the adjacent properties.

In summary, the design and presentation of the proposed development, as well as its relationship to the site and the surrounding developments is not considered to be in harmony with the character of the local area. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

(f) Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

HLEP 2013 applies to the proposed development. The proposed development is permitted with consent in the R4 – High Density Residential zone that applies to the land, and complies with all the relevant development standards under HLEP 2013. A detailed compliance table is provided at attachment 2.

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

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

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

The Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the HLEP 2013.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is provided at attachment 3. The following table highlights the DCP non-compliances, most of which are not considered supportable as detailed below:

Figure 6 – HDCP 2013 Compliance Table

No.		Clause		Comment	Yes	No	N/A
PART A – GENERAL CONTROLS
3.5		Access, Maneuvering and Layout
		Driveways shall be setback a minimum of 1.5m from the side boundary.		The amended plans provide for a 1.2 m setback from the driveway to the southern boundary. This is considered satisfactory as the site has limited frontage and there are no opportunities for amalgamation with adjacent sites. The setback provided is suitably landscaped with screening trees.
4		Tree and Landscape Works
		Provide landscaping that enhances the streetscape and setting of development, incorporating a mix of trees, shrubs and ground covers planted appropriately and where necessary, providing essential screening or solar access roles.	The proposed landscaping of the front and side setbacks is considered unsatisfactory as it does not provide appropriate screening to the property boundaries. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
6		Soil Management
6.3		Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
		A detailed erosion and sediment control plan was not submitted with the application. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
PART B – RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS
1	GENERAL RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS
1.5	Landscape Area
	Min. 30% for a residential flat building. Required: 422.5 m² x 30% = 126.75 m²		8.7% (36.9 m²) with 2 m dimensions 19.9% (84.2 m²) with no minimum dimensions This is significantly less than the required minimum and is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
1.8	Sunlight Access
	1 main living area of existing adjacent dwellings to receive 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 4pm, 22 June.		The proposal will overshadow the living areas of the ground and first floor units of the adjacent development at 72-78 Cardigan Street such that they receive no solar access at mid-winter.
	Min. 50% of required POS of existing adjacent dwellings to receive 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 4pm, 22 June.		The proposal will overshadow the POS of ground and first floor units of the adjacent development at 72-78 Cardigan Street such that they receive no solar access at mid-winter.
1.9	Cut and Fill
	Fill 600 mm or greater is to be contained within the building envelope.		The proposal involves up to 1 m of fill directly adjacent to the northern side boundary, and within the front setback. This is considered excessive and is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
1.11	Vehicular Access and Driveways
	All new driveways should be located at least 1.5 m from side property boundaries		VC is 1.2 m from the side boundary which is less than the required minimum. As detailed above, this is considered satisfactory in the circumstances.
	Maximum gradient to be 20%		Maximum gradient is 25%
6.0	Residential Flat Buildings Whilst there are no specific DCP controls for boarding houses in HDCP 2013, the controls for residential flat buildings in Part B are relevant to the assessment in that they establish the desired future character of the area with regard to building form and the relationship of buildings to the site.
6.1	Lot Size and Frontage
	Minimum lot frontage for residential flat buildings is 24m or 28m		Cardigan Street frontage is 13.41 m
	Maximum site coverage of any residential flat development shall not exceed 30%		The proposal has a site coverage of 35% (148.4 / 422.5). This is considered excessive and is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
6.3	Setbacks and Separation
	Minimum rear setback required: Up to four storeys – 20% Five storeys or more – 30%		Required = 6.406 m Proposed = 6 m This is a minor non-compliance and is considered satisfactory in the circumstances. See also comment under building separation below.
6.4	Building separation
	Minimum building separation For residential up to 4 storeys · 12m between habitable rooms and balconies · 9m between habitable rooms and balconies and non-habitable rooms · 6m between non-habitable rooms For residential between 5-8 storeys · 18 m between habitable rooms and balconies · 13 m between habitable rooms and balconies and non-habitable rooms · 9 m between non-habitable rooms.		East Existing 4 storey RFB at 71-75 Clyde Street has a setback to the common boundary of approximately 4 m. As such, resultant building separation is 10 m which does not comply. This is considered satisfactory as the proposal provides for its share of building separation in this case, and adequate landscaping is provided along the boundary. South Existing 4 storey RFB at 72-78 Cardigan Street has setback of approximately 4.5 m to the common boundary. The resultant building separation is 7.5 m which does not comply with the control. Given the lack of landscaping provided within the setback, and the adverse overshadowing impacts detailed above, this is considered unsupportable and is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination. North Existing RFB at 64-68 Cardigan Street has setback of approximately 4 m to the common boundary. The resultant building separation is 7 m which does not comply with the control. Given the lack of landscaping provided within this setback and resultant visual and acoustic privacy impacts, the non-compliance is not considered supportable.
	Side and rear boundary setbacks shall be landscaped and may include private courtyards, communal open space and clothes drying facilities		The amended plans provide for a suitably landscaped rear setback. However, there is no screen planting provided to either of the side setbacks. This will have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining properties.
	The minimum setback for basement and semi-basement levels to side and rear boundaries of an allotment is 3 m		2.166 m setback provided between basement and rear boundary. Side setbacks range from 410 mm and 1 m. The proposed rear setback is considered supportable despite the minor non-compliance. However, the side setbacks are associated with inadequate deep soil landscaping which results in poor amenity for the surrounding properties as well as the proposed development.
	Building height
	The minimum floor to ceiling heights shall be: · 2.7 metres for habitable rooms. · 2.4 metres for non-habitable rooms. 2.4 metres for the second storey section of two storey units if 50% or more of the apartment has a 2.7 metre minimum ceiling height.		The proposal will not achieve 2.7 m ceiling heights as the allowance between floors is only 2.95 m. This will result in inadequate internal amenity for occupants of the proposed boarding rooms.
6.7	Building appearance
	Facades to be composed with an appropriate scale, rhythm and proportion		The design is not in harmony with the existing residential flat buildings on adjacent sites, being significantly higher and lacking in articulation to the façade.
	Roof design is to respond to the orientation of the site through using eaves and skillion roofs to respond to sun access.		Parapet roof form proposed which does not provide any protection from northerly or westerly solar access.
6.8	Building entry and pedestrian access
	Main building entry is to be separate from car park entry		Separate pedestrian path provided, however there is no allowance for disabled access. This issue was raised in the correspondence sent to the applicant on 20 December and has not been addressed. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination
7.0	Controls for landlocked sites
	Developing existing land locked sites
	Development proposals involving existing land locked and isolated sites shall be assessed on their merit. Proposals shall achieve a satisfactory level of amenity, privacy, solar access, landscaping and setbacks and shall not detract from the character of the streetscape. Note: • It is likely that development of existing isolated sites may not achieve the maximum FSR & height potential. • An existing landlocked site is a site that is limited in its development potential by either an existing higher density development or an existing, current development consent for higher density development and is unable to be consolidated with adjoining properties for residential flat development due to such development or consents.		The proposed development does not achieve a satisfactory level of solar access, privacy or amenity for either the existing adjacent dwellings or the proposed development. The proposed development does not respect the character of the streetscape, and is inappropriate for the site. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

Council’s Social Impact Assessment Policy

Under Council’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Policy, a Social Impact Comment is required to be submitted for this type of development. The proposal is however, exempt from the requirement to provide a Comprehensive Social Impact Assessment as there are fewer than 50 dwellings proposed.

A Social Impact Comment was submitted with the application and concludes that the proposed development will not have unreasonable/ negative social impacts in the locality. If consent were to be granted, a condition could be imposed requiring the preparation and implementation of an operational plan of management for the facility to manage any ongoing impacts.

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, other than the provisions of AS2601. If consent were to be granted, standard conditions could be imposed to require demolition to be carried out in accordance with AS 2601.

