16 April 2019

An Extraordinary Meeting of Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30am at the Merrylands Administration Building, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands on Tuesday, 16 April 2019.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.          Receipt of Apologies

2.          Declaration of Interest

3.          Address by invited speakers

4.          Reports

        -       Development Applications

        -       Planning Proposals

5.     Closed Session Reports

 

 

 

 16 April 2019

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                               Page No.

Development Applications

ELPP020/19 Development Application 5-7 Bransgrove Street and 1-3 Irwin Place, Wentworthville................................................................ 5

ELPP021/19 Development Application for 15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes... 149

ELPP022/19 Planning Proposal Request for 2-22 William Street, Granville... 343

16 April 2019

 

Item No: ELPP020/19

Development Application 5-7 Bransgrove Street and 1-3 Irwin Place, Wentworthville

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                              DA 2018/123/1  

 

 

On 13 April 2018, development application (DA2018/123) for the demolition of existing structure, consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot, construction of a 5 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating 48 units and 47 parking spaces under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 was lodged with Council.

The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 21 days from 2 May 2018 to 23 May 2018. In response, the application received no submissions.

The application was deferred on 1 May 2018 requesting additional information relating to site isolation and a revised QS Report. Additional information confirmed that reasonable and genuine attempts have been made to purchase the isolated property being No. 5 Irwin Place, and that the CIV of the affordable component of the proposal did not exceed $5 million to require determination by Sydney West Central Planning Panel.

The application was deferred on 18 October 2018 to address FSR, concept plans for isolated site, communal open space, natural ventilation, internal apartment layouts, private open space, common circulation core, and stormwater and waste management matters. Amended plans and supporting statements provided additional affordable units, and incorporated modifications to address matters raised. Amended plans did not warrant re-notification of the proposal.

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

The proposal seeks the following non-compliances which are considered supportable as discussed in detail elsewhere in the report:

 

Control	Required	Proposed	% Variation
Building Height	i)            Max. 15m (HLEP 2013)	Max. 15.72m to the roof of the building   Max. 15.85m to top of lift core	4.8% - 5.6%
Communal Open Space	598.75m² (25%)	427.4m² (17.8%)	28.6%
Maximum Building Storey Limit	4 Storeys	5 Storeys	20%

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

The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions in the draft determination at Attachment 5.

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 5-7 Bransgrove Street & 1-3 Irwin Place, Wentworthville; and is legally described as Lots 9 & 10 in DP239558 and Lots 7 & 8 in DP239558. The site has an area of 2,395m2 and frontage of 45.52m to Irwin Place and 50.29m to Bransgrove Street. The property is currently occupied by detached dwelling houses, ancillary structures and vegetation.

The site is located within the Finlayson Transitway Station Precinct, located approximately 150m north of Great Western Highway.

The subject site and neighbouring allotments directly to the north and east are zoned R4 – High Density Residential. Properties located on the southern side of Irwin Place are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. To the west of the site is Irwin Place Park. The existing developments surrounding the subject site are mostly detached dwellings, noting that a residential flat building has been approved at 1-3 Bransgrove Street (DA2016/79). However, the locality is transitioning to higher density development consistent with the planning controls that currently apply, and evident with the recently constructed development in the area.

Figure 1 - Aerial view of the locality with subject site shown highlighted in red. Source: NearMap 29 December 2018

Figure 2 – Zoning map with subject site shown hatched. Source: Cumberland Council 2018

Figure 3 – Left: No. 7 Bransgrove Street; Right: No. 5 Bransgrove Street. Source: Cumberland Council 2018

 

Figure 4 – No. 3 Irwin Place. Source: Cumberland Council 2018

Figure 5 – No. 1 Irwin Place (corner of Irwin Place & Bransgrove Street). Source: Cumberland Council 2018

Description of The Proposed Development

DA 2018/123 seeks consent for Demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot, construction of a 5 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating 48 units and 47 parking spaces under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

Level	Details
Basement	47 residential car spaces (including 8 accessible parking spaces) 1 car wash bay 29 bicycle spaces Garbage room and bulky waste storage, plant room, lift and fire stairs
Ground level	10 residential units Communal Open Space with BBQ and seating areas, and playground
Level 1	10 residential units
Level 2	10 residential units
Level 3	10 residential units
Level 4	8 residential units

The dwelling mix of the proposal is as follows:

·        7 x 1-bedroom units (15%)

·        36 x 2-bedroom units (75%)

·        5 x 3-bedroom units (10%)

 

Figure 6 – Perspective of proposed development – Bransgrove Street frontage

 

 

History

 

Date	Action
13 April 2018	The subject development application was lodged with Council.
23 April 2018	The application was referred to the following internal and external sections: ·    Development Engineering ·    Traffic Engineering ·    Landscape and Tree Management ·    Environmental Health ·    Waste Management ·    Cumberland Police Area Command ·    Transgrid ·    Endeavour Energy
2 May 2018 to 23 May 2018	Application placed on public notification. In response, no submissions were received.
1 May 2018	Application deferred requesting additional information relating to site isolation and a revised QS Report.
7 May 2018	Additional information submitted and re-referred for review.
18 October 2018	Application deferred to address FSR, concept plans for isolated site, communal open space, natural ventilation, internal apartment layouts, private open space, common circulation core, stormwater and waste management matters.
9 November 2018	Additional information submitted for review.
16 April 2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

 

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 10 April 2018 was submitted with the application.

 

A written request to vary the building height standard, prepared in accordance with Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2013 by Think Planners, dated 10 April 2018, in support of the application.

 

Contact With Relevant Parties

 

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

 

Internal Referrals

 

Development Engineer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to overland flood mitigation measure, and on-site detention provision, subject to conditions.

 

Tree Management Officer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to protection of existing trees on the adjoining properties, subject to conditions.

 

Traffic Engineer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to traffic management, and on-site parking provision in the basement level, subject to conditions.

