Agenda of Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

10 April 2019

Minutes of the Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting held at Merrylands Administration Building, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands on Wednesday 27 March 2019.

Present:

David Ryan (Chairperson), Tony Tuxworth, Michael Ryan and Milorad Rosic.

In Attendance:

Karl Okorn, Michael Lawani, Olivia Yana, Clare Burke, Rithy Ang, Bianca Chiu, Sohail Faridy, Sommer Ammar, Laith Jammal.

Notice of Live Streaming of CUMBERLAND LOCAL PLANNING PANEL meeting

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

The meeting here opened at 11:35a.m.

Declarations Of Interest:

There were no declarations of interest.

ADDRESS BY INVITED SPEAKERS:

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

Speakers Item No. Subject

Byungog Choi Development Application for 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead

Ziad Boumelhem Development Application for 45-47 Hyde Park, Berala

Vithya Senthilrajan Development Application for 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead

Edward Knust Development Application for 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead

Naibu Tokieda Development Application for 70 Cardigan Street, Guildford

Tanuja Sharma Development Application for 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead

Vivek Angari Development Application for 70 Cardigan Street, Guildford

Thamilpria Ravi Development Application for Shop 27/22 Northumberland Road, Auburn

Jonathon Wood Development Application for 70 Cardigan Street, Guildford

Jonathon Wood Development Application for 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead

Jonathon Wood Development Application 7 Birmingham Street, Merrylands

Joe Saba Development Application 7 Birmingham Street, Merrylands

Scott Xu Development Application for 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead

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

The open session of the meeting here closed at 1:20p.m.

The closed session of the meeting here opened at 1:21p.m.

ITEM EELPP011/19 - Development Application - 45-47 Hyde Park RD, Berala

Resolved:

1. That Development Application No. DA-145/2018 for Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising 27 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.

2. Amendment to DC5 as follows:

DC5. Communal Living Room

The ground floor internal common area, to the north of boarding room G01, is to be deleted and retained as circulation area.

The boarding room G03 together with part of the proposed communal room is to be converted into a communal living room that is available to all lodgers for recreational purposes. The communal living room is to be accessible.

Boarding room G04 is to be utilised as a manager’s room with appropriate open space being provided adjacent to this room.

3. The Amendment to Condition 3 as follows:

Auburn DCP 2007 - LGA Wide

A sum of $ 87,697.84 is to be paid to Council for the purpose of LGA Wide plans being the provision of open space and recreation facilities, community facilities, accessibility and traffic works, town centre upgrades, car parking and Council's administration of the development contributions framework.

The above sum is broken down to the following items:

Item	Amount
Community Facilities	$21,625.09
Public Domain	$47,828.78
Accessibility and Traffic	$13,172.29
Administration	$5,071.68
TOTAL	$87,697.84

Reason: to provide open space and recreation facilities, community facilities, accessibility and traffic works, town centre upgrades, car parking and Council's administration of the development contributions framework.

4. Amendment to Condition 7 as follows:

7. Maximum occupancy

The boarding house is approved to accommodate a maximum of 48 lodgers (excluding the boarding house manager). Boarding rooms G01, G02, 101 and 102 are not permitted to be occupied by more than 1 adult lodger at any one time. All other boarding rooms are not permitted to be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers at any one time.

A schedule showing the boarding room number and the number of lodgers permitted to be accommodated in each must be displayed near the entrance of the premises. The schedule shall include the name and a 24 hour contact telephone number of the owner and/or the boarding house manager. Each boarding room must be clearly numbered in accordance with the schedule.

Reason:- to confirm the terms of approvals and to comply with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

5. Amendment to condition 82 as follows:

82. Car parking to Comply with Approved Details

The area set aside for the parking of vehicles, and so delineated on the plans approved in condition 1, shall not be used for any other purpose. In this regard, a minimum of fourteen (14) parking spaces shall be provided within the basement for this development and shall not be used for any other purpose.

Reason:- to ensure the car parking area is not used for purposes other than the parking of cars associated with the use.

6. Amendment to condition 83 as follows:

83. Number of Car Parking Spaces

A minimum of 14 off-street car parking spaces are to be provided to the development. The spaces are to be suitably sealed, marked, drained and freely accessible at all times.

Carparking spaces are not to be enclosed by any device, such as a wire or mesh cage, walls or other similar fixtures.

Reason:- to ensure there is sufficient car parking for the development.

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

For: David Ryan (Chairperson), Tony Tuxworth, Michael Ryan and Milorad Rosic.

Against: Nil.

Reasons for Decision:

1. The Panel generally agrees with the Council Officer’s report and the recommendation however the amended conditions will satisfy the provisions of SEPP ARH and retain one (1) boarding house room.

ITEM EELPP012/19 - Development Application for Shop 27/22 Northumberland Road, Auburn

resolved:

1. 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.

2. Amendment to Condition 4 as follows:

Signage

The proposed under awning sign (Sign No. 2) shall be relocated to provide a minimum distance of 1.5 metres from the existing signage for Unit 26 and proposed Sign 1 shall be removed.

Details demonstrating compliance shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:- to ensure sufficient distance between existing and proposed signs are provided.

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

For: David Ryan (Chairperson), Tony Tuxworth, Michael Ryan and Milorad Rosic.

Against: Nil.

Reasons for Decision:

1. The Panel generally agrees with the Council Officer’s report and the recommendation. The Panel has considered the submissions from the objectors to the development and considers that the conditions will satisfactorily address those concerns.

ITEM EELPP013/19 - Development Application - 70 Cardigan Street, Guildford

Resolved:

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.

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

For: David Ryan (Chairperson), Tony Tuxworth, Michael Ryan and Milorad Rosic.

Against: Nil.

Reasons for Decision:

1. The Panel generally agrees with the Council Officer’s report and the recommendation.

ITEM EELPP014/19 - Development Application for 22 Austral Avenue, Westmead

Resolved:

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. The insertion of Condition 158 A as follows:

158 A. (Prior to Occupation) Operational Management Plan

An Operational Management Plan (OMP) shall be prepared and submitted to Council for approval. The plan shall detail how the Childcare Centre will be managed to minimise impacts on neighbouring properties (particularly on-street parking). The OMP should include but not limited to the below:

a) Drop off and pick up time is staged and occurs within the basement carpark area,

b) Encourage staff and parents to use public transport,

c) Advice parents to not park outside neighbouring properties and respect residents’ amenity,

d) Regular monitoring of off-street and on-street parking,

e) Tandem parking spaces shall be allocated to long term staff.

f) The noise management plan prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics, Reference R180121NMP2, Revision 1, dated 1 March 2019 – as amended to satisfy Condition 15;

g) Any other conditions of this consent relevant to operational management of the centre.

3. The amendment of Condition 168 as follows:

168. Operational Management Plan

Compliance with the Operational Management Plan (OMP) (refer to condition 158A) throughout the life of this consent.

4. The amendment of Condition 169 as follows:

The Operational Management Plan shall be reviewed on regular basis to ensure all road safety and amenity conditions are adequately addressed. Any proposed changes to the OMP are to be submitted to and approved by Council.

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

For: David Ryan (Chairperson), Tony Tuxworth, Michael Ryan and Milorad Rosic.

Against: Nil.

Reasons for Decision:

2. The Panel considers that the Operational Management Plan should incorporate all proposed conditions of consent that will address concerns relating to parking, noise and other amenity impacts and that the OMP should be approved by Council prior to the occupation of the centre.

ITEM EELPP015/19 - Development Application 7 Birmingham Street, Merrylands

Resolved:

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.

For: David Ryan (Chairperson), Tony Tuxworth, Michael Ryan and Milorad Rosic.

Against: Nil.

Reasons for Decision:

1. The Panel generally agrees with the Council Officer’s report and the recommendation.

The closed session of the meeting here closed at 2:52p.m

The open session of the meeting here opened at 2:53p.m. The Chairperson delivered the Cumberland Local Planning Panel’s resolutions to the Public Gallery.

The meeting terminated at 3:02p.m.

Signed:

David Ryan

Chairperson

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

10 April 2019

Item No: LPP016/19

Section 4.55(2) Modification - 75 Graham Street, Auburn

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: DA-500/2016/A

Application lodged	27-Aug-2018
Applicant	Quality Building Maintence & Constructions P/L
Owner	Est Late H Dariverenli and Mrs L Dariverenli
Application No.	DA-500/2016/A
Description of Land	75 Graham Street, AUBURN, Lot D DP 339117
Proposed Development	Section 4.55 (2) modification application for changes to the stormwater plans and changes to the design to address deferred commencement consent conditions DC1, DC2, DC3 and DC4
Site Area	524.80m²
Zoning	R2 Low Density Residential
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	No
Issues	Submissions, stormwater drainage, driveway width, landscaping, BASIX and raising of building

Summary:

1. Modification application No. DA-500/2016/A was received on 27-Aug-2018 for changes to the stormwater plans and changes to the design to address deferred commencement consent conditions DC1, DC2, DC3 and DC4.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 3 September 2018 and 17 September 2018. In response, 20 submissions were received.

3. The application is recommended for conditional approval subject to the deletion of the deferred commencement conditions and modification to the conditions as provided in the attached schedule.

4. The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal is considered to be contentious due to the number of objections being 10 or more objections.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is legally described as Lot D in DP 339117 and known as 75 Graham Street, Auburn. The site covers an area of approximately 525.5m2 and is rectangular in shape. It has a street frontage of 11.495m along Graham Street (western boundary) and side boundary of 45.72m.

The site is generally flat with a minor fall from the southern side boundary to the northern side boundary of 290mm and slopes away from Graham street frontage (RL31.995) to RL31.55 at the rear.

The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling with a detached garage. The site is located approximately 790m from a Berala Train Station.

The subject site is adjoined by detached dwellings on either side. The locality is characterised by a variety of residential developments older single storey and newer two storey dwellings.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

20181019_094503

Description of The Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for Section 4.55 (2) modification application for changes to the stormwater plans and changes to the design to address the deferred commencement consent conditions DC1, DC2, DC3 and DC4 (reproduced below in the History section). Specifically, this application seeks to:

· Delete deferred commencement condition DC1 relating to Stormwater Disposal and DC2 relating to Amended Stormwater Plans as a new stormwater design has been proposed to enable the site to drain to the street drainage via a pipe extension to the pit at the corner of Graham and Norman Street. The system will still be drained via gravity thus eliminating the need for a downstream easement.

· Delete deferred commencement condition DC3 relating to Amended Architectural Plans as the plans have been updated to comply with the above condition by removing balconies and providing privacy screens.

· Delete deferred commencement condition DC4 relating to Accessible Car Parking as the application has been amended to provide accessible parking onsite with B85 turning circles.