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

It is considered that the proposed development will have adverse environmental impacts in the locality, having regard to the inadequate setbacks, lack of landscaping and inappropriate built form. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

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

The subject site is not considered suitable for the proposed development, having regard to the limited setbacks and adverse overshadowing impacts as detailed elsewhere in the report. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

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 Part E of the HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 12 and 26 September 2018. The notification generated 10 submissions, including a petition with 4 names, in respect of the proposal with none disclosing a political donation or gift. The issues raised in the public submissions are addressed below:

Figure 4 – Submissions response table

Issue	Response
· Traffic flow and parking · Already saturated parking capacity on Cardigan Street · Congestion and safety issues, nearby intersection · Two existing on street car spaces will be lost	The application was accompanied by a Traffic & Parking Report prepared by Stanbury Traffic Planning. The Report concludes that: · The subject site is well located with regard to public transport, · The proposed development complies with the minimum number of parking spaces required for this type of development (pursuant to SEPP ARH), and · The proposed development will not have any unreasonable impact on the existing operational performance of the surrounding local road network. The application was reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer who advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.
Transient environment – concern for safety of children and property	The proposed development raises no concerns regarding the safety of children or property.
Proposed building is out of character – all other buildings do not exceed three storeys	The subject site, and all surrounding sites, are subject to a 4 storey, 15 m height limit. The proposal as amended complies with the number of storeys control. However, as detailed elsewhere in this report it is considered out of character with the local area, partly due to the number of storeys proposed, and as such is recommended for refusal.
Safety and privacy impacts associated with high turnover of residents	Boarding house developments generally do not raise any particular safety or privacy concerns for neighbouring properties. However, in this case, the visual and acoustic impacts of the development in the locality are considered unacceptable and this is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
Devaluation of property	This is not matters for consideration in the evaluation of a development application pursuant to section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
Overshadowing of existing dwellings to the south and associated increase in energy consumption lix) Shadow analysis required to correctly assess this issue.	The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant demonstrate that the proposed development will result in the overshadowing of existing units at 72-78 Cardigan Street. This does not comply with the control under HDCP 2013 which requires that new developments provide for existing adjacent dwellings to achieve at least 3 hours direct solar access at mid-winter. This is included as a reason for refusal
Impact on privacy of existing dwellings and communal open space	The amended plans provide for · 2 m high privacy screening along the southern edge of the common circulation space at levels 1-3 · High sill windows to the boarding rooms on the northern elevation, and · Additional screen planting along the rear (eastern) boundary. These measures are not considered adequate to ensure visual and acoustic privacy to the proposed development, or existing developments on neighbouring sites. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
Inadequacy of parking survey – conducted on one day up to 6 pm only (does not account for the number of cars parked in the evening) lx) Cumulative impact of new developments on availability of parking	The assessment and determination of this application does not rely on the information provided in the traffic and parking assessment provided by the applicant. As detailed elsewhere, the proposal complies with the minimum parking requirements under the SEPP ARH and is considered satisfactory in this regard. A consent authority cannot refuse an application for inadequate car parking if it complies with the minimum number of spaces required under the SEPP. The proposal does not comply with the minimum number of motorbike and bicycle parking spaces required under the SEPP, and this is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
Concern regarding the type of lodgers Which organisation would I need to contact regarding the proposed boarding house? Is this boarding house for short or long term tenants?	The operator of the boarding house would be free to determine, in consultation with any prospective lodger, any length of stay that is greater than 3 months. Any questions or complaints regarding the boarding house would be directed to the on-site manager.
Once construction commences, would fumigation of neighbouring residences be considered?	There is no requirement under any of the relevant plans or policies for the applicant to fumigate neighbouring residences. Council would not impose a condition to require fumigation if consent were to be granted.
Shadow diagrams do not accurately show the amount of overshadowing from the proposed development. Shadow diagrams do not take into account shadows from existing developments	Updated shadow diagrams were submitted with the amended plans. However, the extent of overshadowing from the existing developments on the proposed boarding house is still unclear. The amended shadow diagrams indicate that ground and first floor units at 72-78 Cardigan Street would be overshadowed by the proposed development throughout the day. This does not comply with the relevant controls under HDCP 2013 and is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
Loss of view/outlook from existing dwellings	The proposed development will not impact on any significant views currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties. The proposal will have an adverse impact on the outlook from some existing residential units which face the subject site. Some impact on the outlook currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties is to be expected, given the R4 zoning of the site. However, given the height and bulk of the proposed development, and the limited dimensions of the subject site, the proposed development is not considered supportable in this instance.
Privacy impact from level 5 windows Proposed building is too close and short term residents will have less concern about the impact on neighbours	The amended plans submitted by the applicant deleted the entire top floor (level 5). All habitable rooms facing side boundaries have high sill windows and as such will not permit overlooking of neighbouring properties. Visual privacy impacts are not heightened where neighbouring buildings are occupied by short term residents.
Short term residents will not be good neighbours and one on site manager will not be sufficient to control the other residents. High possibility of risks and conflicts	The proposal is for a boarding house which, if approved, would provide for 11 affordable rental housing units. There is no information available to suggest that boarding houses cause risks to public safety or are associated with criminal or anti-social activity. A plan of management (POM) was submitted with the application. This document deals with matters such as maintenance and use of common areas, waste management, emergency procedures and resolution of complaints. The POM would be endorsed in the consent if the application were to be approved.
Commercial nature of boarding house. More activities than usual (suppliers/cleaners/staffs)	A boarding house is a permissible land use in the R4 – High Density Residential zone.
Proximity of vehicular access point to driveway on adjacent property – high level risks	The proposed vehicular access arrangements have been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and are considered satisfactory. Standard conditions are included in the determination to require compliance with the relevant Australian Standards.
Inadequacy of traffic and parking assessment · Traffic volume analysis inaccurate · Peak hour is 6-9 pm, not 4-6pm · Parking on nature strips · Unauthorised parking within the basement of neighbouring apartment building. · Placement of volume sensing equipment near 50 Cardigan St (where the traffic volume is lower) · No assessment of ‘street parking’	The traffic and parking assessment submitted by the applicant demonstrates that; · The proposal complies with the minimum on site parking requirements of the SEPP (ARH), · the proposal complies, or can comply with relevant Australian Standards regarding the design of the vehicular access and parking areas, · confirms that the local road network can accommodate the additional vehicle trips generated by the proposed development. Any unauthorised parking within neighbouring buildings or on nature strips, is not relevant to the assessment of the subject application.
Impacts on local stormwater and sewerage management systems	The proposal incorporates an on site stormwater detention system as required by Council’s OSD policy. The proposal was reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer and is considered satisfactory. The sewerage system is owned and operated by Sydney Water. The application was referred to Sydney Water for comment and the response received 24 December 2018 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to standard conditions.
Amenity impacts during demolition and construction	If consent were to be granted, standard conditions would be imposed requiring compliance with standards for noise emissions, hours of work for demolition and construction work, and implementation of erosion and sediment control measures. Subject to compliance with those conditions, the demolition and construction phases of the development would have acceptable amenity impacts in the locality.
Land is only big enough for houses	The land is zoned R4 – High Density Residential. Dwelling houses are a prohibited land use in the R4 zone. The development as proposed is considered unsuitable for the subject site. However, a smaller boarding house or flat building would be an appropriate outcome for the site, given the zoning provisions and development standards that apply.
Notification inadequate, many residents did not receive the notification letter, the site sign was removed/vandalised by the current residents in the house. Letter dated 10 September not received until 18 September	The application was publicly notified in accordance with the relevant requirements of Part E – Public Participation of HDCP 2013. This included sending written notices to the owners and occupiers of surrounding sites, placement of a sign on the site, and placement of an advertisement in the local paper. Standard procedures were followed by Council staff in notifying the application and the notification generated ten public submissions.
The proposed tree planting is magnificent and beautiful – please make sure it gets looked after and not just killed	If consent were to be granted, standard conditions would be imposed to require that the landscaping works shown on the plans be carried out prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.
Streetscape elevation is misleading as it makes it seem as though the proposed building is the same height as 72-78 Cardigan Street, even though that building is 5 m shorter. The top floor is not visible in the image.	A streetscape elevation plan was submitted by the applicant with the amended plans. This elevation more clearly illustrates the difference in building height, bulk and scale of the proposed development compared to the surrounding buildings.
Visual privacy impacts resulting from limited physical separation.	The applicant submitted amended plans which provided for high sill windows to habitable rooms on the northern elevation to address visual privacy concerns. However, this is considered to be an inappropriate response as it results in poor amenity for the boarding rooms.
Provision for on site manager proves that the residents will be uncontrollable	Provision of an on-site manager is not required where there are fewer than 20 lodgers (15 proposed in this case). However, the proposal includes one room for an on-site manager which is considered good practice for a boarding house development, in order to ensure that the facility is operated in accordance with the plan of management.
Rubbish from the current occupant/s	The proposal includes the demolition of all existing structures on site and construction of a new building. Any issues relating to the waste disposal habits of the existing occupants would cease if the application were to be approved, and the taken up.
High number of visitors associated with short term residents.	There is no evidence available to suggest that visitor numbers are higher for boarding houses than for other types of residential development.
No parking provided for visitors, staff, delivery and service people Inadequate parking provided for residents.	The SEPP ARH contains the requirements for off street parking to be provided for this type of development. As detailed elsewhere in this report, the proposal complies with the minimum parking requirements and the consent authority cannot refuse an application on parking grounds where it meets the minimum requirements in the SEPP.
Noise impacts during ongoing operations	Standard conditions could be imposed to address this issue if consent were to be granted.
Size of proposed development is excessive, given the size of the land	The height and bulk of the proposed development is considered inappropriate for the size of the site. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
Impact on lighting and ventilation of existing neighbouring dwellings	The proposal will not affect ventilation of existing neighbouring dwellings. However, there will be adverse overshadowing impacts on the existing building to the south. As detailed elsewhere, this is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
Proposed building is too large and out of character	As detailed elsewhere in this report, the proposed development is considered incompatible with the character of the local area, given its height and the limited side setbacks proposed, as well as the design of the building itself. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
Pressure on public amenities such as library, pools and shops from increased population density	The provision and improvement of local amenities and services is detailed in the Holroyd Section 94 Contributions Plan 2013. If consent were to be granted, a condition would be imposed requiring the payment of contributions, in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Contributions Plan.
Approval of the subject application would set an undesirable precedent for more 5 storey buildings in the locality	The amended plans submitted by the applicant provided for deletion of the top storey. The proposal as amended is for a four storey building.