 

Environmental Health Officer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to acoustic assessment and measures, and site contamination, subject to conditions.

 

Waste Management Officer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to provision of bin tug, bin storage room, and waste collection and management plan, subject to conditions.

 

External Referrals

 

Transgrid

 

The development application was referred to Transgrid for comment pursuant to Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 for comment, who advised that the development is supportable, and no conditions are recommended to be imposed.

 

Endeavour Energy

 

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment pursuant to Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 for comment, who advised that the development is supportable, subject to conditions.

 

Cumberland Police Local Area Command

 

The development application was referred to Cumberland Police Local Area Command for comment in order to facilitate the incorporation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles into the proposal. The proposal is considered supportable, subject to conditions.

 

 

Planning Comments

 

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

 

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

(a)    State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP)

 

The proposal falls under Part 2 New affordable rental housing – Division 1 In-fill affordable housing.

 

13 Floor space ratios

(1) This clause applies to development to which this Division applies if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is to be used for the purposes of affordable housing is at least 20 per cent.

 

Max. FSR permitted (HLEP 2013)

 

Max. 1.2:1 for 5 Bransgrove Street

·        Represents a maximum GFA of 675.36m²

 

Max. 1.5:1 for 7 Bransgrove Street & 1-3 Irwin Place

·        Represents a maximum GFA of 2,748.3m²

 

+ ARH 25.23% Bonus (represents GFA of 604.26m²)

 

Max. GFA permitted:

= 4,026.24m² (1.681:1)

Provided GFA = 4,050.75m²

FSR = 1.691:1

Represents exceedance of 22.83m²

 

The proposal is compliant subject to the imposition of condition nominating Unit 3 (53.51m²) as an additional affordable unit, which is greater in size to the GFA exceedance sought. The total GFA of affordable units with the addition of Unit 3 is 1,075.81m².

A comprehensive assessment against ARH SEPP is attached to this report – Attachment 1.

 

It should be noted that the proposal fully complies with the key planning controls contained within the ARH SEPP including site area, landscaped area, parking, accommodation size and prescribed standards for in-fill affordable housing.

 

16A 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. The SEPP (ARH) does not contain any guidance for assessing whether a proposal is compatible with the character of the local area. However, a planning principle for assessing compatibility in the urban environment was established by Senior Commissioner Roseth of the Land and Environment Court in the judgement for Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191. This involves asking the following two questions:

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

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

 

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

·        Step 1 – Identify the ‘local area’.

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

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

 

An assessment against each step is provided below:

 

Step 1 – Identify the local area.

 

This assessment identifies the local area as primarily the visual catchment of the site (hatched in red) as viewed from within the site and directly adjacent to the site on the street which is defined by the yellow line in Figure 7, and white line in Figure 8 below:

The local area

 

Figure 7 – Local Area catchment as identified on Aerial Map 2016

 

Figure 8 – Local Area catchment as identified on Zoning Map

 

 

Step 2 – Determine the character (present and future) of the local area.

 

The zoning of the broader locality and immediate area comprises R4 High Density Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, RE1 Public Recreation and B2 under the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013.

 

Present Character of the area

 

The character of the local area comprises the visual catchment of regular shaped allotments viewed from and surrounding the subject site, which includes:-

1.     Existing recently constructed 4 storey residential flat buildings located both corners of Bransgrove Street and Essington Street (71-73 Essington St & 78-80 Essington St);

2.     Detached dwelling houses and attached dual occupancy development located on the southern side of Irwin Place;

3.     Irwin Place Park located at the bulb of Irwin Place;

4.     Detached dwelling houses located on both corners of Bransgrove Street and Fullagar Road (1-3 Bransgrove St, 4 Bransgrove St & 54-56 Fullagar Rd);

5.     Existing, recently completed, and under construction 4 storey residential flat buildings located on both sides of Essington Street;

6.     Mixed use 4 storey building at 15 Bransgrove Street (corner Great Western Highway);

7.     Existing 6 storey residential flat building at 296-300 Great Western Highway (corner Bransgrove St);

8.     Existing 5 storey residential flat building at 296-298 Great Western Highway;

9.     Residential flat buildings (5 storey) currently under construction at 288A-290 Great Western Highway and 280-282 Great Western Highway.

 

Figure 9 – Left: 71-73 Essington St; Right: 78-80 Essington St / 296-300 Great Western Highway to the rear.   

 

Figure 10 – Left: Irwin Place as viewed from Bransgrove St; Right: Irwin Place Park

Future Character of the area

The locality is in transition particularly to support the increasing demand of affordable housing within the close proximity of public transport hub and major commercial centre. The transition issue is clear with regard to FSR, height and setbacks for the proposed development. It is considered that the height, bulk and scale of the proposed development is similar to the recently completed and newer residential flat buildings being constructed and would not be inconsistent with the desired future character of the locality.

The proposed development may pose some impacts on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by the occupants of the properties located on the southern side of Irwin Place and 1-3 Bransgrove Street. However, these impacts are not unreasonable and are consistent with impacts that would result from the form of development envisaged under the planning controls noting the varying zoning of properties located on the northern and southern side of Irwin Place. Appropriate privacy measures are proposed for the northern elevation and western elevation of the proposed development to minimise any adverse impacts to the approved residential flat building at 1-3 Bransgrove Street and future development of 5 Irwin Place.

In this regard, the area is undergoing transition with considerable development that will change the existing character of the area. The proposed development is consistent with the form of development and the desired future character envisaged under these planning controls.