· Amendments to the design include conversion of the garage into a carport, expansion of the internal width of the carport to accommodate a shared space adjoining the accessible parking space by reducing the width of the entry foyer and removing the wall between the parking area and the entry foyer and widening the carport door. Other changes include reducing side setbacks at the front, raising the building height by 450mm and removing first floor side and rear facing balconies.

History

A review of Council’s records indicates the most recent applications on the site are:

· DA-500/2016: Demolition of the dwelling house and ancillary structures and construction of a new two storey boarding house comprising eight (8) boarding rooms – approved via deferred commencement on 10 August 2017. The deferred commencement conditions relevant to this modification application are as follows:

DC1. Stormwater Disposal

Stormwater runoff from the development shall be discharged to Cambridge Street by gravity system through downstream easement. In this regard,

a) A minimum 1.2m wide drainage easement to drain the site by gravity to Cambridge Street through downstream/adjoining site(s) shall be registered with Land and Property Information.

b) Cumberland Council shall be nominated as authority to vary or modify the above easement.

c) Copy of the registered ‘transfer granting easement’ document shall be submitted to and approved by Cumberland Council.

Reason:- to ensure appropriate easement is created for stormwater disposal.

DC2. Amended Stormwater Plans

A detailed stormwater plan to comply with “Auburn Development Control Plans 2010 - Stormwater Drainage” and “Australian Rainfall & Runoff 1987” shall be submitted to Council for assessment and approval. Details shall be prepared by a suitably qualified practising Civil/Hydraulic Engineer. In this regard,

· All stormwater runoff generated from the subject property shall be collected within the site and directed towards Council’s system via the proposed easement to Cambridge Street.

· An onsite detention facility shall be provided and all runoff generated within the subject development shall be directed towards the OSD prior to drain via the system within the obtained easement.

· Pipe within the easement shall be designed to 100 Year ARI event.

Reason:- to prevent localised flooding.

DC3. Amended Architectural Plans

The balconies attached to Boarding Room 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall be removed. In this regard, all associated sliding doors shall be amended to become standard windows with privacy screen affixed to the outside of the windows. The privacy screen must face the affected side or rear boundaries and have a minimum density of 85%.

DC4. Accessible Car Parking

The architectural plans shall be amended to provide at least one (1) accessible parking space on site. The accessible parking space shall comply with AS 2890.06.

The applicant was provided with 730 days to satisfy the deferred commencement conditions.

This modification application (DA-500/2016/A) was subsequently lodged seeking to delete the deferred commencement conditions.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a “Section 96 Modification Support Letter” dated 17 July 2018 and an additional letter prepared by Gillard Consulting Lawyers dated 22 August 2018 which was received by Council on 27-Aug-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. Extensive correspondence has been undertaken between Council and the applicant during the assessment process and the latest changes to the stormwater design were submitted for assessment on 15 February 2019 which have been considered in the following assessment.

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The modification application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that deletion of DC1 and DC2 in relation to stormwater drainage and easements is supportable subject to amendments to conditions 57 and 59 relating to stormwater disposal as per the draft conditions and new conditions relating to surface runoff, on-street drainage requirements, design and construction and structural design details of the underground tank.

It should be noted that the changes to the stormwater design were sought in order to retain existing approved levels, however, a minor increase in floor levels is shown on the stormwater plans which also differ from the original architectural plans submitted for this modification application which have not been updated. In this regard, the proposed changes to the external and internal finished floor levels sought are not supported and it will be conditioned for amended plans to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate to ensure that the built form is returned to its original approved height and levels.

External Referrals

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

Planning Comments

SECTION 4.55 MODIFICATION APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS

Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows Council to modify a development consent if:-

(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all)

The modification application pertains to the deletion of the deferred commencement conditions in relation to changes to stormwater drainage, drainage easements, accessible parking and changes to the architectural plans to address privacy impacts. The modifications are not to such an extent that they could be construed as being a substantially different development to that which for consent was originally granted. Accordingly, the modifications are considered acceptable in respect of Section 4.55(2) of the Act.

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

The application did not require any consultation with a Minister, public authority or other approval body.

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be

In accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan, adjoining and nearby property owners and occupiers were advised of the proposed modification and were invited to comment. This is further discussed in the ‘Public Notification’ section of the report.

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

In determining an application for modification of consent, Council must also take into consideration relevant matters referred to in Section 4.15(1). Following is a discussion of matters arising in relation to section 4.15(1) relevant to the proposed modification.

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 adequately considered in the original assessment for the demolition and construction of the boarding house. This modification application does not alter the original assessment against SEPP55.

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

An amended BASIX certificate is required to be submitted reflecting the changes proposed in the architectural plans. This was requested from the applicant as part of additional information, however the applicant contends that the changes will not affect the BASIX certificate and has asked Council to rely on the original BASIX certificate. The assessment of the modification shows that there are amendments to the architectural plans which impact some of the items on the original BASIX certificate such as changes to openings that requires address. In this regard, should the application be supported, it is recommended that a condition be included to require an amended BASIX that is consistent with any plans (including any required changes as part of conditions) be submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

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

The relevant provisions are addressed below:

Requirement	Y/N	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 modification remains satisfactory with regards to the aims of the policy.

Requirement

Y/N

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 modification remains satisfactory with regards to the aims of the 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.

Site is zoned R2 Low 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.

No change to the original assessment in DA-500/2016 and division 3 remains applicable to this modification.

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).

(5) In this clause:

social housing provider does not include a registered community housing provider unless the registered community housing provider is a registered entity within the meaning of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 of the Commonwealth.

N/A

N – existing

N/A

There is no maximum FSR applicable to the site for permissible residential accommodation.

Residential flat buildings are not permissible on the subject site.

Building height = 8.8m which is compliant with the maximum height limit of 9m. However, as discussed elsewhere in the report, the height increase is considered unnecessary as it was raised in relation to a stormwater drainage concept which has since be revised. Conditions have been imposed to ensure the development reverts to the previous approved height.

See discussion after table.

No change to the communal living room as per the original assessment in DA-500/2016.

No change to the private open space as per the original assessment in DA-500/2016.

No boarding house manager.

Not carried out on behalf of a social housing provider.

The parking rate requirements have increased since the determination of the original application. Two parking space are retained on site as per the original consent (which was compliant with the applicable SEPP provisions at the time) and one of those parking spaces has been converted into an accessible space. The modifications to the parking arrangement are acceptable as it does not reduce the number of approved spaces.

Due to the number of lodgers, a boarding house manager is not proposed or required.

All rooms meet the minimum accommodation size requirements.

All 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/A

A communal living room is provided as per the original assessment in DA-500/2016.

Each boarding room does not exceed 25sqm.

Room 4 is proposed for 2 adult lodgers and the rest are single occupancy rooms.

Private bathroom and kitchen facilities provided to each room.

Boarding house capacity is 9 adults and thus a boarding house manager is not required nor proposed.

Site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

Compliance with this provision is addressed via condition 10 of the original consent (DA-500/2016) which will remain as existing.

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.

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 – conditioned

See discussion below.

Cl 29(2)(b) Landscape Design

The landscape treatment to the front setback is not considered compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located as it lacks substantial deep soil landscaping within the front setback. The modifications show that the majority of the front setback is now paved for use as a driveway and pedestrian entry path and motorcycle parking. The location of the motorcycle parking within the front setback is considered inappropriate as it reduces the opportunities for soft landscaping. In this regard, the motorcycle parking shall be relocated and condition 10 relating to motorcycle and bicycle parking spaces should be amended to read as follows:

The development shall provide a minimum of two (2) motorcycle parking spaces and an area set aside for at least two (2) bicycle parking space. The area set aside as a Bicycle storage area behind the carport and to the north of the stairs is to be designated motorcycle parking with bicycle storage to be relocated to the eastern side of the carport, behind the proposed car spaces and must be clear of the parking envelope or be in the form of wall hung bicycle spaces.

Details demonstrating compliance shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:- to ensure motorcycle and bicycle parking space is provided on site on accommodate the development.

It is also acknowledged that a wider driveway is required to facilitate a forward in forward out movement for vehicles accessing the site as required in condition 50 of the original consent and as shown in the swept paths submitted with this modification. This is further discussed in detail under the Parking and Loading part of the DCP. As a wider driveway is required for safe manoeuvring of vehicles, there is limited opportunity to provide soft landscaping consistent with that required for a dwelling, but landscaping should be maximised where possible. A condition is recommended to be imposed to ensure that soft landscaping opportunities are maximised within the front setback and that the landscape plan is amended to be consistent with the architectural plans submitted. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to require the pedestrian entry path between the street and the covered entry area to be reduced to 1.2m in width consistent with the original approved pedestrian path width and that all areas within the front setback not required for car turning circles or pedestrian entry paths be soft landscaped with a mix of plantings that soften the built form to the street.

Cl 30A Character of Local area

The modifications do not significantly change the design of the development. The front façade remains similar to that approved in the original application and presents as a two storey residence to the street and landscape design non-compliances are discussed above. It is unclear as to whether there will be any front fencing as details have been removed from plans. As such, a standard condition relating to front fencing is recommended to be included in the consent. The modifications result in a minor reduction to the side setbacks to 900mm but remain consistent with the side setbacks for surrounding dwellings. Subject to the imposition of recommended conditions, the modifications will not substantially alter the design and streetscape presentation and thus remains compatible with the character of the local area as originally assessed in DA-500/2016.

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

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 LEP and the objectives of the R2 - Low Density Residential zone.

(a) Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a Boarding House and is permissible in the R2 - Low Density Residential zone with consent.

boarding house means a building that:

a) is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and

b) provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and

c) may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and

d) has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

The relevant matters to be considered under Auburn LEP 2010 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised 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 clause 1.2 aims of plan.
Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development
2.3 Zone objectives and Land Use Table	Yes	The proposal is consistent with regards to the zone objectives which seek: •To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment. •To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.
Part 4 Principal development standards
4.3 Height of buildings · 9m	Yes	The proposed height is 8.8m and compliant. However, as discussed elsewhere in the report, the height increase is considered unnecessary as it was raised in relation to a stormwater drainage concept which has since be revised. Conditions are recommended to be imposed to ensure the development reverts to the previous approved height.
Part 6 Additional local provisions
6.1 Acid sulfate soils · Class 5	Yes	The modification does not alter the original assessment against this clause.

The provisions of any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(ii))

The proposed modification 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 provisions of Auburn DCP 2010 are of limited applicability to the boarding house development. The parts relevant to this modification are addressed below:

Access and Mobility

The original application was supported by a BCA Assessment Report and provided two adaptable rooms (rooms 1 and 2) on the ground floor but no accessible parking on site. As part of the deferred commencement, condition DC4 was imposed for the provision of at least one AS 2890.06 compliant accessible parking space on site. The amended plans for this application have accommodated an AS2890 compliant accessible parking space with a shared space and bollard adjoining the accessible space within the carport (previously an enclosed garage). This is acceptable and DC4 is considered to be satisfied and can be deleted as part of this modification.