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

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the approval of the development application would be contrary to the public interest.

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

The proposed development attracts the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Contributions Plan 2013.

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

· 14 occupants (6392 x 14) - $89,488

· Minus credit for the existing 3 bedroom dwelling - $20,000

· Total = $69,488

If consent were to be granted, a condition could be imposed requiring the payment of the contributions prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

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, SEPP (ARH), HLEP 2013, HDCP 2013. The proposal is incompatible with the character of the local area, and does not meet the requirements for motorbike and bicycle parking, maximum size of boarding rooms, and provision of adequate kitchen facilities as detailed in the SEPP (ARH). Accordingly, the application must be refused. The proposal also fails to meet the minimum standards for landscaping and solar access under the SEPP, and is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to a number of relevant controls under HDCP 2013. These merit issues constitute additional reasons for refusal. Whilst a boarding house is permitted with consent in the R4 zone, and is appropriate in this location given the proximity to transport and services, the design of the proposed development does not respond appropriately to the constraints of the narrow site and would have unacceptable impacts on the streetscape and on surrounding properties.

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:

1. That Development Application No. 2018/293 for demolition of existing structures, consolidation of two lots into 1 lot and construction of a 4 storey boarding house accommodating 11 rooms and a manager's room, over basement parking accommodating 6 parking spaces and 2 motorcycle spaces on land at 70 Cardigan Street Guildford be refused for the reasons listed in the draft determination.

lxi)

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

Attachments

1. SEPP ARH 2009 Compliance Table ⇩

2. HLEP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

3. HDCP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

4. Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

5. Architectural Plans ⇩

6. Redacted Public Submissions ⇩

Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

27 March 2019

Item No: EEEEEELPP014/19

Development Application for 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: 2018/283/1

Application lodged	10 August 2018
Applicant	Baini Design
Owner	Mr G and Mrs R Ishac
Application No.	2018/283/1
Description of Land	22 Austral Avenue, Westmead (Lot 2 in DP 35155)
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 43 place child care centre over basement parking accommodating 16 parking spaces
Site Area	793.45m²
Zoning	R2 – Low Density Residential
Principal Development Standards	· Floor Space Ratio – 0.5:1 (HLEP 2013) · Height of Buildings – 9m
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	No, within vicinity of heritage items
Issues	- Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space - Car parking ratio - Landscape area - Cut and fill - Basement and driveway setbacks - Site frontage

Summary:

1. On 28 March 2018 a pre-lodgement meeting was held at Cumberland Council for a 47 place childcare centre at the subject site.

2. Development Application 2018/283/1 was received on 10 August 2018 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 47 place child care centre over basement parking accommodating 16 parking spaces.

3. The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 14 days from 12 September 2018 to 26 September 2018. In response, 33 submissions and 1 petition containing 55 signatures were received. One of the submissions received was submitted without the individual’s consent and has been since withdrawn.

4. Council through its assessment identified a number of concerns with the proposal, and requested amended plans and additional information on 9 January 2019.

5. Amended plans and additional information were received on 8 February and 4 March 2019 addressing some of Council’s concerns. The proposal was publicly re-notified for 7 days from 19 February 2019 to 26 February 2019. In response, 9 submissions were received.

6. Development Application 2018/283/1, as amended, proposes for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 43 place child care centre over basement parking accommodating 16 parking spaces.

7. There are non-compliances with the proposed development having considered the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Child Care Planning Guideline (the Guideline) 2017, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

8. The proposed development seeks following notable variations:

Control	Required	Provided	%age variation
Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space (regulation 108 SEPP 2017 and part 4.9 the Guideline)	7m²x 43 = 301m²	329m² (including OSD pits, retaining walls and dense planting) Assessing officer’s calculation = 271.2m²/7 = 38.7 children Recommendation = reduce number of children to 38	9.9%
Car parking ratio (DCP)	Visitor = 11 Staff = 4	Visitor = 8 Staff = 8	N/A
Landscape area	Min. 25% = 198.3m²	15.9% (126.3m²)	36.3%
Cut and fill (DCP)	Fill within 900mm of side boundary – max 300mm	839mm – 944mm (western boundary)	179% - 214%
Setbacks from side boundary (DCP)	Basement – 900mm Driveway – 1.5m	Basement – 448mm (east) – 800mm (west) Driveway – 1m	50.2% - 11.1% 33.3%
Site frontage (DCP)	20m	18.59m	5.25%

9. The application has been referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination due to the number of submissions received during the notification period.

10. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions provided in the Draft Notice of Determination held at Attachment 1.

Report:

Introduction

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead, and is legally described as Lot 2 in DP 35155. The site is located on the southern side of Austral Avenue. The site is a rectangular block with a frontage of 18.59m, depth of 42.67m and a total site area of 793.45m² (by calculation). Existing improvements on the site include a single-storey dwelling with detached garage/outbuildings at the rear. Adjoining developments consist a mixture of one to two storey detached and attached dwelling houses, with the exception of one storey attached units on the north-western side of the site. Older housing stock is being replaced by contemporary-style development. Heritage item inter-war bungalows at 15-19 Austral Avenue and 5-9 Moree Avenue are situated on the north-eastern side of the site. Heritage item Westmead Public School is located within 280m walking distance to the site. Council’s Austral Avenue Reserve is located towards the eastern side of the site. The subject site and all other lots on Austral Avenue are zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Westmead Railway Station is located within 600m walking distance of the site.

Locality Plan

Figure 1: 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead (Locality)

Aerial Plan

Figure 2: 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead (Aerial)

Heritage Items

Figure 3: Heritage items in vicinity (15, 17 and 19 Austral Avenue, 5-9 Moree Avenue, and 150 Hawkesbury Road, Westmead)

Site photo

Figure 4: 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead

Description of the Proposed Development

The proposed development, as amended, involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 43 place child care centre over basement parking accommodating 16 parking spaces.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

· Demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings.

· Construction of a two-storey child care facility accommodating 43 children.

· Construction of a basement level car parking area accommodating 16 car parking spaces, for staff and visitors (including 1 accessible space).

· The facility will accommodate 43 children, as follows:

o 8 children – 0-2 yrs

o 15 children – 2-3 yrs

o 20 children – 3-5 yrs

· The proposed centre will operate from 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and will employ 7 staff.

· It is also proposed to remove existing trees on site to accommodate the proposed development.

· There is no signage proposed as part of the application.

· Underground OSD system and open swale channel are proposed on site.

History

Date	Action
28/03/2018	Pre-lodgement for 47 place child care centre.
10/08/2018	Development Application 2018/283 was lodged.
3/09/2018	The application was reviewed by Council’s DA Review team (DART)
3/09/2018	The application was referred to Council’s internal departments for review.
12/09/2018 to 26/09/2018	The application was placed on public notification for 14 days, during which time 33 submissions and 1 petition containing 55 signatures were received. One of the submissions received was submitted without the individual’s consent and has been since withdrawn.
20/12/2018	Application was deferred due to non-compliances with SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Child Care Planning Guideline 2017, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013, and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013.
8/02/2019	Amended plans and additional information were received by Council.
By 4/03/2019	Internal referrals for amended design were received.
19/02/2019 to 26/02/2019	The application was placed on public re-notification for 7 days, during which time 9 submissions were received.
27/03/2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

The applicant provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd dated 31 July 2018 and 8 February 2019 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

Referral	Comment
Development Engineer	Considered supportable subject to conditions.
Tree Management Officer	Considered supportable subject to conditions.
Traffic Engineer	Considered supportable subject to conditions.
Waste Management Officer	Considered supportable subject to conditions.
Environmental Health Officer	Considered supportable subject to conditions.
Children’s Services	Considered supportable subject to conditions.