Step 3 - Determine if the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

In accordance with the Land and Environment Court’s ‘Planning Principle’ and case law compatibility is best defined as ‘capable of existing together in harmony’. In order to test compatibility two questions are to be considered. These questions, as well as a response to each, are provided below:

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

The height, FSR and landscaping of the proposed development are designed to maintain the harmony within the streetscape, whilst contributing to the site context and constraint. The height of building facing both Bransgrove Street and Irwin Place breach the 15m height limit requirement for part of the roof and the lift core. The proposal being a permissible land use, meets the FSR requirement (in accordance with ARH SEPP, subject to the imposition of conditions) and contributes to the provision of affordable housing within the close proximity of public transport hub and major commercial centre. Appropriate setbacks and privacy treatments are provided to minimise any adverse impacts to the adjoining properties. The fifth storey does not comply with maximum number of storeys as prescribed in Part N of HDCP 2013, however, the proposed development is located on a corner allotment and is appropriately articulated to complement the existing and changing streetscape within the local area. Also being on a corner allotment and of a north-south orientation, overshadowing is acceptable and consistent with that envisaged under the planning controls.

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

To be compatible, a development should contain, or at least respond to the key aesthetic elements that make up the character of the surrounding area. The size of the basement maximises landscaping and deep soil zones on site. The front setbacks are generous and consistent with the existing streetscape. The proposal is considered to maintain an appropriate residential character which is consistent with the streetscape. As indicated, the local area has an established high density residential built form, as such, the proposed development is not considered to be inconsistent with the existing streetscape character of the immediate area surrounding the subject site.

In conclusion, the proposal will maintain the harmony within the general streetscape, and suitably fits in the local character of the locality.

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

The proposal is classified as a residential apartment development and SEPP 65 applies. A design verification statement signed by registered architect Ian Conry was submitted with the application. A comprehensive assessment against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls is provided at Attachment 2.

 

The following table sets out the ADG non-compliances.

 

(c)    State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment, who raised no objections, subject to recommendations.

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

The subject site is located approximately 100m from Great Western Highway. The proposal is for the purposes of residential accommodation. In accordance with Clause 102, an Acoustic Report was submitted with the application. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the Acoustic Report and advises that the proposal is satisfactory subject to the imposition of conditions requiring appropriate measures to be implemented to ensure noise levels to bedrooms and living areas are acceptable.

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

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

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

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

BASIX certificate 906088M dated 5 April 2018 was submitted with the amended plans. The certificate achieves target scores and is consistent with the architectural plans.

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

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

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

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

 

Local Environmental Plans

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

The proposal is defined as a ‘residential flat building’ (building containing 3 or more dwellings, does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing) under the provisions of HLEP 2013. Residential flat building is permitted with consent in the R4 – High Density Residential zone which applies to the land.

The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings that stipulates that the height of building is not to exceed 15m on the subject site.

The proposed building has an overall height of 15.72m (RL) to the roof of the building, 15.85 m (RL) to the top of the lift core. The proposal breaches the height by 0.72m to the roof of the building, and 0.85m to the lift core representing variations of 4.8% and 5.6% respectively. The majority of the height breach is associated with the roof of the building and the top of the lift core.

Figure 11 – Section Plan showing extent of height variation sought

Clause 4.6 – Variation to Building Height

Clause 4.6 allows the consent authority to vary development standards in certain circumstances and provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to achieve better design outcomes. The consent authority may grant the exception as the Secretary’s concurrence can be assumed where clause 4.6 is adopted as per the Department of Planning Circular PS 18-003, dated 21 February 2018.

 

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard for building height – Refer to Attachment 8.

Based on various case laws established by the Land and Environment Court of NSW such as Four2five P/L v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 9, Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings P/L [2016] NSW LEC7 and Zhang and anor v Council of the City of Ryde [2016] NSWLEC 1179, a 3 part assessment framework for a variation request proposed under clause 4.6 has been considered and an assessment of the proposed variance, following the 3 part test is discussed in detail below.

The 3 preconditions which must be satisfied before the application can proceed are as follows:

1.     Is the proposed development consistent with the objectives of the zone?

Applicant’s justification:

The proposal ensures that the high density nature of the zone is retained and there is not a significant change to the character of the locality. In addition, the proposal complements and enhances the local streetscape by virtue of the careful siting of the development.

Planner’s Comment:

Whilst residential flat buildings are a permitted land use, the locality is undergoing a transition particularly to support the increasing demand of affordable housing within the close proximity of public transport hub and major commercial centre. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R4 high Density Residential zone.

2.     Is the proposed development consistent with the objectives of the development standard which is not met?

Applicant’s justification:

The current development proposal seeks to depart from the height control for small portions of the upper storey of the building and the top of liftcore. Despite this, the proposal remaining consistent with the objectives of the clause and is a more appropriate outcome on the site because of the following:

·        The overall height of the development presents as a compatible form of development with only a small component of the upper level of the building and top of the lift core exceeding the height limit. This upper level of the building is recessed in so that the top of the building will be less visually prominent when viewed from the street level and the height protrusion will not be visible from the adjoining properties which aligns with the intent of the planning controls contained within Holroyd LEP 2013.

·        The subject site is affected by the 1% AEP meaning that minimum floor levels for both non habitable and habitable rooms are set as a minimum above the flood level. This results in the building being pushed higher than it would otherwise, meaning the overall building height is pushed slightly above the maximum permitted under the LEP. Ensuring the flood levels are complied with protects the safety of residents from future flooding events.

·        If the additional floorspace permitted under the LEP was to be provided at ground level then minimum setbacks to adjoining properties may not be able to be achieved and the resulting impact on adjoining properties would be greater. Providing more floorspace at ground level is far more undesirable than providing a modest recessed upper level of the building. The potential impact on flooding levels may also be exacerbated if additional built form were to be provided at ground level, this would also be a less desirable outcome than providing a small component of the building on the fifth level which is significantly recessed in from the lower levels to ensure the impact of the development is minimised.

·        The portion of the building that exceeds the height control is not intended to gain additional floorspace as the application demonstrates, the proposal is compliant with the maximum floorspace ratio of 1.73:1. The additional building height is merely a response to the site's flooding constraints in that the building needed to be lifted to provide a floor level compliant with the Council's flooding controls.