In relation to other accessibility issues, insufficient information has been submitted detailing the impacts of the level increases on accessibility to and from and around the development. Whilst the overall height will still be compliant with the LEP, the building was originally being raised in an effort to address the stormwater drainage issues, however subsequent amendments to the stormwater drainage design were undertaken to enable the existing levels to be maintained. In this regard, the raising of the building is thus rendered unnecessary and is not supported. Conditions are recommended to be imposed to ensure that the built form is returned to its original approved height and levels and the retaining concrete block wall to retain the proposed fill be deleted.

Parking and Loading

Control D5 of section 3.2 of the Parking and Loading part of the DCP states that access driveways shall have a minimum width of 3m, whereas the proposed driveway width is 6.8m at the property boundary and is non-compliant. As mentioned previously in the AHSEPP, a wider driveway is required to support the forward in forward out movement for cars accessing the site as required by condition 50 of the original consent and demonstrated by the submitted swept paths. It should be noted that the B85 swept paths for two cars accessing the garage were submitted with the original application showing that a wider driveway was required to facilitate this access but the architectural plans were not updated accordingly and show a 3.5m wide driveway. The swept paths were reused for this modification even though there are minor changes to the parking arrangement but are still relevant as the parking spaces remain in a similar location to that approved. The wider driveway can be supported on merit as it satisfies the performance criteria P1 and P3 as the proposed driveway is to facilitate forward in and forward out movement of vehicles to reduce potential conflict with other vehicles and pedestrians when entering and exiting the site. This improves safety for both residents and does not impact on the safe operation of the surrounding road system and thus achieves objectives b and c of section 3.0 of the Parking and Loading part of the DCP relating to the general design of parking facilities.

Stormwater Drainage

As discussed previously under the referrals section, Council’s Engineers have considered the proposed modifications against the Stormwater Drainage part of the DCP and have advised that the amended stormwater design can be supported subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions of consent as discussed under the internal referrals section of this report.

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

There is no draft planning agreement associated with the subject 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 proposal will have no significant detrimental effect relating to environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to appropriate conditions being imposed.

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 14 days between 3 September 2018 and 17 September 2018. The notification generated 20 submissions in respect of the proposal with no submissions disclosing a political donation or gift.

The following issues raised in the submissions relate to the original application and were addressed in the assessment of DA-500/2016:

· Use as a boarding house

· Traffic

· Safety and security

· Site coverage, bulk and size of building

· Submissions to original DA

· Privacy

· Overshadowing

· Precedence

Other issues raised in the public submissions which are relevant to this modification are summarised and commented on as follows:

1. Issue: Privacy

Planner’s comment: Appropriate privacy screening has been provided to new first floor northern side windows as required by DC3 but it is noted that no screening has been proposed to the rear first floor window and this is proposed to be addressed via conditions for details to be provided to the PCA prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate to enable DC3 to be deleted.

2. Issue: Solar amenity and overshadowing.

Planner’s comment: As discussed in the assessment, the increase in building height and levels are not supported and the conditions will be imposed to ensure that the proposal is lowered to the original approved levels.

3. Issue: Noise

Planner’s comment: Noise amenity will be improved as part of this modification as the first floor side and rear balconies have been removed.

4. Issue: Property prices

Planner’s comment: This is not a matter for consideration under the Act.

5. Issue: Streetscape.

Planner’s comment: Addressed under the SEPP in the assessment.

6. Issue: Insufficient offstreet parking.

Planner’s comment: Addressed under the SEPP in the assessment.

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:

This modification does not impact the original assessment in relation to development contributions and no changes are required to associated conditions.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The modification application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Auburn LEP and DCP 2010 and the changes sought are supportable subject to recommended amendments to conditions and deletion of the deferred commencement conditions. These modifications sought are largely acceptable having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, and subject to the recommended deletion of the deferred commencement conditions and modifications to the conditions of consent. Council may be satisfied that the modifications being supported provide for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents and minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring 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 modifications to the conditions and deletion of the deferred commencement 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:

1. That Modification Application No. DA-500/2016/A for Section 4.55 modification application for changes to the stormwater plans and changes to the design to address the deferred commencement consent conditions DC1, DC2, DC3 and DC4 on land at 75 Graham Street, AUBURN NSW 2144 be approved subject to attached draft modifications to the conditions and deletion of the deferred commencement conditions.

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

Attachments

1. Draft Conditions of Consent ⇩

2. Architectural Plans ⇩

3. Stormwater Plans ⇩

4. Vehicle Swept Paths ⇩

5. Submissions Received ⇩

6. Original Notice of Determination for DA-500/2016 ⇩

7. Original Architectural Plans ⇩

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

10 April 2019

Item No: LPP017/19

Section 4.56 modification application 78-80 & 84 Bursill Street, Guildford

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: DA-494/2016/A

Application lodged	05-Sep-2018
Applicant	Dugald Mackenzie
Owner	Jarad (Nsw) Pty Ltd and Mr H Jideh
Application No.	DA-494/2016/A
Description of Land	78-84 Bursill Street, GUILDFORD NSW 2161, Lot A DP 370293, Lot 2 DP 541749 & Lot 1 DP 541749
Proposed Development	Section 4.56 application for various modifications to approved residential flat building including altering the bin room, finished floor level and configuration of basement and alterations to unit windows and squaring off corners
Site Area	2443.4m²
Zoning	R4 High Density Residential
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	No
Issues	FSR, parking allocation

Summary:

1. Development Application No. DA-494/2016/A was received on 05 September 2018 for various modifications to approved residential flat building including altering the bin room, finished floor level and configuration of basement and alterations to unit windows and squaring off corners

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 21 days between 18 September 2018 and 9 October 2018. In response, no submissions were received.

3. The variations are as follows:

Control	Required	Provided	% variation
FSR	1.1	1.15	4.3%

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

5. The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal relates to a court approved development where there are variations to a development standard.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site for the proposed development is comprised of 3 allotments, which are legally described as Lot A DP 370298, Lot 2 DP 541749 & Lot 1 DP 541749, and is known as 78-80 & 84 Bursill Street, Guildford (“the site”).The site is on the south side of Bursill Street on the south-eastern corner of the intersection between Bursill Street and Talbot Road. The site is largely regular in configuration with a combined area of 2,443.4m2 and frontages of 59m to Bursill Street and 39.3 m to Talbot Road. The site has a fall in natural ground level from the southern boundary towards the north boundary of the site, i.e. from rear to front, of approximately 2m.

The locality is characterised by a varied mix of land uses including low density, medium density, high density residential land uses and business zones including local centre, mixed use and enterprise corridor, as well as public recreation and general industrial uses.

Adjacent to the site on the east is medium density residential zoned dwellings and to the northern boundary, separated by Bursill Street, is low density residential dwellings and Guildford Bowling Club, which is directly opposite the Bursill Street frontage. The eastern boundary is land zoned medium density residential. Land to the south is zoned low density residential, business local centre (B2) and mixed use business (B4). The site is in relatively close proximity to public services and facilities (Guildford Town Centre) and public transport (Guildford train station).

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 is in receipt of a section 4.56 (modification of consent granted by the Court) modification application on 05-Sep-2018 which includes the following modifications to the approved development:

· Alterations to the finished floor level of the basement carpark to provide a single level basement carpark, rather than the approved split level basement;

· Refinement of the basement carparking including removal of the fire stairs along the southern edge of the basement and provision of a pump room along the western boundary of the basement.

· Relocation of the bin compound fronting Talbot Road to improve accessibility and provide additional landscaping adjacent to the southern boundary;

· Deletion of second window to bedrooms 2 of units 6 and 7;

· Changes to the internal layouts of units 1 and 4, primarily through the refinement of storage areas and relocation of the laundry;

· Deletion of a balcony facing window on units 14,15,23 and 24 and insertion of a screened south facing bedroom window to each of the units; and

· Consolidation of two windows into one larger balcony facing window to units 17 and 21

History

A review of Council’s records indicates the most recent applications on the site are:

· Parramatta City Council, under delegated authority, refused Development Application No. 494/2016 for demolition and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 33 residential apartments above basement car parking.

· 28 September 2016, appeal 2016/290622 was lodged with the Land and Environment Court for demolition of 3 dwellings and garages and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 33 units and associated basement parking for 50 cars – orders were given 23 March 2017 for approval of the development with conditions.

Application history:

· 26 November 2018: Application deferred to address parking design in relation to the shared zone and small car space, stormwater and OSD details as well as a Music Model and report.

· 10 December 2018: Additional information was submitted.

· 23 February 2019: Additional clarification was sought as to how the basement was redesigned and the music model report was requested.

· 27 February and 4 March 2019: Remaining addition information was submitted.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 14 August 2018 and was received by Council on 6 September 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 modification application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to recommended conditions addressing stormwater and OSD design prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate which is recommended to be imposed on the consent.

It is noted that the central-western shared zone is acceptable as a vehicular aisle can be used as shared area as per Australian Standards AS2890.6.

External Referrals

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

Planning Comments

Section 4.56 Modification by consent authorities of consents granted by the Court

Section 4.56(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows Council to modify a development consent if:-

(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

The development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the original consent. That is, the changes are minor in nature and relate to windows, squaring off unit corners, internal changes to the layout, relocation of bin storage and modifications to the basement layout. The building will remain similar to that approved and there will be no changes to the overall height and setbacks.

(b) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, and

See discussion on “Public Notification” in this report.

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

The notification area for this application includes those who previously made a submission.

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

See discussion under “Public Notification” in this report.

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

Proposed modification is not contrary to the public interest and the likely environmental impacts of the development as modified are considered acceptable. An assessment under the heads of consideration in section 4.15 is provided in the following sections of this report.

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 SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 is applicable to the application. The modification application raises no issues or inconsistencies with the requirements and objectives of the SREP and any associated controls.

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

No change to the assessment in the original application (DA-494/2016).

(a) 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 land identified as such by the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforest Area Map.

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

The changes do not require an amended BASIX certificate. Existing conditions pertaining to BASIX remain unchanged.

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

No change to the original SEPP65 assessment including the design quality principles which were considered as part of the court approval.

Apartment Design Guide

In regards to compliance with the ADG, the proposed modifications do not significantly vary the built form and thus remains similar to that approved by the Court. The approved setbacks, communal and private open space, circulation areas, ceiling heights, basement parking provision and arrangement of units remain generally as approved. Whilst there are changes to the internal arrangements, windows, squaring of units, the internal amenity of the units will remain satisfactory.

In the rearrangement of the basement, sufficient storage for all units have been provided and there are no changes to the number of parking spaces as previously approved. It is noted however, that the updated plans have not delineated visitor and residential parking. A condition will be included to ensure that 8 spaces are allocated to visitor parking and the remainder 42 spaces are provided for residents as per the original court approval.