External Referrals

N/A

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

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

Matters for consideration	Yes	No	N/A
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?
Is the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g.: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?
Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site? acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation.
Is the site listed on Council's Contaminated Land Database?
Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?
Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?
Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?
Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site: In relation to clause 7(4) of SEPP 55, the land of concerned is not located within an investigation area (clause 7(4)(a)), development for the a purpose referred to in Table 1 of the Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines is not known to have been carried out on the land (clause 7(4)(b), and historic zoning controls of the land did not make lawful the carrying out of activities nominated in Table 1. Based on these considerations, clauses 7(2) and 7(3) of SEPP 55 have no application. The site is not identified in Council’s records as being contaminated. A site inspection reveals the site does not have any obvious history of a previous land use that may have caused contamination and there is no specific evidence that indicates the site is contaminated. On this basis, SEPP 55 has no further application. Notwithstanding, a soil assessment report is required in accordance with the Child Care Planning Guideline issued by NSW Department of Planning and Environment. Council’s Environmental Health Unit has reviewed the proposal and considered satisfactory subject to imposition of condition with regard to submission of an environmental site assessment prior to issue of construction certificate.

(b) State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

The relevant provisions of the SEPP have been considered in the assessment of the Application.

It is noted that State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments And Child Care Facilities) 2017 commenced on 1 September 2017. The SEPP applies to any proposals for new schools or child care centres or proposed alterations and additions to existing centres. The relevant provisions of the SEPP have been considered in the assessment of the Application.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Appendix A, which indicates that there are non-compliances with the SEPP 2017 with regard to number of children proposed and outdoor unencumbered space as under:

Control	Required	Provided
Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space (regulation 108 SEPP 2017 and part 4.9 the Guideline)	7m²x 43 = 301m²	The application indicates that an unencumbered area of 329m² is provided. However, this has not taken consideration of OSD pits, retaining walls and dense planting. The assessment officer’s calculation of the unencumbered outdoor space equates to 271.2m². This will accommodate only 38.7 children. This report recommends a condition to be imposed on any consent granted seeking a reduction in number of children to 38.

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

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

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

(a) Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013

The proposed development is defined as a ‘centre based child care facility’ under the provisions of Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013. Centre based child care facilities are a permissible land use with consent under the R2 – Low Density Residential zoning applying to the land under Holroyd LEP 2013.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Appendix B which demonstrates the development proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning controls that are applicable to the site under the Holroyd LEP 2013.

The provisions of any draft Environmental Planning Instruments (EP & A Act Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii))

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

The provisions of any Development Control Plans (Environmental Planning & Assessment Act Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii))

(b) Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013

The Holroyd DCP 2013 provides guidance for the design and operation of development within Holroyd to achieve the aims and objectives of Holroyd LEP 2013.

The proposed development is generally compliant with the relevant provisions. Parts A, B & I apply to the proposal. A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report at Appendix C which demonstrates the development proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning controls that are applicable to the site.

The assessment provided in Appendix C indicates that there are some minor non-compliances with the HDCP 2013 with regard to car parking, landscape area, cut and fill, basement and driveway setbacks, and site frontage.

No.	Clause	Comment	Yes	No	N/A
PART A – GENERAL CONTROLS
2	Roads and Access
3	Car Parking
3.1	Minimum Parking Spaces
3.1	1 per 4 children & 1 per two employees. No of children – 43 / 4 = 10.75 (11) No. of employees = 7/2 = 3.5 (4) Total Required: 15	16 car parking spaces provided within basement level. Staff = 8 Visitor = 8 Condition is to be imposed to ensure the car parking spaces allocation is in accordance to the ratio applies, which is at least 11 spaces for visitor parking. To be conditioned
3.5	Access, Manoeuvring and Layout
3.5	Driveways shall be setback a minimum of 1.5m from the side boundary.	The proposed driveway is setback 1m from the eastern side boundary which is less than what is required. Setback shortfall of 0.5m is considered acceptable given the proposed width of the two way driveway will ensure safe vehicular movement.
PART B – RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS
1	GENERAL RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS
1.5	Landscape Area Min. 25% = 198.3m²	Area of 15.9% (126.3m²) is provided with min 2m dimension. Variation to the landscaped area is acceptable given that the rear yard is also required for unencumbered outdoor space for the child care centre.
1.9	Cut and Fill	Elevated level along western side boundary proposes up to 839mm of fill. However, no details have been provided regarding privacy treatment on the west facing windows on the ground floor. Condition is to be imposed to ensure that height of fencing above 2.4m must be provided with lattice material to reduce the bulk of the fence. To be conditioned Maximum fill of 944mm within the front setback on the western side is considered acceptable due to the provision of OSD system, which will not result in any amenity impact to the adjoining property.
2.3	Setbacks - Side: 0.9m	Minimum 1m side setbacks provided on the ground level. Basement setbacks 448mm to the eastern side boundary and 800mm to the western side boundary, which are considered acceptable given that the above ground setbacks still comply.
PART I – CHILDCARE CENTRES
SIZE, DENSITY AND LOCATION
No.	Clause	Comment	Yes	No	N/A
1	SIZE AND DENSITY
	The minimum site frontage for a child care centre is 20 metres.	The site has a frontage of less than 20, which is 18.59m to Austral Avenue. The application of this control is superseded by the Child Care Planning Guideline.

Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F (EP & A Act s79C(1)(a)(iiia))

There are no draft planning agreements or planning agreements associated with the subject Application.

The provisions of the Regulations (Environmental Planning & Assessment Act Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv))

The proposed development raises no concerns as to the relevant matters arising from the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulations, 2000.

Section 4.15 (1)(a)(v) - any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979)

There is no Coastal Zone Management Plan applicable for the site.

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

The likely impacts of the development have been considered in the assessment of the application and 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 site is considered suitable to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed development has been assessed in regard to its environmental consequences and having regard to this assessment, 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 s4.15C(1)(d))

Advertised (newspaper) Mail Sign Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of the Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly exhibited for a period of 14 days between 2 September 2018 and 26 September 2018. In response, 33 submissions and 1 petition containing 55 signatures were received. One of the submissions received was submitted without the individual’s consent and has been since withdrawn. Following the submission of additional information the proposal was re-notified to the objectors and the adjoining and opposite owners for 7 days between 19 February 2019 and 26 February 2019. Nine (9) additional submissions were received as a result of the re-notification.