·        It is also noted that the proposal will not obstruct existing view corridors as compared to a compliant built form.

·        The fifth storey of the building is recessed from the front setback 8m and more than 9m from both side setbacks. This enables there to be a fifth level or useable floorspace as permitted by the maximum floorspace ratio under the LEP while at the same time minimising the visual impact of this level of the building. The upper level will be barely detectable from the street level ensuring the development has no negative impact on this residential streetscape.

·        The extent of variation does not contribute to any increase in overshadowing (hence the extent of impact is as per the impact generated by the permitted building envelope).

·        The minor non-compliance to the height control has no unacceptable impact on the setting of any items of environmental heritage or view corridors.

As outlined above the proposal remains consistent with the underlying objectives of the control and as such compliance is considered unnecessary or unreasonable in the circumstances. The above discussion demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the minor departure from the control.

Planner’s comment:

The objectives of the building height standard are to enable appropriate development density to be achieved and to ensure that the height of the building is compatible with the character of the locality as outlined above. The proposal is compliant (subject to conditions) with the maximum inclusive of the bonus provision under the ARH SEPP. The increased height does not achieve any additional level for residential use, and comprises portions of Level 4 ceiling, the roof of the building and the top of the lift core.

The subject site is also identified to be impacted by the 1% AEP storm event, and as such the proposal is required to achieve minimum FFLs above the 1% AEP flood plus 500mm freeboard. In this regard, the building is raised higher in response to the conditions of the site and to achieve the required FFLs, which has contributed to the non-compliance with the maximum building height standard.

The departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. The additional height does not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape and would not impinge on the changing streetscape that is anticipated for the immediate area. Given that the proposed development responds to the site and does so without compromising relationships with adjoining development, and does not unduly compromise other relevant controls, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of height requirements and development within the R4 zone.

3.     a) Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

Applicant’s justification:

Strict compliance with the prescriptive building height requirement is unreasonable and unnecessary in the context of the proposal and its particular circumstances. The proposed development meets the underlying intent of the control and is a compatible form of development that does not result in unreasonable environmental amenity impacts.

Planner’s comment:

Council Officers are satisfied that the proposed variation has been appropriately justified and can be supported in this instance. The height breach is limited to an overall building height of RL 37.4 for the roof of the building, and height of RL 38.25 for the top of the lift core. The additional height of the lift core will not be visible from the adjacent streets and properties. The proposed variation to the development standard is necessary for the structure containing the lift core and in order to achieve required FFLs, and is consistent with the scale of the development within the R4 zone located in the immediate vicinity of the site. The departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. The additional height does not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape and would not impinge on the changing streetscape that is anticipated for the immediate area. It is considered, therefore, that the non-compliance with the Development Standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

b) Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard and therefore is the applicant’s written justification well founded?

The unique circumstances of the case are considered to warrant support of the departure. Given that the proposed development responds to the site and does so without unduly compromising relationships with adjoining development, and does not unduly compromise other relevant controls, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of building height, and development within the R4 zone. In this regard, the exception is well founded and can be supported.

Conclusion:

Council is satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6 subclause (3). Council is further satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

It is the view of Council Officers that justification provided is satisfactory and having considered the application on its merit, the exception to the maximum building height development standard is considered acceptable in this instance.

An assessment against all the relevant LEP provisions is provided at Attachment 3.

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Development Control Plans

(a)    Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

HDCP 2013 contains general controls which relate to all developments under Part A, residential controls under Part B, and transitway station precinct controls under Part N.

A comprehensive HDCP compliance table is attached to this report at Attachment 4. A summary of the DCP non-compliances is provided in the following table.

Building Height

Control	Provided	Complies (Yes/No)
Maximum building height in storeys shall be provided in accordance with the table below:   Permitted Height (storeys) Height Storeys 9m 1 11m 2 12.5m 3 15m 4 18m 5 21m 6 24 m 7	Required – 15 metres – 4 storeys   The proposal is 5 storeys in height, and exceeds the maximum number of storeys permitted, with also minor encroachments (max. 0.85m exceedance) to the maximum 15m building height permitted.   The departure to the number of storeys is considered acceptable as the proposal presents a built form of an appropriate bulk and scale for the site, noting that the area is undergoing transition.   The building is adequately articulated along all street frontages, with the 5th storey recessed, to reduce the visual bulk when viewed from both neighbouring properties and the street, and as such considered to be compatible with the existing and changing streetscape. In this regard, noting the context and constraints of the site, the departure sought to the maximum number of storeys is considered acceptable in this instance.	No – Acceptable in this instance.

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

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

The provisions of the Regulations

The regulations do not proscribe any relevant matters for consideration.

Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979)

There is no Coastal Zone Management Plan applicable to the subject site.

The likely impacts of the development

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

The suitability of the site for the development

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation

Advertised (newspaper)          Mail               Sign          Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified from 2 May 2018 to 23 May 2018. As a result of the notification, no submissions were received. Amended plans submitted did not warrant re-notification of the proposal.

Section 7.11 of The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

The subject development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013. A condition is imposed requiring the payment of contributions.

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

·        7 x 1-bedroom dwellings – $9,431 x 7 = $66,017

·        36 x 2-bedroom dwellings – $15,950 x 36 = $574,200

·        5 x 3-bedroom dwellings – $20,000 x 5 = $100,000

·        credit for the existing 4 x 3-bedroom dwellings = $80,000

The required Section 7.11 contribution payable for the proposal is $660,217.

The Public Interest

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

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

The NSW Government introduced The Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 (NSW). This disclosure requirement is for all members of the public relating to political donations and gifts. The law introduces disclosure requirements for individuals or entities with a relevant financial interest as part of the lodgement of various types of development proposals and requests to initiate environmental planning instruments or development control plans.

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

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

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

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

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: ii)    1.     That Development Application 2018/123/1 for which seeks consent for demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot, construction of a 5 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating 48 units and 47 parking spaces under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009, be approved under Deferred Commencement, subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 5.