Local Environmental Plans

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011

The provisions of Parramatta LEP 2011 are applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the R4 High Density Residential zone which seek to:

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

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

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

· To provide opportunity for high density residential development close to major transport nodes, services and employment opportunities.

· To provide opportunities for people to carry out a reasonable range of activities from their homes if such activities will not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

The proposal is well located within walking distance of Guildford railway station, services and employment in the Guildford Town Centre. The development also provides for an additional apartments within a high density residential flat building.

Permissibility:-

The proposal is defined as a residential flat building, which is permitted with consent in the zone.

The relevant matters to be considered under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 for the proposed development are outlined below.

Figure 4 –Parramatta LEP 2011 Compliance Table

Provision	Compliance	Comment
Part 4 Principal development standards
4.3 Height of buildings · 14m	N/A	No change to the approved height.
4.4 Floor space ratio · 1.1:1 · Site area = 2443.4sqm	No	The proposed FSR is 1.15:1 (2802sqm) and is non-compliant and is discussed in detail below.
Part 6 Additional local provisions
6.1 Acid sulfate soils · Class 5	Yes	No change to original assessment.
6.2 Earthworks	Yes	Existing conditions of consent remain relevant to the alterations and additions to the basement.

The following is a detailed discussion of the issues identified in the compliance table above in relation to the Parramatta LEP 2011.

Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio

The court approved development included an FSR of 1.13:1 (2776sqm GFA). Whilst it is noted that the applicant states that there is no change to the FSR, an assessment of the modifications show that there are minor increases to the overall GFA arising from the squaring of unit corners and the at grade bin room. The original GFA diagram and figure did not account for the at-grade rear bin store room. The modifications result in an increase of 26sqm inclusive of the bin room and squaring of unit splays, bringing the new GFA to 2802 sqm or 1.15:1. This represents a non-compliance of 4.3% which is an increase from the approved 2.7% variation to the 1.1:1 FSR development standard. The non-compliance can be supported as it does not significantly alter the building as approved. There are no changes to the building height and the setbacks remain relatively the same as approved and hence there are negligible additional amenity impacts to adjoining development. The bin room location remains single storey at the rear away from the street frontage and thus does not impact the streetscape presentation or result in adverse shadow impacts. The squaring off on unit corners do not significantly change the building design and provides more usable internal spaces to the units. The bulk and scale will not be dissimilar to that of the court approval and the modification can be supportable in this instance.

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))

The majority of the controls in Parramatta DCP 2011 are not relevant to the proposed modifications as the majority of issues are covered by the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

There is no draft planning agreement associated with the subject modification application.

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

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

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

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

The 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 Parramatta DCP 2011, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days between 18 September 2018 and 9 October 2018. The notification generated no submissions in respect of the proposal.

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

Section 7.12 (Formerly S94a) Fixed 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:

Existing conditions relating to S94A (S7.12) remain applicable to the development.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The modification application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, relevant SEPPs, Parramatta LEP and DCP 2011 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R4 High Density Residential zone under the relevant provisions of the Parramatta LEP 2011. Minor variations to the FSR development standards have been discussed in the body of this report. The impacts of the proposed modification is not considered to result in an adverse 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 4.56 and 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:

1. That Modification Application No. DA-494/2016/A for various modifications to approved residential flat building including altering the bin room, finished floor level and configuration of basement and alterations to unit windows and squaring off corners on land at 78-84 Bursill Street, GUILDFORD be approved subject to attached conditions listed in the attached schedule.

Attachments

1. Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

2. Architectural and Stormwater/Engineering Plans ⇩

3. Judgement Order for DA-494/2016 ⇩

4. Architectual Plans ⇩

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

10 April 2019

Item No: LPP018/19

Development Application - 61 Ringrose Avenue, Greystanes

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: DA 2018/491

Application lodged	20 December 2018
Applicant	Designcorp Architects
Owner	Aida Dib
Application No.	DA-2018/491/1
Description of Land	61 Ringrose Avenue, Greystanes (Lot 4, DP 31284)
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots
Site Area	579.5m² by calculation
Zoning	R2 Low Density Residential Zone
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	No
Issues	Nil

Summary:

1. Development Application No. DA-2018/491/1 was received on 20 December 2018 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days from 25 January 2019 to 8 February 2019. In response, the application received 2 submissions.

3. There variations sought for the proposal includes:

Control	Required	Provided	Variation
3.8 Building appearance(bulk and scale)	Maximum length of walls along the first floor side boundaries shall be 10 metres without any indentations, offsets or other articulation features	The maximum length of the first floor side wall along the northern and southern elevations without any indentations, offsets or other articulation features is 11.1m	11% variation. The first floor side wall on the northern and southern elevations exceed 10 metres in length without articulation, being 11.1m. Notwithstanding the variation, the length is deemed acceptable as the overall bulk and scale of the development is considered acceptable through detailing. The design integrates the development into the existing locality and has considered size, shape and orientation of the allotment. Further, the building form does not limit the required solar access for the subject proposal and adjoining properties. Given this, the variation to the maximum first floor wall length without articulation development control is considered to be acceptable.

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

5. The application is referred to the Panel as the owner of the subject site is a Council staff member who at the time of lodgement of the application was principally involved in Council’s strategic planning functions.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 61 Ringrose Avenue, Greystanes, and is legally described as Lot 4 in Deposited Plan 31284. The site is located on the western side of Ringrose Avenue within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The site is an irregularly shaped allotment with a frontage of 15.09 metres to Ringrose Avenue. The subject site has a depth of 36.575 metres along the northern boundary and 40.235 metres along the southern side boundary and a 15.525 metre rear western boundary equating to a total site area of 579.5m².

The site currently contains a single storey dwelling house with an attached metal awning and rendered garage to the rear of the site. The site has a cross fall of approximately 1.5 metres from the south-eastern corner to the north-western corner of the site (from the front to the rear of the site).

Adjoining developments to the subject site include a 2 storey dwelling house of contemporary architectural style to the south at No. 63 Ringrose Avenue and a split level dwelling house of brick finish to the north at No. 59 Ringrose Avenue. A single storey dwelling house and a secondary dwelling also adjoins the site to the west at No. 38 Gerald Street, Greystanes.

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 the demolition of existing structures and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

Demolition of existing structures on site including a single storey rendered dwelling house with an attached metal awning and rendered garage; and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy incorporating for each unit:

Ground Floor

· Entry porch;

· A single garage;

· Bedroom

· Family/dining room/kitchen/living room;

· Laundry;

· Bath; and

· Alfresco terrace area.

First Floor

· A total of 4 bedrooms (including master with an ensuite) for each unit;

· Bathroom with toilet; and

· Front balconies facing Ringrose Avenue.

Torrens title subdivision of the site into 2 lots.

History

Date	Action
20 December 2018	The Development Application was lodged for the demolition of existing structures and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots.
22 January 2019	The Development Application was referred to Council’s internal Development Engineering, Landscape and Rates departments for review.
25 January 2019 to 8 February 2019	Application was placed on public notification for 14 days. 2 submissions were received.
10 April 2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Designcorp Architects dated December 2018 and was received by Council on 20 December 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 proposal is satisfactory subject to deferred commencement conditions.

Landscape Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Landscape Officer for comment who has advised that the proposal is acceptable subject to standard conditions.

Rates – House Numbers

The Application was referred to Council’s Rates Officer for comment who has raised no objections to the proposed development, subject to conditions of consent.

External Referrals

There were no external referrals that were required to be undertaken as part of the assessment of the application.

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)

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

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

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

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

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

The application is not subject to clause 85 of the ISEPP as the site is not in or adjacent to a rail 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 application is not subject to clause 87 of the ISEPP as the site is not in or adjacent to a rail corridor nor 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 does not have 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 average daily traffic volume is less than 40,000 vehicles on Ringrose Avenue.

Clause 104 – Traffic generating developments

The application is not subject to clause 104 of the ISEPP 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

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

Yes – The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. The application which does not involve removal of any significant trees or vegetation was also referred to Council’s Landscape Officer who raised no objections to the application in that regard. Please refer to the DCP compliance table for further discussion.

(e) 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 land identified as such by the Coastal Vulnerability Area Map.

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

BASIX Certificate No. 985767M_02 issued on 17 December 2018 has been submitted with Council. The BASIX Certificate has been reviewed and is considered to be satisfactory.

Local Environmental Plans

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013

The provisions of the HLEP 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the HLEP 2013 and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

· Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a “dual occupancy (attached)” and is permissible in the R2 zone with consent.

A dual occupancy (attached) means 2 dwellings on one lot of land that are attached to each other, but does not include a secondary dwelling.

The relevant matters to be considered under the HLEP 2013 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.

Figure 4 – Holroyd LEP 2013 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD	COMPLIANCE	DISCUSSION
4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size Min. 450sqm	No	However, complies with Clause 4.1A
4.1A Exceptions to minimum lot sizes for certain residential development	Yes	Proposal is for the purpose of a dual occupancy development
4.3 Height of Buildings Max. 9m	Yes	The maximum height is 7.2metres
4.4 Floor Space Ratio Max. 0.5:1	Yes	With a site area of 579.5m², the maximum GFA allowable is 289.75m². The development proposes a GFA of 289.3m² which equates to FSR of 0.5:1.
4.6 Exceptions to development standards	N/A	N/A
5.10 Heritage conservation	N/A	The site is not heritage listed, adjoin a heritage item nor is it located in the vicinity of a heritage conservation area
6.1 Acid sulfate soils	N/A	The site is not affected by Acid Sulfate Soils
6.2 Earthworks	Yes	Minor earthworks with no detrimental impacts
6.4 Flood planning	N/A	The site is not identified as being flood prone.
6.5 Terrestrial Biodiversity	N/A	There is no evidence of any terrestrial biodiversity on the site
6.6 Riparian land and watercourses	N/A	The site is not identified as riparian land or in vicinity of a watercourse.

6.7 Stormwater management	Yes	The Application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has recommended deferred commencement conditions relating to easement creation. Accordingly, the draft conditions of consent received on 5 February 2019 have been incorporated in the draft conditions of consent provided at Attachment 1 of this report.
6.8 Salinity	Yes	The site is located on land identified as being affected by moderate salinity. Appropriate conditions of consent have been included within the draft conditions of consent, relating to salinity.

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

· 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 9.1 Directions by the Minister where appropriate.

· Draft amendment to Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP)2013 - Amendments to minimum lot size provisions for dual occupancies

Council is proposing to increase the minimum lot size required for a dual occupancy development to 600m2 in residential zones (R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential). The proposed changes are under public consultation. The proposed changes are at present neither certain or imminent and the lot size of the subject site complies with the current controls for dual occupancy development and is deemed to be acceptable.