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

*Concern*	Comment
1. Bulk and scale The building is out of character, insufficient setbacks, not located in an appropriate zone and a large 2 storey with underground parking that takes up a major proportion of the available building envelope and far exceeds the typical floor space of housing in low density area.	It is noted that the R2 zoned area is undergoing a transition and older housing stock is being replaced by contemporary-style development. The proposed FSR of 0.49:1 does not exceed the maximum FSR of 0.5:1 that applies to housing development in the vicinity and on the subject site. The proposal has been assessed against the Holroyd DCP 2013 Part B controls for dwelling house and it is considered satisfactory, including setbacks. The proposed site coverage and height in conjunction with FSR that nominate the building envelope and bulk and scale thus complies. Refer to compliance table in Appendix B and C. The proposed cut and fill will maintain a two storey development. Additional conditions will be imposed to ensure fill within 900mm from the boundary will not result in excessive fencing height. The proposed basement parking has been designed to ensure that it will not dominate the building appearance. The proposed development will be compatible with the streetscape of the existing low density residential area. The proposed development has demonstrated that it is capable to maintain acoustic and privacy amenity of the neighbouring properties in its operation, subject to conditions imposed. The proposed development is considered to be appropriate for the R2 Low Density Residential zone.
2. Traffic and parking There will not be enough car parking spaces to service the child care centre, insufficient swept path, and this will affect safety, traffic flow and availability of parking in Austral Avenue. The location of underground car parking will not be visible for parents/guardian dropping off children. No clear delineation between child care facility and public spaces during drop-off and pick up.	Under the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, the required parking rate for child care centres is 1 space per 4 children and 1 space per 2 staff, which equates to total of 15 spaces required for the subject proposed development. This rate takes into account staff and visitor parking demands. Total of 16 car parking spaces are proposed, which exceed the required car parking by 1 space. It is noted that Council’s rate of 1 car space per 4 children is consistent with the recently introduced NSW State Government document entitled Child Care Planning Guideline, in which the rate of 1 space per 4 children encompasses the whole centre including all staff. The basement car parking arrangement for non-tandem spaces includes 6 spaces for staff and 6 spaces for visitor. There are 4 tandem/stacked car spaces to be divided equally for staff and visitor. This arrangement is considered acceptable, as the staff spaces are located behind the visitor spaces and would be utilised by staff with longer working hours. Condition is to be imposed to ensure that ratio of staff and visitor parking is allocated accordingly, which is at least 11 spaces for visitor parking. The proposed parking arrangement and swept path have been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and considered satisfactory, subject to conditions. The traffic report indicates that the traffic volume generated for the centre is low and is within the RMS acceptable traffic criteria for a safe environment. With the provision of two way driveway allowing all vehicles to enter and leave in a forward direction and a good sight distance, it is envisaged that motorists will be capable of entering and exiting the site in a safe and efficient manner. The number of parking spaces provided is considered acceptable and appropriate to meet the parking demand of the proposed centre without placing unacceptable demands on the availability of parking within the locality or on the local street network. The entry/exit driveway is at an obvious location that will not be missed by parents and caregivers. The parents and caregivers will be regular visitors to the centre knowing in advance the location of car parking. All pickup and drop-off is expected to take place within the basement and it is not considered to create any confusion between public space and childcare facility.
3. Privacy Top level will overlook adjoining properties and deprived the resident’s privacy.	The upper level openings facing the adjoining properties have been provided with 1.5m high window sill height and street facing balcony will be provided with full height screening, which will maintain privacy.
4. Noise The proposed child care centre will be a noise nuisance to surrounding properties and impacting resident’s health. Illegal removal of trees results in manipulative acoustic assessment. Noise management plan will not effective in reducing noise.	Council received submissions from the adjoining properties regarding noise of the proposed child care may worsen the residents’ current medical/health conditions. The submitted acoustic assessment report and noise management plan have been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health officer and are considered satisfactory to comply with the relevant noise control provisions. The acoustic report demonstrates that the proposed centre can be accommodated on the site without noise nuisance to adjoining and surrounding properties, as the noise generated from both indoor and outdoor play activities can comply with the relevant environmental noise guidelines with the imposition of a noise management plan submitted with the application and the installation of relevant noise mitigation measure such as acoustic fencing. The acoustic consultant recommends that the centre can comply with the noise standards if the windows of the proposed centre are kept closed when the centre is at capacity. This recommendation is captured within the Noise Management Plan. Further acoustic assessment has been provided on the use of mechanical plant to be mounted on the roof, which could be used only during the operation of child care centre. Conditions are to be imposed in the consent to avoid any breaches to the required noise threshold.
5. Childcare Planning Guideline The proposal fails to meet the requirements of the NSW Government Childcare Planning Guideline dated August 2017. A preliminary soil assessment has not been carried out as part of the service application. Falsified survey plan not identifying asbestos material on site.	A soil assessment report is required, prior to the issue of construction certificate, by way of a recommended condition of consent. It is noted that the preliminary soil assessment would need to be provided at the ‘Service Approval’ stage as required by the Department of Community Services (DOCS) that will issue the operational license. Condition in relation to removal of any asbestos material if encountered during demolition is also recommended to be imposed.
6. Basement excavation, fencing replacement, sewerage facility concern and tree removal. Location of driveway is to be relocated to the middle of the site.	The concerns raised have been reviewed in the assessment of the subject application. Excavation of basement is subject to conditions imposed to ensure that structural integrity of the adjoining properties is maintained. Additional acoustic fencing is subject to conditions imposed to ensure that it will be installed entirely within the subject site. Replacement of dividing fence between the adjoining properties is a civil matter to be determined by the involved parties under the Dividing Fence Act. Sewerage facility is subject to conditions imposed to ensure adequate facility will be provided. Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposed tree removal and supported the development subject to the landscape plan endorsed. The location of the driveway shall take consideration of the basement layout and existing street trees and other services impacted on the front of property. The proposed driveway and basement location has been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and considered satisfactory, subject to conditions.
7. Devalue the sale price adjoining property.	Whilst property values are not a consideration under Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, this report assesses the natural, physical and social impacts of the proposal, and it is considered that the proposed child care centre will not result in a significant or detrimental impact to immediate or surrounding properties. Market forces generally establish the value of property. As such, this is not a matter for consideration for the proposed development.

Concern

Comment

1. Bulk and scale

The building is out of character, insufficient setbacks, not located in an appropriate zone and a large 2 storey with underground parking that takes up a major proportion of the available building envelope and far exceeds the typical floor space of housing in low density area.

It is noted that the R2 zoned area is undergoing a transition and older housing stock is being replaced by contemporary-style development.

The proposed FSR of 0.49:1 does not exceed the maximum FSR of 0.5:1 that applies to housing development in the vicinity and on the subject site. The proposal has been assessed against the Holroyd DCP 2013 Part B controls for dwelling house and it is considered satisfactory, including setbacks. The proposed site coverage and height in conjunction with FSR that nominate the building envelope and bulk and scale thus complies. Refer to compliance table in Appendix B and C.

The proposed cut and fill will maintain a two storey development. Additional conditions will be imposed to ensure fill within 900mm from the boundary will not result in excessive fencing height.

The proposed basement parking has been designed to ensure that it will not dominate the building appearance. The proposed development will be compatible with the streetscape of the existing low density residential area.

The proposed development has demonstrated that it is capable to maintain acoustic and privacy amenity of the neighbouring properties in its operation, subject to conditions imposed. The proposed development is considered to be appropriate for the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

2. Traffic and parking

There will not be enough car parking spaces to service the child care centre, insufficient swept path, and this will affect safety, traffic flow and availability of parking in Austral Avenue.

The location of underground car parking will not be visible for parents/guardian dropping off children. No clear delineation between child care facility and public spaces during drop-off and pick up.

Under the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, the required parking rate for child care centres is 1 space per 4 children and 1 space per 2 staff, which equates to total of 15 spaces required for the subject proposed development. This rate takes into account staff and visitor parking demands. Total of 16 car parking spaces are proposed, which exceed the required car parking by 1 space.

It is noted that Council’s rate of 1 car space per 4 children is consistent with the recently introduced NSW State Government document entitled Child Care Planning Guideline, in which the rate of 1 space per 4 children encompasses the whole centre including all staff.

The basement car parking arrangement for non-tandem spaces includes 6 spaces for staff and 6 spaces for visitor. There are 4 tandem/stacked car spaces to be divided equally for staff and visitor. This arrangement is considered acceptable, as the staff spaces are located behind the visitor spaces and would be utilised by staff with longer working hours. Condition is to be imposed to ensure that ratio of staff and visitor parking is allocated accordingly, which is at least 11 spaces for visitor parking. The proposed parking arrangement and swept path have been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and considered satisfactory, subject to conditions.

The traffic report indicates that the traffic volume generated for the centre is low and is within the RMS acceptable traffic criteria for a safe environment. With the provision of two way driveway allowing all vehicles to enter and leave in a forward direction and a good sight distance, it is envisaged that motorists will be capable of entering and exiting the site in a safe and efficient manner. The number of parking spaces provided is considered acceptable and appropriate to meet the parking demand of the proposed centre without placing unacceptable demands on the availability of parking within the locality or on the local street network.

The entry/exit driveway is at an obvious location that will not be missed by parents and caregivers. The parents and caregivers will be regular visitors to the centre knowing in advance the location of car parking. All pickup and drop-off is expected to take place within the basement and it is not considered to create any confusion between public space and childcare facility.

3. Privacy

Top level will overlook adjoining properties and deprived the resident’s privacy.

The upper level openings facing the adjoining properties have been provided with 1.5m high window sill height and street facing balcony will be provided with full height screening, which will maintain privacy.

4. Noise

The proposed child care centre will be a noise nuisance to surrounding properties and impacting resident’s health. Illegal removal of trees results in manipulative acoustic assessment. Noise management plan will not effective in reducing noise.

Council received submissions from the adjoining properties regarding noise of the proposed child care may worsen the residents’ current medical/health conditions.

The submitted acoustic assessment report and noise management plan have been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health officer and are considered satisfactory to comply with the relevant noise control provisions. The acoustic report demonstrates that the proposed centre can be accommodated on the site without noise nuisance to adjoining and surrounding properties, as the noise generated from both indoor and outdoor play activities can comply with the relevant environmental noise guidelines with the imposition of a noise management plan submitted with the application and the installation of relevant noise mitigation measure such as acoustic fencing. The acoustic consultant recommends that the centre can comply with the noise standards if the windows of the proposed centre are kept closed when the centre is at capacity. This recommendation is captured within the Noise Management Plan.