 

1.     SEPP ARH 2009 Compliance Table ⇩

2.     ADG Compliance Table ⇩

3.     HLEP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

4.     HDCP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

5.     Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

6.     Internal Architectural Plans ⇩

7.     External Architectural Plans ⇩

8.     Clause 4.6 Variation Request to Building Height ⇩

9.     Concept plans for Potential Redevelopment of No. 5 Irwin Place ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

SEPP ARH 2009 Compliance Table

 16 April 2019

 

 

Attachment 2

ADG Compliance Table

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

HLEP 2013 Compliance Table

 16 April 2019

 

 

Attachment 4

HDCP 2013 Compliance Table

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Draft Notice of Determination

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Internal Architectural Plans

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

External Architectural Plans

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

Attachment 8

Clause 4.6 Variation Request to Building Height

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 9

Concept plans for Potential Redevelopment of No. 5 Irwin Place

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

16 April 2019

 

Item No: ELPP021/19

Development Application for 15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                              DA 2018/284/1  

 

 

Application lodged	10 August 2018
Applicant	Baini Design
Owner	Ishak Group Holdings Pty Ltd
Application No.	2018/284/1
Description of Land	15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes (Lot 29 in DP 239685)
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 30 place child care centre over basement parking accommodating 10 parking spaces
Site Area	560.2m2
Zoning	R2 – Low Density Residential
Principal Development Standards	·  Floor Space Ratio – 0.5:1 (HLEP 2013) ·  Height of Buildings – 9m
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	No
Issues	-  Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space -  Car parking ratio -  Landscape area -  Basement and driveway setbacks

1.     Development Application 2018/284/1 was received on 10 August 2018 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 30 place child care centre over basement parking accommodating 10 parking spaces.

2.     The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 14 days from 12 September 2018 to 26 September 2018. In response, 18 submissions (3 support letters and 15 objections) were received.

3.     On 8 November 2018 a public information session was held at Cumberland    Council.  

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

5.     Amended plans and additional information were received on 4 March 2019 addressing some of Council’s concerns. The proposal was publicly re-notified for 14 days from 8 March 2019 to 22 March 2019. In response, 11 submissions against the proposal were received.

6.     There are non-compliances with the proposed development having considered the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Child Care Planning Guideline (the Guideline) 2017, and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

7.     The proposed development seeks following notable variations:

 

Control	Required	Provided	%age variation
(a)    Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space (b)    (regulation 108 and part 4.9 the Guideline)	7m²x 30 = 210m²	210m² (including storage shed, OSD pits, open swale channel, retaining walls and dense planting)   Assessing officer’s calculation = 185.5m²/7 = 26.5 children   Recommendation = reduce number of children to 26	11.6%
Landscape area	Min. 20%  = 112.04m2	13.78% (77.2m²)	31%
Setbacks from side boundary (DCP)	Basement – 900mm Driveway – 1.5m	Basement – 415mm (north)   Driveway – 1.2m	53.8% 20%

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

9.     It is recommended that the application be approved for a maximum of 26 children (due to the available unencumbered outdoor space/play area) subject to conditions provided in the Draft Notice of Determination held at Attachment 1.

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes, and is legally described as Lot 29 in DP 239685. The site is located on the western side of Hyacinth Street. The site is a rectangular block with a frontage of 20.4m, depth of 27.4m and a total site area of 560.2m². Existing improvements on the site include a single-storey dwelling with attached carport on the southern side. Adjoining developments consist of one to two storey detached dwelling houses with landscaped front setbacks. Widemere Public School directly adjoins the subject site and shares its rear boundary. Council’s Nemesia Street Park is located 100m walking distance towards the north-eastern side of the site. The subject site and all of adjoining properties are zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

Locality Plan

Area hatched in red is 15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes (Locality)

Aerial Plan

15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes (Aerial)

 

Site photo

15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes

Description of The Proposed Development

The proposed development, as amended, involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 30 place child care centre over basement parking accommodating 10 parking spaces.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

·        Demolition of the existing dwelling and carport.

·        Construction of a two-storey child care facility accommodating 30 children.

·        Construction of a basement level car parking area accommodating 10 car parking spaces, for staff and visitors (including 1 accessible space) and bin room.

·        The facility will accommodate 30 children, as follows:

o  10 children – 2-3 yrs

o  20 children – 3-5 yrs

·        The proposed centre will operate from 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and will employ 4 staff.

·        The ground floor level contains office, toilets, storage and indoor and outdoor play areas.

·        The first floor level contains office, toilet, staff room, kitchen, laundry, storage and balcony facing Hyacinth Street.

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

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

History

 

Date	Action
10/08/2018	Development Application 2018/283 was lodged.
3/09/2018	The application was reviewed by Council’s DA Review team (DART)
3/09/2018	The application was referred to Council’s internal departments for review.
12/09/2018 to 26/09/2018	The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 14 days. In response, 18 submissions including 3 support letters and 15 objections were received.
8/11/2018	Public information session was held at Cumberland Council.
4/02/2019	Application was deferred due to non-compliances with SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Child Care Planning Guideline 2017, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013, and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013.
4/03/2019	Amended plans and additional information were received by Council.
8/03/2019 to 22/03/2019	The application was placed on public re-notification for 7 days, during which time 11 submissions were received.
16/04/2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

The applicant provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd dated 2 August 2018 and 7 March 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 development is supportable in regards to overland flood mitigation measure, and on-site detention provision, subject to conditions.

Traffic Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to traffic management, and on-site parking provision in the basement level, subject to conditions.

Parks Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Parks Officer for comment who has advised that the development is located within the vicinity of Council’s park and is supportable, subject to conditions.

Tree Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to protection of existing trees on the adjoining properties, subject to conditions.

Waste Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to provision of bin tug, bin storage room, and waste collection and management plan, subject to conditions.