The lot size of the proposal which is 579.5m2 has been considered in this regard. Notwithstanding the variance with the draft amendment, the site provides adequate opportunities for good design and ensures that sufficient area is available for adequate landscaping, setbacks and a built form that does not detract from the local residential character. Accordingly, the lot size is considered acceptable as it is compliant with the current provisions of the Holroyd DCP 2013.

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

Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013

The provisions of the HDCP 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves general compliance with the key controls of the HDCP 2013. The following Parts of the HDCP 2013 are applicable to the proposed development:

· Part A - General Controls

· Part B - Residential Controls

Figure 5 – Holroyd DCP 2013 Compliance Table

Clause	Control	Proposed	Complies
Part A – General Controls
1	Subdivision
	Torrens title subdivision is proposed as part of the application and is compliant with Clause 4.1A of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013.		Yes
2	Roads and Access
	Proposed vehicular crossings (VC) and driveways are along the eastern front boundary of the site. The driveway and vehicular crossing will provide access to the single garages. New VC and driveway are considered satisfactory.		Yes
3	Car Parking
3.1	Minimum Parking Spaces 2 car parking spaces per dwelling (1 undercover)	The development proposes a single garage for each dwelling and a sufficient tandem parking on the driveway.	Yes
4	Trees and Landscape Works
	The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant trees. The application has also been reviewed by Council’s Tree Management Officer and is considered satisfactory subject to conditions.		Yes
5	Biodiversity
	There is no evidence of any terrestrial biodiversity on the site. Therefore, these provisions are not applicable. As shown on Council’s Biodiversity Map, the site is not affected by ‘biodiversity’.		N/A
6	Soil Management
6.2	Site Contamination and Land Filling	The site is not identified in Council’s records as being contaminated. A site inspection revealed that 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.	N/A
6.3	Erosion and Sediment Control	Submitted Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is considered to be satisfactory.	Yes
6.5	Salinity Management	The site is located on land identified as being affected by moderate salinity. Appropriate conditions of consent have been included within the draft conditions of consent, relating to salinity.	Yes
7	Stormwater Management
	The submitted stormwater plan has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineering department and is satisfactory, subject to deferred commencement conditions.		Yes
8.	Flood Prone Land
	As shown on Council’s Flood Map, the site is not identified as flood prone land.		N/A
9.	Managing external road noise and vibration
	The site is not located in or adjacent to a classified road or rail corridor.		N/A
10.	Safety and Security
	The front entry, windows to habitable rooms and balconies address the street frontage to provide a high level of surveillance. Therefore, safety and security is considered to be satisfactory.		Yes
11.	Waste Management
	The submitted Waste Management Plan is considered to be satisfactory.		Yes
12.	Services
	Water, sewer, overhead electricity and telephone facilities will be available to the proposed units.		Yes
Part B- Residential Controls
1.1	Building Materials
	Building materials for new residential development and for additions to existing residential development must be compatible with the streetscape and character of its locality.	Facades are well articulated with appropriate materials and is compatible with the character of the streetscape.	Yes
1.2	Fences
	Maximum height of 1.5m, maximum 1m solid.	The proposal involves construction of a masonry fence with a maximum height of 1m which is considered acceptable.	Yes
1.3	Views
	Where significant and/or district views are currently enjoyed, or where views may be reasonably created, the design of development shall be designed to minimise the obstruction of such views.	There are no significant or district view corridors within the vicinity. Accordingly, the proposal does not obstruct the currently enjoyed views of adjoining properties.	Yes
1.4	Privacy
	The windows of dwellings are to be located so they do not provide direct and close views into the windows of habitable rooms and private open spaces of adjoining dwellings.	Southern Elevation: The highlight window provided for the family room has a sill height of 1.7m above finished floor level. Further, the 2.1m side fence which is subject of condition will alleviate any immediate visual privacy impacts on the southern adjoining property. Overlooking from the kitchen window and the alfresco area on the ground floor level will be obscured by the 2.1m side boundary fence, noting that the alfresco area is setback 1.85m from the southern boundary. The window for bedroom 5 is not expected to have any significant privacy impacts given it is considered a low activity room. The garage is also provided with a highlight window and is not considered a high activity room. The first floor level windows belong to bedrooms which are considered as low use rooms and will not have any significant privacy impacts. Western Elevation Sufficient separation from the rear adjoining property is provided from the ground floor windows and alfresco areas. The first floor level windows belong to bedrooms which are low use rooms and will not have any significant privacy impacts. Northern Elevation The highlight window provided for the family room has a sill height of 1.7m above finished floor level. Further, the 2.1m side fence which is subject to conditions will alleviate any immediate visual privacy impacts on the northern adjoining property. Overlooking from the kitchen window and the alfresco area on the ground floor level will be obscured by the 2.1m side boundary fence, noting that the alfresco area is setback 1.85m from the northern boundary. The window for bedroom 5 is not expected to have any significant privacy impacts given it is considered a low activity room. The garage is also provided with a highlight window and is not considered a high activity room. The first floor level windows belong to bedrooms which are considered as low use rooms and will not have any significant privacy impacts.	Yes
	Window sills shall have a maximum height of 1500mm are required in ground floor living areas located higher than 1 metre above existing ground level and within 6 metres of the property boundary. Note: • The placing of windows shall be based on the detailed site analysis prepared for the development proposal. • The use of windows which are narrow, translucent or obscured for upper floors and bathrooms is recommended. • Further design controls for screening residential flat buildings are contained in section 6 of this Part.	The ground floor living areas on the southern and northern elevations have finished floor heights of 402mm and 251mm respectively above the natural ground level. Noting that the living area windows are within 6m of the property boundary window sills of minimum 1.7m from the finished floor levels have been provided to protect, privacy to adjoining sites.
	Where a proposed deck overlooks outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings, suitable screening is to be provided, at a minimum height of 1500mm.	Given the minimal finished floor level heights of the alfresco areas along the side elevations and the 1.85m side setbacks provided, a 2.1m side fence is considered appropriate to protect the privacy and reduce overlooking impacts on adjoining properties.	Yes
	Landscaping shall be designed to provide screening and filtering for control of privacy and to reduce overlooking of dwellings.	Adequate landscaping is provided throughout the site, incorporating garden beds and hedges along the side and rear boundaries and within the courtyards to provide adequate screening.	Yes
	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.	Adequate building separation is proposed to maximise acoustic privacy. The side and rear setbacks are compliant to maximise acoustic privacy.	Yes
	Air conditioners, swimming pool pumps and the like are not to exceed 5dba above background noise levels and should not be audible from habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings. Note: Air conditioners, swimming pool pumps and the like shall comply with the protection of the environment operations act and noise regulation.	The development consent will include relevant conditions to ensure the air conditioners and rainwater tanks do not exceed 5dba above background noise levels.	Yes
	Balconies shall not extend beyond the required setback.	All balconies proposed are within the required setbacks.	Yes
	All balconies and decks higher than 800mm above existing ground level shall incorporate privacy measures to ensure that the privacy of surrounding residents is not unduly reduced, Note: Privacy measure may include (but are not limited to:) • screening in the form of walls, screens or lourves • landscape planting • lattice or similar on top of side and rear fencing	The proposed alfresco areas for the development are both less than 800mm above the natural ground level (200mm at the northern elevation and approximately 400mm at the southern elevation). Further, the alfresco areas are setback 1.85m from the northern and southern side boundaries. Given that side fences of 2.1m height are to be installed as a condition of consent, there are no immediate privacy impacts from these areas. Accordingly, the privacy impacts from the alfresco area are considered acceptable.	Yes
1.5	Landscaping and open space
	Landscaped area shall be a minimum of 2 metres wide and is to be, where possible, at ground level.	The landscaped area for the proposed development has a minimum width of 2 metres and is at ground level.	Yes
	No more than 50% of the provided landscaped area shall be forward of the front building line.	The landscaped area for the proposal is predominantly in the rear yard of the proposed development.	Yes
	Only hard paved areas for the purposes of driveways and pathways will be permitted within the front setback area, and shall be kept to a minimum. Hard paved areas shall not cover the entire front setback area.	The hard paved areas for the front setbacks of the proposed dwellings only constitute driveways and pathways as hard paved areas. All other areas in the front yard are covered with deep soil landscaping.	Yes
	Where an access driveway is located on the side boundary or where an internal roadway is to be provided, a landscape strip of 1 metre shall be provided.	The access driveway for each dwelling has a landscape strip of more than 1 metre along the side boundaries.	Yes
	The % of the total site area to be provided as landscape area for each residential development type shall be as follows: • 20%- Dwelling house, dual occupancy and attached housing development on lots less than 600m2.	The subject application proposes 32.9% (190.7m²) of landscaped area for the subject site at a minimum width of 2 metres.	Yes
	• Only be located at the rear or side of the dwelling • Be at located ground level. Structures such as decks proposed to be included as private open spaces, which are equal to or less than 500mm above ground level dwelling, and complies with all other criteria, may be considered by Council based upon their merits. • Minimise overlooking opportunities and shall not decrease the visual privacy of neighbouring development. • Accommodate both passive and active recreation uses. • Must be directly accessible from a main living area of the dwelling (i.e. lounge/dining/rumpus room). • Provided for the exclusive use of the occupant(s) of the dwelling house; • Include an area for external clothes drying with good solar access where possible, which is not visible from a public area. • Shall not be steeper than a 1:8 gradient. For steeply sloping sites, Council may consider terrace type stepping, which must have a length to width ratio no greater than 3:1.	The proposed private open space area for each dwelling: - Is located at the rear of the subject site; - Is located at ground level; - Does not impact on the privacy of adjoining properties; - Is directly accessible from the main living room; - Is for the use of the occupants of the dual occupancy units; - Includes an area for clothes drying not visible from the street with adequate solar access; and - Is not steeper than a 1:8 gradient.	Yes
	Rear private open space areas are to have external access either through an associated garage or directly from a common area in order to facilitate maintenance of the private open space and storage of garbage bins.	The private open space area for each dwelling can be accessed directly from the side boundaries which can be utilised to maintain the area and for the storage of garbage bins.	Yes
	Private open space shall be provided at ground level in a single tract with a minimum dimension of not less than 3.0 metres.	The proposed private open space area for each unit is at ground level with a minimum width of greater than 3 metres.	Yes
	Principal private open space shall have a minimum dimension of 4 metres, have direct access from a major living area of the dwelling and be clear of all structures, including posts.	The principal private open space for each dwelling has a minimum dimension of greater than 4 metres, is directly accessible from the main living room and is clear of all structures.	Yes
	15% of the total site area is to be provided as private open space for dwelling house, dual occupancy and attached housing developments and this shall include a principal area of 25m2.	The proposed private open space are approximately 34.2% (97m²) for the proposed site area of Lot 1 and 38% (113m²) for the proposed site area of Lot 2 including 63m² & 79m² of principal private open space (PPOS) area for the respective units.	Yes
1.6	Safety and security
	The front door of a development should either be visible from the street or internal roadway, or overlooked by a window, and should be clearly visible from the driveway.	The front door and living room windows are visible from the street for both the dwellings which maintains safety and security.	Yes
	Blank walls along street frontages are prohibited.	No blank walls are proposed along the street frontage.	Yes
	Landscaping that may allow would-be intruders to hide shall be avoided.	The landscaping within the front will not allow intruders the opportunity to hide.	Yes
1.7	Building and site sustainability