Further acoustic assessment has been provided on the use of mechanical plant to be mounted on the roof, which could be used only during the operation of child care centre.

Conditions are to be imposed in the consent to avoid any breaches to the required noise threshold.

5. Childcare Planning Guideline

The proposal fails to meet the requirements of the NSW Government Childcare Planning Guideline dated August 2017. A preliminary soil assessment has not been carried out as part of the service application. Falsified survey plan not identifying asbestos material on site.

A soil assessment report is required, prior to the issue of construction certificate, by way of a recommended condition of consent. It is noted that the preliminary soil assessment would need to be provided at the ‘Service Approval’ stage as required by the Department of Community Services (DOCS) that will issue the operational license.

Condition in relation to removal of any asbestos material if encountered during demolition is also recommended to be imposed.

6. Basement excavation, fencing replacement, sewerage facility concern and tree removal. Location of driveway is to be relocated to the middle of the site.

The concerns raised have been reviewed in the assessment of the subject application. Excavation of basement is subject to conditions imposed to ensure that structural integrity of the adjoining properties is maintained. Additional acoustic fencing is subject to conditions imposed to ensure that it will be installed entirely within the subject site. Replacement of dividing fence between the adjoining properties is a civil matter to be determined by the involved parties under the Dividing Fence Act. Sewerage facility is subject to conditions imposed to ensure adequate facility will be provided. Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposed tree removal and supported the development subject to the landscape plan endorsed.

The location of the driveway shall take consideration of the basement layout and existing street trees and other services impacted on the front of property. The proposed driveway and basement location has been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and considered satisfactory, subject to conditions.

7. Devalue the sale price adjoining property.

Whilst property values are not a consideration under Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, this report assesses the natural, physical and social impacts of the proposal, and it is considered that the proposed child care centre will not result in a significant or detrimental impact to immediate or surrounding properties. Market forces generally establish the value of property. As such, this is not a matter for consideration for the proposed development.

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

The public interest is served by permitting the orderly and economic development 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 the development, if carried out subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Notice of Determination, will have no significant adverse impacts in the locality.

Section 7.11 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. The Act reads as follows:

‘(1) If a consent authority is satisfied that development for which development consent is sought will or is likely to require the provision of or increase the demand for public amenities and public services within the area, the consent authority may grant the development consent subject to a condition requiring:

(a) the dedication of land free of cost, or

(b) the payment of a monetary contribution, or both.

(2) A condition referred to in subsection (1) may be imposed only to require a reasonable dedication or contribution for the provision, extension or augmentation of the public amenities and public services concerned.’

The development does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Contributions Plan 2013.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

The NSW Government introduced The Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 (NSW). This disclosure requirement is for all members of the public relating to political donations and gifts. The law introduces 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 and Gifts.

Conclusion:

The Application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Education and Care Services National Regulations, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to reduction in number of children to 38 (to comply with the outdoor unencumbered space) and the draft 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

1. Development Application 2018/283/1 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 38 place child care centre over basement parking accommodating 16 parking spaces on land at 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead, be Approved, subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 1; and

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

Attachments

1. Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

2. Architectural Plans - Internal ⇩

3. Architectural Plans - External ⇩

4. Landscape Plan ⇩

5. Heritage Impact Statement ⇩

6. Acoustic Report ⇩

7. Noise Management Plan ⇩

8. Traffic Report ⇩

9. Objection Letter - 1 ⇩

10. Objection Letter - 2 ⇩

11. Locality Map ⇩

12. Appendicies A, B, C and D:- Appendix A: SEPP (Educational Establishments & Child Care Facilities) 2017; Appendix B - HLEP 2013; Appendix C - HDCP 2013; Appendix D - Child Care Planning Guidelines 2017. ⇩

13. Objection Letter - 3 ⇩

Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

27 March 2019

Item No: EEEEEELPP015/19

Development Application 7 Birmingham Street, Merrylands

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: DA 2017/226/1

Application lodged	02 June 2017
Applicant	Baini Design
Owner	Mr J Saba
Application No.	2017/226/1
Description of Land	7 Birmingham Street, Merrylands (Lot 34, Section 1, DP5714)
Proposed Development	The proposal as amended seeks approval for demolition of existing structures; construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 6 units under affordable rental housing SEPP 2009; at-grade parking accommodating 5 carparking spaces
Site Area	613.2m²
Zoning	R4 – High Density Residential
Principal Development Standards	Floor Space Ratio: Max 1.2:1 (Proposed 0.67:1) Height of Buildings: Max 15m (Proposed 15.6 m)
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	N/A
Issues	· Identification of ARH Units · Deep Soil Zones (ARHSEPP) · Solar Access (ARHSEPP) · Communal Open Space (ADG) · Building Separation (ADG) · Private Open Space (ADG) · Storage Provision (ADG) · Building Height (LEP) · Acoustic Privacy (DCP) · Lot frontage (DCP) · Site Coverage (DCP) · Building Entry/Pedestrian Access (DCP) · At grade parking (DCP) · Dwelling Mix (DCP) · Communal Open Space Accessibility (DCP) · Isolation of No. 9 Birmingham Street (DCP)

Summary:

1. DA2017/226/1 was lodged on 2 June 2017 for demolition of existing structures; construction of a 5 storey residential flat building comprising 7 units under affordable rental housing SEPP 2009; at-grade parking accommodating 6 carparking spaces.

lxii)

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 21 days from 28 June to 19 July 2017. In response, the application received no submissions.

lxiii)

3. The application was deferred on 28 September 2018 and revised plans were received on 11 December 2018 which modified the proposal to demolition of existing structures; construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 6 units under affordable rental housing SEPP 2009; at-grade parking accommodating 5 carparking spaces.

lxiv)

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

lxv)

5. The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 and Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP 2013).

lxvi)

6. The development as proposed will result in the development of an undersized lot as per the minimum site frontage provisions of the HDCP 2013. This if approved would result in the creation of an isolated lot at the adjoining property No. 9 Birmingham Street. This in turn will result in an undesirable outcome contrary to the intended future character of the area.

lxvii)

7. The development includes the following significant numerical non-compliances as discussed within the relevant sections in the main body of the report:

lxviii)

Development Standard/Control	Required	Provided	% variation
ARHSEPP (1) (d) deep soil zones	(i) there is soil of a sufficient depth to support the growth of trees and shrubs on an area of not less than 15 per cent of the site area (the deep soil zone), = 92sqm	66.7sqm (11%) provided, with minimum width of 3m.	21.6%
ARHSEPP (1) (e) solar access	Living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 70 per cent of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.	3 of 6 units (50%) receive the minimum 3hr direct sunlight	34%
Apartment Design Guide 3F-1 Visual Privacy – Building Separation		Tower Separation 4 Storeys 5.1m 5th Storey 3.7m Western Separation 5th Storey 3m Northern Separation 5th Storey 7.8m Eastern Separation 4 Storeys 3m 5th Storey 3m	57% 79% 67% 13% 50% 67%
Apartment Design Guide 4E-1 Private Open Space and Balconies		Apartments 01.02, 02.02 and 03.02 are calculated as having a non-compliant area of 9.5m2	5.26%
Apartment Design Guide 4G-1 Storage		1br = 1.7 – 2.3sqm 2br = 1.7 – 2.3sqm	72% 79%
Holroyd LEP 2013 4.3 Height of Building	Maximum Building Height 15m	15.6m	4%
Holroyd DCP 2013 6.1 Lot Size and Frontage	Lot frontage required 24m	15.24m	44.64%
Holroyd DCP 2013 6.2 Site Coverage	Maximum 30% of Site Area = 183.96sqm	348.56sqm (56.8%)	47.3%
Holroyd DCP 2013 6.10 Dwelling Mix	Maximum 20% One Bedroom/Studio Apartments = 1 Apartment	50% of Apartments (3 One Bedroom)	85.7%

8. Having regard to the nature and extent of the above deficiencies in addition to the impact on amenity of the future occupants of the subject development and the adjoining properties, the application is recommended for refusal.

lxix)

9. The application is recommended for refusal per the draft determination at Attachment 1.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 7 Birmingham Street, Merrylands and is legally described as Lot 34, Section 1 in DP 5714. The subject site is located on the northern side of Birmingham Street, Merrylands. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 15.24m to Birmingham Street (replicated for the rear boundary) and side boundary dimensions of 40.235m for a total site area of 613.2sqm.

The subject site has a Council easement which traverses in a south-eastern to north western direction across the site as detailed in the below survey image. Further to this the site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house, detached carport and associated hard stand space. Surrounding the subject site is a mixture of building types including residential flat buildings from 2 to 4 storeys in height and single storey dwellings.