Environmental Health Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to fit-out for food preparation area, acoustic assessment, noise management plan, noise attenuation measure, soil assessment, and site contamination, subject to conditions.

Children’s Services

The development application was referred to Council’s Children’s Services section for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to compliance with the provisions of Education and Care Services National Regulations and Law, subject to conditions.

External Referrals

N/A

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

(c)    Control	(d)       Required	(e)    Provided
(f)     Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space (regulation 108 SEPP 2017 and part 4.9 the Guideline)	7m²x 30 = 210m²	The application indicates that an unencumbered area of 210m² is provided. However, this has not taken consideration of OSD pits, open swale channel, retaining walls and dense planting. The assessment officer’s calculation of the unencumbered outdoor space equates to 185.5m². This will accommodate only 26.5 children. This report recommends a condition to be imposed on any consent granted seeking a reduction in number of children to 26.

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

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

No vegetation removal is proposed.

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

(a)    Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013

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

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

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

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

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

(b)    Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013

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

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

The assessment provided in Appendix C indicates that there are some minor non-compliances with the HDCP 2013 with regard to car parking, landscape area, and basement and driveway setbacks, which are discussed in the following section:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The likely impacts of the development have been considered in the assessment of the application and it is considered that the proposed development will have no significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts in the locality.

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

The site is considered suitable to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed development has been assessed in regard to its environmental consequences and having regard to this assessment, it is considered that the development is suitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality.

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

Advertised (newspaper)          Mail              Sign             Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of the Holroyd DCP 2013, the application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 14 days from 12 September 2018 to 26 September 2018. In response, 18 submissions including 3 support letters and 15 objections were received. Following the submission of additional information the proposal was re-notified to the objectors and the adjoining and opposite owners for 14 days between 8 March 2019 and 22 March 2019. Eleven (11) additional submissions were received as a result of the re-notification.

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

 

 

The Application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Education and Care Services National Regulations, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to reduction in number of children to 26 (to comply with the outdoor unencumbered space) and the draft conditions.

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

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

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

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 2018/284/1 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 26 place child care centre over basement parking accommodating 10 parking spaces on land at 15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes, be Approved, subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 1. 2.     That the applicant and those persons who lodged a submission in respect of the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.     Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

2.     Architectural Plans Internal ⇩

3.     Architectural Plans External ⇩

4.     Landscape Plan ⇩

5.     Acoustic Report ⇩

6.     Noise Management Plan ⇩

7.     Redacted Public Submission ⇩

8.     Locality Map ⇩

9.     Appendix A - SEPP Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities 2017 ⇩

10.   Appendix B - HLEP 2013 ⇩

11.   Appendix C - HDCP 2013 ⇩

12.   Appendix D - Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans Internal

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Architectural Plans External

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 16 April 2019

Attachment 4

Landscape Plan

 16 April 2019

Attachment 5

Acoustic Report

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Noise Management Plan

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Redacted Public Submission

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 8

Locality Map

 16 April 2019

Attachment 9

Apendix A - SEPP Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities 2017

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

Attachment 10

Appendix B - HLEP 2013

 16 April 2019

 

Attachment 11

Appendix C - HDCP 2013

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 12

Appendix D - Child Care Planning Gideline 2017

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 April 2019

 

Item No: ELPP022/19

Planning Proposal Request for 2-22 William Street, Granville

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Strategic Planning

File Number:                              SC183  

 

 

Lodged	Revised Planning Proposal submitted on 16 October 2018.
Proponent	Sid Arida C/O PTI Architects Pty Ltd
Owner	Sid Arida
Description of Land	2-22 William Street, Granville (Lots 18 to 21 in DP 2371 and SP 31488)
Site Area	Approximately 3,700m2
Site Description and Existing Use	The Site comprises 15 allotments containing seven (7) buildings with primary frontage on William Street, comprising of detached residential dwellings, a two storey residential flat building and a commercial warehouse.
Proposal Summary	Seeks to amend the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Parramatta LEP 2011) by:  increasing the maximum building height from 14m to 20m (five storeys),  increasing the floor space ratio (FSR) from 1:1 to 1.7:1,  removing the local heritage item no. I205 known as 10 William Street (Lot 27 DP 2371) from Schedule 5 of the Parramatta LEP 2011.
Existing and Proposed Planning Controls	Planning Controls (Parramatta LEP 2011)	Existing controls	Proposed controls
	Height of Building	14m	20m (five-storeys)
	Floor Space Ratio	1:1	1.7:1
Heritage	Seeks to remove the local heritage item no. I205 from the Parramatta LEP 2011 as outlined above.
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil
Previous Consideration	This planning proposal was previously considered by the Cumberland IHAP on 13 September 2017.

This report provides an overview of a revised planning proposal submitted to Council on 16 October 2018 that addresses recommendations made by the Cumberland IHAP at its 13 September 2017 meeting. The revised planning proposal seeks to amend the height and FSR controls for the subject site, and remove the existing heritage item at 10 William Street. This report outlines the findings of the additional expert heritage peer review and FSR modelling advice undertaken on behalf of Council in response to the 2017 recommendations of the Cumberland IHAP. The report recommends proceeding with an FSR control of 1.7:1, a lower maximum building height of 16m, and removal of the heritage item as outlined in the independent heritage advice.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Planning Proposal Status

Background

On 15 December 2015, a Planning Proposal Request (the Proposal) was lodged with Parramatta Council for 2-22 William Street, Granville by Sid Arida C/- PTI Architects. This Proposal originally sought to amend the development standards in the Parramatta LEP 2011 to achieve a greater height and density on the site to enable the development of a seven (7) storey residential development.

 

The original proposal (December 2015) sought an increase in FSR from 1:1 to 2.3:1 and an increase in maximum building height from 14m to 23m (approximately seven storeys). The original proposal also included the removal of Heritage Item I205 (No. 10 William Street) from Schedule 5 of the Parramatta LEP 2011.