	Residential building designs should incorporate the following design principles for achieving a more sustainable home: • Effective building Orientation- attempt to take advantage of northerly aspects, where possible. • Energy efficient building materials should be used • Design to allow for cross ventilation- through window size, placement and ventilation. • Create sustainable landscaping - deciduous trees on north side of dwelling and the planting of vegetable gardens. • Window Protection- through external shading devices. • Draughtproofing and weathersealing- to prevent potential air leaks. • Effective use of natural light- dwellings should be designed so that artificial lighting is not needed during the day.	The subject development is designed to achieve a sustainable home through: - The placement of windows to improve natural lighting; - The window placements to maximise natural ventilation; - Adequate landscaping; and - The rainwater tanks to satisfy water sustainability. A BASIX Certificate for the development accompanies the application detailing the compliance with the sustainable building design requirements under the BASIX Scheme.	Yes
	The design and location of stormwater drainage structures, such as detention and rainwater tanks, is to be integrated with the landscape design and fencing for the site. Above ground structures should not be visually intrusive.	The proposed above ground rainwater tanks are integrated with the landscape design and are not visually intrusive.	Yes
	All roofing shall be provided with adequate gutter and downpipes connected to roof water drainage systems.	The proposed development is provided with adequate gutter and downpipes connected to drainage systems as assessed by Council’s Development Engineer.	Yes
	Full details of proposed rainwater tanks shall be submitted with a Development Application for approval. Details are to include (as a minimum): • Rainwater tanks shown on all plans, including floor plans and elevations, • the configuration of inlet/outlet pipe and overflow pipe, • the storage capacity, dimensions, structural details and proposed materials, and • the purposes for which the tank is intended to be used, that is for washing machine use, toilet use and outdoor watering use.	The details outlined in this provision have been met and detailed on the plans accompanying the application.	Yes
	Rainwater tanks that are to be connected to toilets and washing machines and for outdoor water use are required (minimum 1 per dwelling) and must be located to the side or rear of the dwelling for single dwelling houses.	The proposal incorporates 1 3,000L rainwater tank for each of the 2 dwellings which are situated along the side boundaries.	Yes
1.8	Sunlight access
	Residential development shall be designed to have as minimal impact as possible on the sunlight access and amenity obtained by existing adjacent properties and their dwellings.	The proposed development has been designed to have minimal impact on the sunlight access and amenity of the adjoining properties.	Yes
	Applications for proposed dwellings shall demonstrate design mechanisms provided to ensure sunlight access to the proposed dwellings.	The proposed development ensure sunlight access to the main living areas of the dwellings are achieved through the placement of east, west and north facing openings. The private open space of each dwelling has a direct west facing aspect which will receive adequate solar access.	Yes
	New dwellings shall be designed to ensure direct sunlight access for a minimum of 3 hours between 9.00am and 4.00pm at the winter solstice (22 June) is provided to at least one main living area of the proposed dwelling/s.	Unit 1 The west, east and north facing living area openings will receive a minimum 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 4pm. Skylights are also provided to improve solar access into the unit. Unit 2 The east and west facing living area opening will receive a minimum of 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 4pm. Skylights are also provided to improve solar access into the unit.	Yes
	The shadow effect from a proposed development on existing adjacent dwellings must be such that a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9.00am and 4.00pm at the winter solstice (22 June) is to be provided to at least one main living area of existing dwellings.	One main living area of the southern adjoining property at No. 63 Ringrose Avenue will continue to receive the required solar access from 1pm to 4pm in mid-winter. One main living area of the northern adjoining property at No. 59 Ringrose Avenue will continue to receive the required solar access between 9am and 4pm in mid-winter.	Yes
	A minimum of 50% of the required private open space areas of the proposed dwellings and any adjacent dwellings shall have access to 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9.00am and 4.00pm at the winter solstice (22 June).	Unit 1 - 50% of required POS = 21m² receives at least 3 hours solar access from 1pm to 4pm. Unit 2 - 50% of required POS = 22m² receives 3 hours solar access from 1pm to 4pm. The northern adjoining property at No. 59 Ringrose Avenue will continue to receive the required solar access to 50% of its required POS between 1pm and 4pm. The southern adjoining property at No. 63 Ringrose Avenue will receive the required solar access to 50% of its required POS between 1pm and 4pm.	Yes
	Where sunlight is achieved through east and west facing windows, shading devices should be provided on those elevations for protection from the summer sun.	Solar access is mainly achieved through the west, facing openings on each unit which will be shaded by the roof of the terrace area during the summer sun.	Yes
	Proposed development should endeavour not to overshadow any existing solar panels on adjacent properties.	The southern adjoining property at No. 63 Ringrose Avenue does not have any solar panels installed.	N/A
1.9	Cut and fill
	Development is should be designed and constructed to integrate with the natural topography of the site.	The proposed dual occupancy development is integrated with the natural topography of the site with moderate cut proposed.	Yes
	Fill, up to 300mm, is permitted within 900mm of side or rear boundaries.	Fill depth of 200mm is proposed within 900mm of the side and rear boundaries of the site which is considered acceptable.	Yes
	Fill, 600mm or greater is to be contained within the building envelope.	Fill is proposed generally within the building envelope which is considered acceptable.	Yes
	Cut is permitted to a maximum of 1 metre.	The maximum cut proposed is approximately 400 mm within the courtyard of Unit 1.	Yes
	Cut is to be limited to 450mm where it is within 900mm of the rear or side boundaries.	The maximum depth of cut proposed within 900mm of the side or rear boundaries is 400mm.	Yes
1.10	Demolition
	Approval for the demolition of a dwelling, addition or outbuilding to a dwelling is required from Council.	Approval for the demolition of the existing structures is being sought under the subject application.	Yes
	If the demolition involves removing asbestos, compliance with Council’s Asbestos Cement Policy for the safe removal and disposal is required.	The proposed demolition works will be managed and will be conditioned to be in compliance with Workcover’s Asbestos Cement Policy.	Yes
1.11	Car parking and roads
	Garages are to be a maximum of 6 metres clear width or 50% of the width of the buildings street elevation whichever is the lesser.	The garage widths measure at a total of 5m metres which equates to 37.6% of the total width of the building.	Yes
	Garages and carports at grade are to be located a minimum of 1000mm behind the front wall of the building or 5.5 metres from the street boundary, whichever is greater.	The proposed garages are setback 7.07 metres from the street boundary and 1.07 metre behind the front wall of the building.	Yes
	Where the width of the proposed dwelling house or detached dual occupancy is greater than 12 metres, garages and carports may extend 1.5m from the building façade.	The proposed garages are proposed behind the building line of the dwellings.	Yes
	The size of any garage shall be no more than a maximum of 40m2. If the proposed garage is to be greater than 40m2, any area in excess of this will be considered to be floor space.	The garages have an area less than 20m² and therefore will not be considered as part of the floor space.	Yes
	A lockable storage closet for each dwelling should be provided within the garage.	A storage area is provided underneath the stairs. This is considered acceptable.	Yes
	For dwelling houses, dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing, parking in the case of each dwelling shall be separately accessible.	Separate access is provided to the garages of each dwelling.	Yes
	Vehicular access points are to be minimised and should not break the continuity of the streetscape.	The vehicular access point proposed as part of the application is along Ringrose Avenue which will not break the continuity of the streetscape.	Yes
	Vehicle crossing/s shall be a minimum width of 3 metres (5 metres for single dwellings and dual occupancies that propose double or adjacent garages) and a maximum width of 5 metres at the boundary line. A width up to 6 metres can be considered for multi-unit complexes. Generally only one vehicular crossing will be permitted per site.	The proposal involves provision of 2x 3m vehicular crossings for each unit. Accordingly, the Council’s Development Engineer raised no objections. Noting that the proposed vehicular access will not break the continuity of the streetscape, it is considered acceptable.	Yes
	All new driveways should be located at least 1 metre away from the side property boundaries, or 1.5 metres in the case of Residential Flat Buildings.	The driveways are both setback 1 metre from the northern and southern side boundaries.	Yes
	The maximum gradient for a driveway should be 20%, or 1:5.	The proposed driveway gradients are less than 20% or 1:5.	Yes
1.12	Universal Housing and Accessibility
	Each unit provides for facilities on ground floor for people with a disability.		Yes
1.13	Subdivision
	Allotment orientation should ensure that living and private open space areas of any dwelling can be orientated to the north and that dwellings can be positioned so that the possible overshadowing impact on existing or future adjoining buildings can be minimised.	The orientation of the living areas and private open space areas maximises the solar access achieved for the development. The proposed dwellings have minimal impact on the solar access of the adjoining properties.	Yes
	Council will allow the Torrens subdivision of dual occupancies and the strata subdivision of multi dwelling development subject to compliance with all other related controls contained in this DCP.	The subject application proposes the Torrens Title subdivision into 2 lots.	Yes
3.1	Specific requirements for Attached Dual Occupancy Development
	No more than one attached dual occupancy may be erected on a single allotment of land.	The proposal is for one attached dual occupancy.	Yes
	The minimum allotment size for an attached dual occupancy development is 500m2 in Zone R2 Low Density Residential and 450m2 in Zone R3 Medium Density Residential.	The subject site has an area of 579.5m² and is within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.	Yes
	The minimum site frontage for an attached dual occupancy, as measured from the building line is 15 metres.	The subject site has a frontage of 15.09 at the front building line.	Yes
	A minimum lot width of 26 metres (including 4 metre access handle) is required for attached dual occupancies on battleaxe lots.	The proposal is not for an attached dual occupancy on a battleaxe lot.	N/A
	An attached dual occupancy is to be located at the front of the allotment.	The proposed dual occupancy is located at the front of the allotment.	Yes
	The two dwellings must not be located one on top of the other.	The proposal constitutes an attached dual occupancy development and are not located on top of each other.	Yes
	Mirror reverse designs for attached dual occupancies are not permitted.	The proposed dual occupancy units are not mirror reversed design.	Yes
	Two storey attached dual occupancy development will only be permitted directly adjoining the street frontage where there are no adverse privacy and overshadowing impacts, and where it is compatible with the existing streetscape.	The proposal is for a two storey dual occupancy which is directly adjoining the street frontage and has no significant privacy or overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties subject to conditions.	Yes
	If an attached dual occupancy consists of one dwelling at the front of the site and one attached to the rear, the rear dwelling must be single storey.	The proposal constitutes an attached dual occupancy development and are both street facing.	Yes
3.5	Site coverage
	The maximum site coverage for a dual occupancy is 50% of the site area.	The proposal achieves a site coverage of 37.7% (218.6m²).	Yes
3.6	Setbacks
	The minimum setback from the principal streetscape frontage is 6 metres (with the exception of dwellings to rear laneways or secondary streets).	The minimum proposed front setback is 6 metres.	Yes
	Side setbacks are to be a minimum of 900mm.	The minimum side setbacks for the proposed dwellings are 900mm on the northern and southern side boundaries.	Yes
	Rear setbacks shall be a minimum 30% of the length of the site. This is irrespective of the location of private open space. This does not apply to corner lots.	The proposed rear setback is 12.73 metres which is 31.6% of the length of the site.	Yes
	For corner lots, rear setbacks shall be a minimum of 4 metres. Rear setback relate to the proposed rear setback of the dwellings, not the existing rear setback.	The subject site is not a corner allotment.	N/A
	An articulation zone shall be permitted in the front setback to the primary street frontage. The articulation zone is limited in width to 25% of the building width and 1.5 metres in length.	The front porch for Unit 1 which projects into the articulation zone has a length of 1m and represents approximately 24.2% of the building width.	Yes
3.7	Building height
	The maximum height of a dual occupancy dwelling is two (2) storeys.	The proposed dual occupancy is a maximum of 2 storeys in height.	Yes
	The minimum floor to ceiling height for a dual occupancy is 2.4 metres (Figure 26).	Each dwelling achieves a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres.	Yes
3.8	Building appearance
	Maximum length of walls along the first floor side boundaries shall be 10 metres without any indentations, offsets or other articulation features.	The proposal achieves maximum first floor building lengths without articulation or offsets as below: Unit 1 (north elevation) – 11.1m Unit 2 (south elevation) – 11.1m	No – However considered acceptable on merit. (See Summary)
	At a minimum, the front façade of each dwelling in a dual occupancy shall orientate the front door and a window of a habitable room on the ground floor to address the principal street frontage.	Each dwelling includes a front door entry and a window of a living room on the ground floor level which addresses the street frontage. The design also incorporates street facing balconies to enhance street surveillance from the proposed development.	Yes