Excerpt of submitted Survey plan with easement annotated in red. Source: Frankham Engineering Surveys Pty Ltd as annotated by Cumberland Council 2019

Aerial view of the locality with subject site shown hatched. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Heritage Map with subject site shown hatched. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Zoning map. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

History of Subject Site

Reference	Description	Comment
PDA/629	Demolish the existing structures and construct a 5 storey residential flat building comprising 8 units over grade/undercroft parking for 6 cars pursuant to the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.	Meeting held 12 October 2016 and comments issued 16 November 2016 – advising Council is not in support of proposal and recommending amalgamation of site with western adjoining property, to overcome significant design deficiencies.

Description of The Proposed Development

The proposal as per the revised plans submitted on 11 December 2018 comprises of:

· Demolition of all existing structures on the subject site;

· Construction of 4 storey residential flat building comprising two towers with a total of 6 units (three in each tower) between levels 1 – 4

· A roof top communal area above each tower

· At grade parking for 5 cars and 4 bicycles

· Associated landscaping works

The proposal does not include subdivision as part of the subject application.

Application History

Date	Action
2 June 2017	DA 2017/226 lodged with Council
21 June 2017	The application was referred internally to: - Landscaping - Environmental Health Unit - Development Engineering
28 June to 19 July 2017	Application placed on public notification for 21 days
16 February 2018	Interim Deferral Notice Issued
28 September 2018	Deferral letter seeking additional information Issued
1 November 2018	Meeting held between Council’s officers and the applicant to clarify points within deferral letter.
11 December 2018	Revised plans in response to deferral letter and meeting with Council’s officers lodged. A renotification of the revised plans were not considered necessary.
5 February 2019	The revised application was referred internally to: - Environmental Health Unit - Development Engineering
13 March 2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planning, dated 3 May 2017 was submitted with the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is unsatisfactory in regards to stormwater/overland flow management provisions, on site detention provisions and the proposed construction over the easement of the ground level slab. Therefore the proposed development cannot be supported.

Traffic Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory in regards to traffic management and car parking provisions subject to conditions of consent if approved.

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 in regards to site contamination and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

Waste

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory in regards to the provision of on-site garbage bin storage areas and management.

Landscape Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Landscape Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory in regards to the proposed landscape treatment on site, inclusive of the communal open space on the rooftop.

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)

Figure 1 – SEPP 55 Compliance Table

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

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

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

Division 5 – Electricity Transmission or Distribution

The application is not subject to clause 45 as the subject site is not within immediate proximity to an Electricity Providers easement or transmission lines.

(c) State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP)

The relevant objectives and provisions of ARHSEPP and the non-compliances associated with the proposed development are detailed in the following table. A comprehensive ADG compliance table is provided at Attachment 2.

Figure 2 – ARHSEPP Compliance Table

Standard

Required/Permitted

Provided

Compliance

This division applies to RFBs if:

· RFB is permitted with consent under another EPI, &

· Is on land not containing a heritage item

In Sydney region must be within an accessible area.

(i.e. within 400m walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06.00 and 21.00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00 and 18.00 on each Saturday and Sunday).

RFBs are permitted.

Land does not contain a heritage item.

The site is approximately 150m walking distance from two bus stops with regular bus routes (802, 804 and 806). These routes operate between Liverpool and Parramatta to Bankstown.

Yes

Floor space ratios

At least 20% of GFA must be for affordable housing.

Where existing max FSR is 2.5:1 or less, & percentage of GFA used for affordable is <50%, the max permitted FSR is existing plus bonus based upon % proposed.

20% of GFA to be provided as ARH as per SEE (82.74sqm= 2 units).

Max FSR permitted is 1.2:1

Proposed FSR is 0.67:1

Applicant is not seeking any bonus FSR.

Complies

Yes, However the 2 units are not nominated.

Site & Solar Access

2) General

Standards that cannot be used to Refuse Consent

b) site area if at least 450m²

c) Landscaped area to be 30% of site area.

d) Deep soil zone - 15% of site area is deep soil, with 3m dimension. If practical, at least 2/3rds of the area should be to the rear of the development.

e) Solar access if living rooms & private open spaces for at least 70% of units receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am & 3pm in mid winter

a) Parking -

(ii) 1 bedroom - 0.5 space

2 bedrooms - 1 space

≥3 bedrooms - 1.5 spaces

b) Dwelling size if units have GFA of:

35m²per studio unit

50m² per 1 bedroom unit

70m²per 2 bedroom unit

Site area is 613.2sqm

Required = 184sqm

Proposed = 190 sqm (31 %).

Required = 92sqm required

Min. 66.7sqm (11%) provided, with minimum width of 3m. Further discussion below.

3 units (50%) receive the minimum 3hr direct sunlight. Further discussion below.

3 x 1 b/r = 1.5

3 x 2 b/r = 3

5 residential spaces required.

5 spaces provided.

Minimum sizes met.

Yes

Deep Soil Area

As per 14(1)(d) of the ARHSEPP infill affordable rental housing requires a minimum 15% of site area which equates to 92sqm of deep soil area for the subject proposal. The minimum width which can qualify as this deep soil area must be 3m. The proposed development provides 66.7sqm or 11% of deep soil area, with the minimum width of 3m, as detailed in the below annotated landscape plan with the landscaped areas within the front and rear stebacks.

An overall area of 97.5sqm deep soil area can be provided onsite but with a non-compliant minimum width of 2.5m. The additional 30.8sqm is located along the western side boundary and is annotated on the annotated landscape plan within a red box.

Annotated Landscape Plan – Detailing Deep Soil Provision. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

The proposed non-compliant deep soil area provision is considered unacceptable when taken in conjunction with the ADG, LEP and DCP non-compliances as detailed throughout the remainder of this report, resulting in a development which does not satisfy the intended character of the local area. As such the non-compliant deep soil area is listed as a reason for refusal in the notice of determination.

Solar Access

As per 14(1)(e) of the ARHSEPP at least 70% of the units in the development (5 apartments) must receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am & 3pm in mid winter. Based on an assessment of the submitted solar access and shadow diagrams for the amended development 50% of the residential apartments (01.01, 02.01 and 03.01) will not satisfy the 3 hour minimum direct sunlight.

The submission of elevational shadow diagrams may provide further clarification on this matter. However these have not been provided and would need to include the shadows cast by neighbouring properties as well as detailing the self-shadowing of the proposed developments. The inability for the proposed development to comply with this solar access provision will result in decrease amenity for future occupants. As such this has been listed as a reason for refusal in the notice of determination.

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

The application was accompanied by a revised BASIX certificate. BASIX certificate no. 802357M_02 dated 5 December 2018 is consistent with the amended plans and achieves the target scores.

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

The proposal is classified as a residential flat building development and SEPP 65 applies.

The non-compliances associated with the proposed development are detailed in the following table. A comprehensive ADG compliance table is provided at Attachment 3. It is important to note that the provisions of ARH SEPP takes precedence and therefore the proposed development is only assessed against those provisions of ADG where ARH SEPP is silent.