 

This planning proposal was transferred to Cumberland Council following the May 2016 Council amalgamations and a revised concept scheme was lodged with Cumberland Council in September 2016. The revised proposal sought a lower maximum FSR of 1.7:1 and a maximum height of 19.2 metres (five storeys), in an attempt to address the overshadowing of adjoining properties to the south of the site. It also sought the removal of the heritage item at 10 William Street.

 

Preliminary public exhibition of the revised September 2016 concept scheme was undertaken by Cumberland Council between 10 April 2017 and 12 May 2017, in accordance with Council’s notification policy.

An assessment of the submissions received and the proposal was undertaken, and this was reported to the Cumberland IHAP meeting on 13 September 2017 (Attachment 1).

 

The Cumberland IHAP recommended that the proposal be deferred to a future IHAP meeting (now Cumberland Local Planning Panel) meeting and for Council to undertake the following (Attachment 2):

·        obtain an additional independent heritage opinion on the proposed demolition of the heritage item;

·        undertake a study of whether the FSR is appropriate while satisfying the outcomes required in the ADG, particularly transition to the R2 zoned land immediately to the south; and

·        consideration be given to any community benefit in the proposed increased FSR and height.

 

These recommendations are discussed further throughout this report.

 

In October 2018, the proponent submitted a revised planning proposal request (Attachment 3) on 16 October 2018 responding to the concerns raised by the Cumberland IHAP. This revised proposal sought a maximum FSR of 1.7:1 and a maximum height of 20 metres, and like the previous proposal, it also sought the removal of the heritage item.

The site and its context

The Site is located on the southern side of William Street, and is bound by William Street, Clyde Street, Factory Street and a rear access laneway.

Figure 2: The Site and surrounds

 

The area of the Site is approximately 3,700m². It comprises fifteen allotments containing seven detached dwellings with frontage to William Street and a two storey strata subdivided residential flat building. The Site also contains a commercial building used for warehousing at the western end of the block, and includes the heritage item at 10 William Street.

 

 

The applicant owns the site at 10-22 William Street (Site 1) and has instigated the LEP amendment. The remaining portion of the Site is known as 2-8 William Street (Site 2) and comprises seven allotments held under private ownership and strata title (Figure 3).

 

Figure 3: Overall site ownership plan

 

 

Local Context

The Site is bound to the north by the Granville RSL Club and existing industrial buildings (towards Clyde Railway Station). These buildings are accessed from and have frontage to, Memorial Drive with no vehicular access or active frontages to William Street, facing the Site.

 

To the east of the Site is an industrial precinct zoned IN1 General Industrial. The lots to the south of the Site fronting First Street (and backing onto the rear lane) are established detached residential dwellings within an R2 Low Density Residential zone with a maximum FSR of 0.5:1 and a 9m height limit. Allotments to the west of Clyde Street are residential flat buildings varying from two to four storeys.

 

The Site is located approximately 150m from Clyde Railway Station and about 500-600 metres from Granville Station and the Granville shopping area located along Mary Street and South Street.

 

Regional Context

The site is located in the suburb of Granville within the Local Government Area of Cumberland Council approximately 3km south of Parramatta CBD and 20km west of the Sydney CBD.

Planning Controls

Existing Planning Controls (Parramatta LEP 2011)

The existing planning controls for the site are outlined below.

Land Use Zoning The site is currently zoned R4 High Density Residential	Figure 4: Existing Land Use Zoning
Floor Space Ratio Control A FSR control of (N) 1.0:1 applies to the site	Figure 5: Existing Floor Space Ratio
Height of Building Control A Height of Building control of (N2): 14 metres applies to the site.	Figure 6: Existing Height of Building

 

Proposed Planning Controls (Parramatta LEP 2011)

The proposed planning controls for the site are outlined below.

Land Use Zoning	The Proposal does not propose a change to the land use zoning control that applies to the site.
Floor Space Ratio The proposal seeks an FSR control of (S2): 1.7:1.	Figure 7: Proposed FSR control
Height of Building Control The proposal seeks a height of Building control of (Q2) 20 metres, however a height of 16m (O2) is recommended.	Figure 8: Proposed height of building control

Strategic Merit

Land is currently zoned for High Density

There is merit in progressing the Proposal to the next phase of assessment as the area is already zoned to permit the development of residential flat buildings. The planning proposal is seeking to amend the current built form controls and to remove the heritage item.

Cumberland IHAP recommendations

There is merit in progressing the Proposal to the next phase of assessment as the proposal has been revised to address the recommendations of the CIHAP.

Community Benefit

The CIHAP required consideration be given to any community (public) benefit in the proposed increase in height and FSR. The uplift in residential floor space as a result of an increase in FSR and height for Site 1 is approximately 1530m². Under Council’s Planning Agreements Policy, Council seeks to capture 50% of the value uplift. It is recommended that Council commence discussion with the proponent on community (public) benefit arising from the proposal.

Heritage

The is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment, as the consultants engaged to provide independent heritage advice for Council concluded that the proposed demolition of 10 William Street, Granville, could occur:

 

·        as the cottage is the only remaining item of the group of three (both 6 and 8 William Street have been compromised with the demolition of the original cottages and replacement with new dwellings on both sides), and it is an ordinary example of a weatherboard cottage. Retention and conservation works including adaptive reuse or restoration would increase its aesthetic value as an item, but would not significantly add to its contribution to the wider streetscape, where as an example of historic values, it is quite isolated;

 

·        two other groups of weatherboard cottages at 115-119 and 170-178 William Street are in intact condition, and each group is cohesive in its contribution to the streetscape, providing better examples of interpretation of the residential context of the area. Therefore, the retention of the cottage at 10 William Street, which is the only remaining house of the original group of three cottages, does not represent an intact group of cottages as in the case of the other two groups, nor provide enough evidence for interpretation of the former group;

 