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development complies with the provisions of Council’s DCP subject to conditions of consent with the exception of the maximum length of walls along the first floor side boundaries without any indentations, offsets or other articulation features which has been justified in the summary of this report as being acceptable.

i) 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) - any planning agreement that has been entered into under part 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under part 7.4, and

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

ii) 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 & Assessment Regulation 2000.

iii) 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 on the locality.

iv) 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, the site can be said to be suitable to accommodate the proposal. 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.

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

Advertised (newspaper) Mail Sign Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly exhibited for a period of 14 days between 25 January 2019 and 8 February 2019. 2 submissions were received.

The issues raised in the submission have been considered as follows;

Submission 1

Concern: Adverse streetscape impact from the provided front setback

Comment: The proposal provides a minimum 6m front setback for the dual occupancy units between the front building line and the Ringrose Avenue front boundary. This complies with the minimum front setback required by the Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP 2013). Whilst it is noted that the existing developments on the immediate properties to the north and south have greater setbacks, the 6m front setback provided for the subject proposal is considered acceptable. Noting the east-west site orientation, the proposal complies with the HDCP 2013 in terms of sunlight access into the private open spaces and main living areas of adjoining developments, including the southern adjoining property. As required by the HDCP 2013, the shadow effect from the proposal is such that 3 hours of direct sunlight will be achieved to minimum 50% of required private open space areas of adjacent dwellings between 9am and 4pm at the winter solstice. Also, 1 main living area of the dwelling on the adjoining lots will continue to achieve 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 4pm during the winter solstice. Accordingly, the 6m front setback provided complies with development controls and is considered acceptable.

Concern: Loss of street view and visual impacts as a result of the 6m front setback provided

Comment: Noting that there are no significant view corridors in the vicinity, the 6m front setback provided for the proposal presents a minor obstruction on the first floor balcony outlook for the southern adjoining property. Also, considering that the proposal complies with key built form controls, the impacts of the compliant 6m setback is considered acceptable. The southern adjoining dwelling will maintain uninterrupted street outlook from the first floor balcony for casual street surveillance given its design.

In terms of the visual impact, the proposal is appropriately articulated and provided with a good quality of finish. Accordingly, the visual impact of the proposal is considered minor and acceptable and compliant with provisions in the Holroyd DCP 2013.

Concern: Adverse impacts of the provided front setback on the streetscape.

Comment: The provided front setback complies with Council’s front setback requirements for dual occupancy development. Whilst it is noted that the adjoining properties to the north and south are further setback than the proposed development, the provided setback is not dissimilar to the prevailing front setback along the street. The design of the dual occupancy is of a contemporary nature and will not have a detrimental impact upon the streetscape or the prevailing character of the surrounding area which is a combination of 1 and 2 storey residential developments with similar bulk, scale and setbacks.

Concern: Privacy from west and south facing windows.

Comment:

Southern Elevation:

The highlight window provided for the rear family room has a sill height of 1.7m above finished floor level. Further, the 2.1m side boundary fence which is subject of condition (at full cost to the developer) will alleviate any immediate visual privacy impacts on the southern adjoining property. Overlooking from the kitchen window and the alfresco area on the ground floor level will be obscured by the 2.1m side boundary fence, noting that the alfresco area is setback 1.85m from the side boundary. The window for bedroom 5 is not expected to have any significant privacy impacts given it is considered a low activity room. The garage is also provided with a highlight window and is not considered a high activity room. The first floor level windows belong to bedrooms which are considered as low use rooms and will not have any significant privacy impacts upon the southern adjoining property.

Western Elevation:

The rear facing ground floor windows belong to family areas. The provision of 2.1m side boundary fencing which is subject of condition will alleviate any immediate privacy impacts upon the living areas and private open space areas of the adjoining southern dwelling. The first floor level windows belong to bedrooms which are low use rooms and will not have any significant privacy impacts.

Considering the above, the proposed development complies with the visual privacy provisions of the Holroyd DCP 2013 and is not expected to have any undue privacy impacts to the adjoining southern property

Submission 2

Concern: Privacy from rear windows of the proposed dual occupancy to the rear adjoining property.

Comment: The ground floor windows and alfresco area are sufficiently setback from the rear property boundary and provides for adequate visual privacy to the rear adjoining properties. In addition, Council has imposed conditions of consent for a 2.1m high boundary fence to be installed at the rear to ensure visual privacy from the ground floor and private open space areas to be maintained

The first floor windows of the proposed dual occupancy are associated with bedrooms which are considered as low use rooms. The Holroyd DCP 2013 does not require any form of privacy treatment to bedrooms. Therefore, visual privacy is adequately maintained and compliant with the provisions of the Holroyd DCP 2013.

Concern: Stormwater disposal.

Comment: The proposed stormwater disposal system has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineers and has been deemed to be satisfactory and in compliance with Council’s Development Engineering standards. A drainage easement has been proposed through the rear downstream properties noting the slope of the site to the rear. The granting of an easement is a civil matter between property owners. Council has imposed a general condition in this regard and has not nominated a particular property from which an easement has to be obtained.

vi) 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 recommendation below, will have no significant adverse impacts on the public interest.

vii) 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. 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.’

Comments: The development would require the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plans. It is recommended that conditions be imposed on any consent requiring the payment of these contributions prior to the issue of any construction certificate for the development.

The calculation is based on 2 x 5 bed dwellings. As of 10 April 2019, the fee payable is $12,180 with a credit for one existing dwelling. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan.

viii) 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 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, Holroyd LEP 2013 and Holroyd DCP 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R2 low density residential zone under the relevant provisions of Holroyd LEP 2013. The proposal is consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. A minor non-compliance with Council controls has 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 by deferred commencement subject to conditions.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

There are no 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. 2018/491/1 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots on land at 61 Ringrose Avenue, Greystanes be granted deferred commencement approval subject to attached conditions in the attached schedule.

Attachments

1. Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

2. Architectural Plans ⇩

3. Stormwater Plans ⇩

4. Landscape Plan ⇩

5. Submissions ⇩

6. Locality Map ⇩

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

10 April 2019

Item No: LPP019/19

Section 8.3 Review for 77-85 Station Road, Auburn

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Manager Development Assessment

File Number: DA-544/2017/B

Application lodged	15-Jan-2019
Applicant	Salex NSW Pty Ltd
Owner	Mr A C Doumit and Ms C T Doumit and Ms B M Doumit and Mr M A Doumit and Ms M M Doumit
Application No.	DA-544/2017/B
Description of Land	77-85 Station Road, AUBURN NSW 2144, Lot 2 DP 399941, Lot 1 DP 399941, Lot 28 Sec 3 DP 995, Lot 1 DP 502468, Lot 2 DP 502468
Proposed Development	Section 8.3 Review application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of 5-6 storey residential flat building containing 54 apartments over 2-3 levels of basement car parking containing 76 car spaces.
Site Area	2,775.33m²
Zoning	R4 – High Density Residential
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	No
Principal Development Standards	FSR Permissible: 1.7:1 Proposed: 1.69:1 Height of Building Permissible: 18m Proposed: 18m
Issues	Balcony depth, courtyards and site cover

Summary:

1. That Cumberland Local Planning Panel review the initial determination in respect of Development Application No. DA-544/2017 for demolition of existing structures and construction of 5-6 storey residential flat building containing 54 apartments over 2-3 levels of basement car parking containing 76 car spaces on land at 77-85 Station Road, AUBURN NSW 2144

2. That as a consequence of this review and pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) Cumberland Local Planning Pane change the initial determination of Development Application No. DA-544/2017 and grant approval subject to conditions as set out in the report and attached hereto.

3. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days from 29 January 2019 to 12 February 2019. In response, no submissions were received in respect of the proposal.

4. The variations are as follows:

Requirement	Provided	Variation
Minimum width of balconies depending on no. of bedrooms	Some of the units don’t provide the minimum width for balconies but meet overall size	8 out of 54 units do not provide the minimum width of balconies (14.81%)
Ground floor units to provide a 15m² courtyard	Not all ground floor units have the minimum courtyard size	3 out of 9 courtyards do not provide the minimum size (33.33%)
Maximum 50% site cover	Site cover proposed is 64%	19.99%

5. The Panel determined the original application which was refused on 29 October 2018. The application is referred to different panel members as required Pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Local Planning Panel Operational Procedures. Furthermore SEPP 65 applies to the development and is 4 or more storeys in height.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is legally known as Lot 1 and 2 DP 399941, Lot 28 Sec 3 DP 995, Lot 1 and Lot 2 DP 502468 also known as 77-85 Station Road, Auburn. The site is rectangular in shape and has a frontage to Station Road of 45.72m. The site has a combined site area of 2,787m².