Figure 3 – ADG Compliance Table

APARTMENT DESIGN GUIDE
No.	Control		Comments	Compliance
Part 3 - Siting the Development
3A	Site Analysis
3A-1	Site analysis illustrates that design decisions have been based on opportunities and constraints of the site conditions and their relationship to the surrounding context. Comment: The proposed development has not appropriately responded to the site constraints and opportunities within the context of the surrounding built form. As discussed in the DCP section, the subject site is under sized in regards to lot frontage and as such is also non-compliant with the building separation distances required as per the ADG. The likely impact of these non-compliances on adjoining properties and potential future tenants is considered excessive.			No
3B	Orientation
3B-1	Building types and layouts respond to the streetscape and site while optimising solar access within the development. Comment: The proposed development’s building types and layout of two apartment towers is not considered to respond to the streetscape appropriately. Further to this as detailed in the ARHSEPP discussion above the proposed development does not optimise solar access within the development self-shadowing apartments 01.01, 02.01 and 03.01.			No
3C	Public Domain Interface
3C-1	Transition between private and public domain is achieved without compromising safety and security. Comment: Concerns are raised with the proposed developments transition between private and public domain. In particular the pedestrian access points and the building façade as discussed in more detail within the DCP section.			No
3D	Communal and Public Open Space
3D-2	Communal open space is designed to allow for a range of activities, respond to site conditions and be attractive and inviting. Comment: The submitted landscape and architectural plans provide for barbecue areas for each rooftop communal open space and appropriate landscape features. Despite this the proposed COS are considered exclusionary as it is envisaged that only the residents of each tower will have access to their respective rooftop COS. Further to this as non-compliances are identified in regards to proposed Building Separation below, there is likely to be visual and acoustic privacy impacts as a result of the proposed COS which will likely be detrimental to the adjoining dwellings and developments. As such this is listed in the reasons for refusal in the notice of determination.			No
3F	Visual Privacy
3F-1	Adequate building separation distances are shared equitably between neighbouring sites, to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy.			No
	*Design Criteria*	Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows: Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room. Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties.	Tower Separation 4 Storeys Req. = 12m 5.1m Separation is provided between the kitchen windows of apartments 01.01, 02.01 and 03.01 (3 units) and the southern bedroom windows of apartment 01.02, 02.02 and03.02 (3 units). 5th Storey Req. = 18m 3.7m-5.1m Separation is provided between the COS on the rooftop’s Western Separation 4 Storeys Req. = 6m 3m Separation is provided between the western wall’s including the open vertical louvre construction staircase and the property boundary. 5th Storey Req. = 9m 3m Separation is provided to the COS on the rooftop Northern Separation 4 Storeys Req. = 6m 7.21m Separation is provided between the north facing balconies of Tower 02 and the rear boundary. 5th Storey Req. = 9m 7.8m – 9.1m Separation is provided to the COS on the rooftop Eastern Separation 4 Storeys Req. = 6m 3m Separation is provided between the eastern wall’s with habitable room windows and the property boundary. 5th Storey Req. = 9m 3m Separation is provided to the COS on the rooftop Given the above detailed building separation non-compliances this has been listed as a reason for refusal in the notice of determination.	No No Yes No Yes No No No
3G	Pedestrian Access and Entries
3G-1	Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain.			No
3G-2	Access, entries and pathways are accessible and easy to identify.			No
3J	Bicycle and Car Parking
3J-5	Visual and environmental impacts of on-grade car parking are minimised.			No
Part 4 – Designing the Building
4E	Private Open Space and Balconies
4E-1	Apartments provide appropriately sized private open space and balconies to enhance residential amenity.			No
	*Design Criteria*	All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows: The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m.	Apartments 01.02, 02.02 and 03.02 are calculated as having a non-compliant area of 9.5sqm for a two bedroom apartment.	No
4G	Storage
4G-1	Adequate, well designed storage is provided in each apartment.			No
	*Design Criteria*	In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided: At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment.	Insufficient and non-compliant storage provision within the proposal. 1m per unit in ground level 01.01 = 0.7sqm 01.02 = 0.7sqm 02.01 = 1.3 sqm 02.02 = 0.7sqm 03.01 = 1.3 sqm 03.02 = 0.7sqm	No

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

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

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

(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

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

The provision of HLEP 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with some of the key statutory requirements of the HLEP 2013 and the objectives of the R4 – High Density Residential zone.

The proposed development is defined as a “residential flat building” and is permissible in the R4 – High Density Residential zone with consent.

The relevant matters to be considered under HLEP 2013 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Attachment 4.

Figure 4 –HLEP 2013 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD	COMPLIANCE	DISCUSSION
4.3 Height of Buildings Maximum Building Height 15m	N	A maximum building height of 15.6m is proposed. This is included as a reason for refusal.
4.4 Floor Space Ratio Maximum Floor Space Ratio 1.2:1 Note: As a development assessed under the ARHSEPP the proposal can utilise a bonus FSR provision of 0.2:1 – taking the permissible FSR to 1.4:1. Despite the availability to utilise such a bonus the proposed development does not seek to utilise this bonus.	Y	The development proposes 413.7m² of GFA which is equivalent to 0.67:1 FSR.
4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards	N	The application seeks to vary the development standard relating to building height. The original design was lodged with an accompanying Clause 4.6 variation in relation to the non-compliant height of building development standard. The revised design which the subject assessment is based on was not accompanied by a revised Clause 4.6 variation. As such no assessment can be made of the non-compliance and exception to the development standards. This is included as a reason for refusal.

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

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))

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP 2013)

The HDCP 2013 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the HLEP 2013. HDCP 2013 contains general controls which relate to all developments under Part A and Residential Controls under Part B.

The relevant matters to be considered under HDCP 2013 are summarised below. A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Attachment 5.

Figure 5 – HDCP 2013 Compliance Table

Section	Control	Proposed	Complies
Part A – General Controls
7 Stormwater Management		Stormwater/overland flow management provisions, on site detention provisions and the proposed construction over the easement of the ground level slab are contrary to the DCP provisions. Therefore the proposed development cannot be supported and these have been included as reasons for refusal.	No
Part B – Residential Controls
1.4 Privacy	Developments shall utilise the site and building layout to maximise the potential for acoustic privacy by providing adequate building separation within the development and from neighbouring buildings.	The proposed building materials and finishes of open style vertical louvres to the western side of the staircases for both buildings will result in an unacceptable level of acoustic privacy impact on the neighbouring site. As such this has been included as a reason for refusal.	No
6.1 Lot Size and Frontage	Min. lot frontage is: 24m	15.24m site frontage provided, as detailed below site amalgamation provisions have not been fully satisfied. Furthermore the lot frontage non-compliance has a flow on impact on the non-compliant building separation and setbacks, accordingly this DCP non-compliance has been included as a reason for refusal.	No
6.2 – Site Coverage	Max 30% site coverage 30% = 184sqm	The proposal required a maximum 183.96m² site coverage the proposal has a non-compliant site coverage of 348.56m². Given the proposed non-compliance in regards to building separation, deep soil provisions and rear setbacks this DCP non-compliance is considered excessive and cannot be supported. Accordingly this has been included as a reason for refusal.	No
6.8 Building entry and Pedestrian Access	Shall be clearly identifiable, sheltered, well lit and visible from the street.	The main pedestrian entry point is at the end of a pathway and whilst this will likely be visible from the street, no clear entry foyer is provided or building material/finish to break up the solid form of the ground floor. Further to this, the proposed ground floor layout and design requires pedestrian access into the undercroft car park and not into the building and is such not considered satisfactory. Accordingly, this is included as a reason for refusal in the notice of determination.	No
6.9 Parking	Shall be maintained to a basement.	At grade undercroft car parking proposed. This is contrary to the DCP, whilst the subject site includes an easement which traverses the site, given the non-compliance with deep soil area, site coverage, stormwater and flooding provisions the proposed extent of at grade parking is considered unacceptable and is included as a reason for refusal.	No
6.10 – Dwelling Mix	Total number of one-bedroom dwellings shall not exceed 20%.	50% of the proposed units (3 of 6) are 1 bedroom. This is more than the maximum permitted under the DCP and is included as a reason for refusal.	No
7. Landlocked Sites	Residential R4 zoned lots should not result in the creation of landlocked sites.	Isolation of No. 9 Birmingham Street is created by the proposal. The applicant has provided the requisite documentation for valuation and attempts at amalgamation, which have been unsuccessful. Despite this the applicant has not provided conceptual plans for the prospective development potential for the adjoining site at No. 9 Birmingham Street. As such this is included as a reason for refusal.	No

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

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

The regulations do not proscribe any relevant matters for consideration.

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

It is considered that the proposed development will have adverse environmental, social and economic impacts in the locality. As detailed throughout this report there are significant and numerous non-compliances with the proposed development. These would impact detrimentally on Birmingham Street, current and future residents of the street and potential residents of the subject development.

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. There is a Council easement which traverses the lot which presents a unique site constraint. The applicant has also attempted to demonstrate that the subject site is an isolated lot, however as detailed in the DCP Compliance table above, the documentation has not fully satisfied the requirements for this. The easement on site has been taken into consideration, however given the numerous numerical and design non-compliances of the proposed development it can be concluded that the subject site is not suitable for the proposed development. Accordingly, suitability of the site has been included in the reasons for refusal.

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

Advertised (newspaper) Mail Sign Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days from 28 June to 19 July 2017. As a result of the notification, Council received no public submissions.

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 be contrary to the public interest.

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94) Development Consent Levies

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

Comments:

The subject development if approved would attract development contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013. Given the application is recommended for refusal no contributions are required to be paid. However, if the development was to be approved a condition would need to be imposed on any consent requiring payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013.

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 development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be unsatisfactory.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

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

Communication / Publications:

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

Report Recommendation:

That Development Application 2017/226/1 for demolition of existing structures; construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 6 units under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009; at-grade parking accommodating 5 carparking spaces be refused as per the reasons within the draft notice of determination provided at Attachment 1.

Attachments

1. Draft Notice of Determination ⇩