·        if archival recording of the cottage at 10 William Street is undertaken prior to any demolition approved and allowed as per the NSW OEH Guideline How to prepare archival records of Heritage Items;

·        if an interpretation strategy be prepared by a qualified heritage consultant for the group of three cottages at 6, 8 and 10 William Street, which reflects the historical, social and cultural significance of the group, and this strategy be integrated into any proposed development. The strategy should also refer to the other weatherboard cottage groups along William Street. The interpretation strategy should be prepared in accordance with The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 2013, and the NSW OEH documents namely Interpreting Heritage Places and Items Guidelines 2005, and the Heritage Interpretation Policy 2005. The interpretation strategy should be prepared and submitted at the same time as the Development Application for the proposed development at 2-22 William Street is submitted to Cumberland Council; and

 

·        if all demolition works undertaken consider salvage of any original elements of the building. The list of items and materials to be salvaged should be developed by a qualified heritage consultant. Any material which is identified for salvaging should be photographed, tagged and catalogued by a heritage consultant and stored until reused in a secure, weather-proof location. The location of the storage should be ascertained by the proponent in consultation with Cumberland Council. It is also recommended that the interpretation strategy integrate the reuse of any salvage material.

 

The independent heritage advice on the proposal is provided in Attachment 5.

 

In addition to the specialist heritage peer review advice provided to Council, opportunities to incorporate a mechanism to capture the requirements outlined above will be explored as part of the new comprehensive Cumberland LEP.

Overshadowing

The proposed height control of 20 metres is not supported due to overshadowing impacts on land directly to the south. However, there is merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment with a 16 metre Height of Building control as:

·        the FSR study that was undertaken to address the Cumberland IHAP (Attachment 6) concluded that an FSR of 1.7:1 and a height of 16.2m will deliver good amenity outcomes for the residents of the buildings and its neighbours, particularly the properties to the south;

 

·        the study demonstrated that a compliant ADG and DCP option would ensure that there is no additional overshadowing impact to Nos. 11 and 13 First Street after 1pm, which is an improvement on the impacts generated by planning proposal request at a proposed height of 20m; and

 

·        16 metres is comparable with many other areas zoned R4 across Cumberland, and is considered to provide an appropriate scale of development in this location.

 

Central City District Plan

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

the proposal supports this priority by placing housing in a location less than 30 minutes by public transport (bus) from Parramatta CBD.

Greater Sydney Region Plan

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

 

·        A City for People and Housing the City: the proposal provides additional housing capacity in Granville and will contribute to supply and diversity and of housing in the area; and

 

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

 

Summary of Planning Proposal Controls

 

A summary of the evolution of the proposed planning proposal controls to this point is provided below. 

 

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

 

·        the area is currently zoned to permit the development of residential flat buildings. The planning proposal is purely seeking a better urban design outcome by amending the current built form controls and removing the heritage item; and

 

·        the recommended height of 16 metres is considered to generate an appropriate scale of development in this location.

 

The proposal is also generally consistent with the strategic directions set by the Central City District Plan and the Greater Sydney Region Plan.

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

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

This report recommends that this matter be reported to Council for further consideration.

 

Should Council resolve to forward this planning proposal to the DP&E for a Gateway Determination, there will be a number of policy implications associated with the subsequent stages of the planning proposal process. These will be outlined in subsequent Council reports.

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

 

Report Recommendation: That: 1.   Council proceed with the preparation of a Planning Proposal for 2-22 William Street, Granville (Lots 18 – 31 DP 2371 and SP 31488), with the following development standards: ·     a floor space ratio of 1.7:1; and  ·     a maximum building height of 16m;   2.   That the proponent undertake the following, prior to any demolition approval if allowed:   ·     prepare an archival recording of the heritage item at 10 William Street as per the NSW OEH Guideline How to prepare archival records of heritage items; ·     organise for an interpretation strategy to be prepared by a qualified heritage consultant for the group of three cottages at 6, 8 and 10 William Street, and for this strategy to be integrated into any proposed development in accordance with The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 2013, and the NSW OEH documents namely Interpreting Heritage Places and Items Guidelines 2005, and the Heritage Interpretation Policy 2005. The interpretation strategy should also integrate the reuse of any salvaged material; and   ·     organise for a qualified heritage consultant to prepare a list of items and materials to be salvaged. Any material identified for salvaging should be photographed, tagged and catalogued by a heritage consultant and stored until reused in a secure, weather-proof location. The location of the storage should be ascertained by the proponent in consultation with Cumberland Council.

 

1.     Cumberland IHAP Report – 13 September 2017 ⇩

2.     Cumberland IHAP Recommendations - 13 September 2017 ⇩

3.     Revised planning proposal request report by Ethos Urban submitted to Cumberland Council on 16 October 2018 ⇩

4.     Revised planning proposal request concept scheme prepared by PTI Architects submitted to Cumberland Council on 16 October 2018 ⇩

5.     Heritage Advice provided by Extent Heritage  on behalf of Council on 4 December 2018 ⇩

6.     FSR study prepared by Design Inc on behalf of Council on 27 February 2019 ⇩

7.     Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Archnex Designs ⇩

8.     Peer Heritage Review prepared by Heritage 21/Rappoport ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

Cumberland IHAP Report – 13 September 2017

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Cumberland IHAP Recommendations - 13 September 2017

 16 April 2019

 

Attachment 3

Revised planning proposal request report by Ethos Urban submitted to Cumberland Council on 16 October 2018

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Revised planning proposal request concept scheme prepared by PTI Architects submitted to Cumberland Council on 16 October 2018

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Heritage Advice provided by Extent Heritage  on behalf of Council on 4 December 2018

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

FSR study prepared by Design Inc on behalf of Council on 27 February 2019

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Archnex Designs

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 16 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 16 April 2019

Attachment 8

Peer Heritage Review prepared by Heritage 21/Rappoport

 16 April 2019