The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential and is predominantly surrounded by older style residential flat buildings.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

The sites are currently occupied by one single storey dwelling and two single storey dual occupancy on either side of the dwelling. The site has an approximate fall of 2.67m from the front (19.17) to the rear (16.50).

There is a two storey walk-up residential flat building to the south and north of the subject site.

Description of The Proposed Development

Council has received a Section 8.3 application for the demolition of existing structures on site, construction of 5-6 storey residential flat building containing 54 apartments over 2-3 levels of basement car parking containing 76 car spaces

The development application has the following components:

Basement:

The plans indicate the basement having:

· Two/part three level basement car parking includes 76 parking spaces:

o Basement B2:

§ 26 parking spaces (four of these accessible);

§ 2 staircases;

§ Lifts;

§ Storage areas at the end of parking spaces.

o Basement B1:

§ 38 parking spaces (three of those accessible);

§ 2 staircases;

§ Lifts;

§ Storage areas at the end of parking spaces.

o Lower ground floor:

§ 11 visitor parking spaces (one of which is accessible);

§ 3 motorbike parking spaces;

§ 16 bicycle spaces;

§ Direct access to RFB hallway.

Residential Flat Building:

The residential flat building is 5-6 storeys in height. The building will have a maximum height of 18m from the natural ground level to the topmost part of the building being the lift overrun.

The building complex will contain:

- A total of 54 units:

o 6 x studio apartment

o 7 x 1 bedroom units

o 39 x 2 bedroom units

o 2 x 3 bedroom unit

- Waste storage area on the ground floor;

- Communal open space on the lower ground floor and ground floor

Changes made from original application

The core changes made to the original plan include:

- A reduction in the GFA;

- Deletion of south facing units with no solar access;

- Increase in communal open space;

- Improved solar access to units and private open space; and

- Improved cross ventilation.

HISTORY

- Council received application No. DA455/2017 on 17 December 2017;

- The application was assessed and recommended for approval via a deferred commencement to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel;

- The issues identified were FSR, communal open space, solar access, courtyards and site cover;

- The Panel did not agree with the recommendation and subsequently refused the application on 29 October 2018 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development fails to meet the objectives and design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide in the following manner;

a) An excessive number of units receive no solar access

b) Inadequate solar access to the private open space areas of the units

c) Inadequate solar access to the living areas of the units

d) Inadequate cross ventilation to the units

e) The communal open space is not completely accessible and is of low amenity

2. The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 regardless of whether there is strict compliance or otherwise with that standard. This leads to greater intensity and density on the site. It causes effective double loaded corridors to the detriment of solar performance and cross ventilation.

- The applicant lodged a Section 8.3 Review Application DA544/2017/B on the 15 January 2019 and is the subject of this report.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Section 8.3 Review Statement dated 11 December 2018 prepared by Caladines Town Planning Pty Ltd and was received by Council on 15 January 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

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the application could be supported with conditions.

Environment and Health

The original development application DA-544/2017 was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent. The plans have not changed such that it affects the conditions provided by the Environmental Health Officer. The conditions and comments provided are relevant to DA-544/2017/B.

Landscape Architect/Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Landscape Architect for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent. The applicant has provided a tree report which outlines which trees are marked for removal and which trees will be retained and protected. The landscape architect has agreed with these findings except for one trees. Conditions will be imposed on the determination to ensure the right trees are being kept and protected.

The tree removal plan is attached as Appendix A. Trees marked for retention are marked in blue. All street trees are proposed to be retained.

External Referrals

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

Planning Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT (EP&A) ACT, 1979- 8.3 Review of determination
Requirement	Satisfactory
i) (1) An applicant for development consent may request a consent authority to review a determination or decision made by the consent authority. The consent authority is to review the determination or decision if duly requested to do so under this Division.	The applicant has requested for the decision made by the Local Planning Panel to be reviewed.
(2) A determination or decision cannot be reviewed under this Division: ii) (a) after the period within which any appeal may be made to the Court has expired if no appeal was made, or iii) (b) After the Court has disposed of an appeal against the determination or decision. iv)	The period has not expired and there was no appeal made through the court.
(3) In requesting a review, the applicant may amend the proposed development the subject of the original application for development consent or for modification of development consent. The consent authority may review the matter having regard to the amended development, but only if it is satisfied that it is substantially the same development.	The proposed development, with the changes, is still considered to be substantially the same development.
(4) The review of a determination or decision made by a delegate of a council is to be conducted: (a) by the council (unless the determination or decision may be made only by a local planning panel or delegate of the council), or (b) By another delegate of the council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination or decision.	The original application was determined by Local Planning Panel. Council has made a recommendation on the Review and the Local Planning Panel will be the determining body.
(5) The review of a determination or decision made by a local planning panel is also to be conducted by the panel.	The decision on the review will be made by the Local Planning Panel.
(6) The review of a determination or decision made by a council is to be conducted by the council and not by a delegate of the council.	N/A
(7) The review of a determination or decision made by a Sydney district or regional planning panel is also to be conducted by the panel.	N/A
(8) The review of a determination or decision made by the Independent Planning Commission is also to be conducted by the Commission.	N/A
(9) The review of a determination or decision made by a delegate of the Minister (other than the Independent Planning Commission) is to be conducted by the Independent Planning Commission or by another delegate of the Minister who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination or decision.	N/A

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

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
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?	Yes No
In the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g.: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?	Yes No
Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site? acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation	Yes No
Is the site listed on Council’s Contaminated Land database?	Yes No
Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?	Yes No
Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?	Yes No
Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?	Yes No
Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?	Yes No
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site: A Detailed Site Investigation report prepared by STS GeoEnvironmental Pty Ltd (Ref No. 17/3504) was submitted with the original application DA-544/2017. The report did not reveal any potential matters of concern with regard to contamination and concludes that the site is suitable for its intended use. These comments remain relevant for the 8.3 Review. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the reports and determined that the site is suitable to support such a development given that the report provides that the site is suitable for the proposed use.

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

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

SEPP 65 sets 9 design quality principles. The development has adequately addressed all 9 design quality principles. A full assessment is contained in Appendix B.

Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, it is considered the proposal is generally compliant with the exception of balconies and ground floor courtyards.

· Part 4E – Ground floor courtyards - Under the ADG ground floor apartments are encouraged to have their own courtyards. The proposed development has nine apartments that are on ground level which all have courtyards. Under the ADG courtyards must have a minimum of 15m² with a minimum depth of 3m. Three out of nine ground floor and lower ground floor units do not meet this requirement. Two of those apartment have the minimum size but are not 3m in depth. These two apartments are a studio and a one bedroom apartment. The space provided for these is considered generous in size and useable. The third apartment (two bedroom unit) also meets the minimum size but fails the minimum depth. However this apartment has a secondary balcony off the two bedrooms that is 29m² in size. In combination this apartment has two generous, useable spaces as private open space.

· Part 4E – Private open space and balconies - The ADG stipulates the required size of balcony for units with certain number of bedrooms. The ADG also stipulates the minimum depth that these balconies must be. Eight units fail to meet the minimum size of balconies (by half a square metre) if the area that meets the minimum depth is the only area taken into account. However, if the entire balcony (with a minimum width of 1m) is to be taken into account when calculating the size then all of these apartment exceed the minimum requirement. Given that the balconies fall short by half a square metre but exceed the minimum with the remainder of the balcony it is considered that this minor departure can be accepted.

A comprehensive assessment against SEPP 65 and the ADG is contained in Appendix C.

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application. The proposal does not result in any issues with regards to matters for consideration under the SEPP.

(d) 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.

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

BASIX Certificate 886893M_03 dated issued on 4 December 2018 prepared by Outsource Ideas P/l has been submitted with Council and is considered to be satisfactory.

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

Auburn Local Environmental Plan, 2010

The provision of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan, 2010 is 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 R4 – High Density Residential zone.

(a) Permissibility:-

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

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

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 Max. 18m	Y	The proposed development has a maximum height of 18m to the highest point being the lift overrun.
4.4 Floor Space Ratio Max. 1.7:1	Y	The development has a proposed FSR of 1.69:1
4.6 Exceptions to development standards	N/A	A Clause 4.6 variation was not necessary in this instance.
5.1 and 5.1A Development on land intended to be acquired for public purposes	Y	The site is not identified on this map.
5.6 Architectural roof features	N/A	An architectural roof feature is not proposed.
5.9 Preservation of trees	Y	Appendix A shows the trees to be retained (in blue) and all other trees proposed to be removed. A tree report was submitted with the application which was found to be satisfactory by Council’s landscape architect. All street trees are proposed to be retained.
6.1 Acid sulphate soils	Y	The site is identified as containing Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soil. In accordance with the ALEP table, an Acid Sulfate Soils Management plan is not required to be prepared.
6.2 Earthworks	Y	Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the application and considers that the proposed earthworks are satisfactory subject to conditions.
6.3 Flood planning	Y	The site is not identified as being flood prone.
6.5 Essential services	Y	Appropriate conditions to be imposed to ensure compliance.

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.

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.

i) 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.

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

The proposed development complies with the provisions of Council’s Auburn DCP 2010 except for the maximum site coverage requirement and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning view point.

Irrespective of this departure, it is considered that the proposal performs adequately from an environmental planning viewpoint and may be supported for the reasons discussed below:

2.2 Site Cover

The maximum site cover permitted is 50% while this proposal has a site cover of 64%. Site cover ensures that the site has adequate landscaping and deep soil areas. This proposal complies with deep soil requirements, setbacks and other landscaping requirements. It is for these reasons that a variation to this is considered acceptable.

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 14 days from 29 January 2019 to 12 February 2019. The notification generated no submissions in respect of the proposal.

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

As at 4 February 2019, the fee payable is $333,833.07. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The draft determination attached includes a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Statement Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, 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 R4 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. Minor non-compliances with the ADG and Council’s controls 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:

1. That Development Application No. DA-544/2017/B for Section 8.3 Review application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of 5-6 storey residential flat building containing 54 apartments over 2-3 levels of basement car parking containing 76 car spaces on land at 77-85 Station Road, AUBURN NSW 2144 be approved subject to attached conditions.

Attachments

1. Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

2. Architectural Plans ⇩

3. Stormwater/Engineering Plans - Part A ⇩

4. Stormwater/Engineering Plans - Part B ⇩

5. Solar Access and Ventilation Summary ⇩

6. Appendix A - Tree Removal Plan ⇩

7. Appendix B - 9 Design Principles ⇩

8. Appendix C - ADG Assessment ⇩

9. Appendix D - DCP Compliance Table ⇩