8 May 2019

A meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30am at the Merrylands Administration Building, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands on Wednesday, 8 May 2019.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.      Receipt of Apologies

2.      Confirmation of Minutes

3.      Declarations of Interest

4.      Address by invited speakers

5.      Reports:

          -        Development Applications

          -        Planning Proposals

6.      Closed Session Reports

 

 

 

 8 May 2019

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

LPP026/19... Section 4.55(2) Modification for 10 Guernsey Road, Guildford................... 5

LPP027/19... Development Application for 1 Peggy Street, Mays Hill.............................. 47

LPP028/19... Development Application for 3-9 Peggy Street, Mays Hill........................ 175

LPP029/19... Development Application for 216 William Street, Granville...................... 363

LPP030/19... Development Application for 17 Brooks Circuit, Lidcombe...................... 567

LPP031/19... Auburn and Lidcombe Town Centres Planning Controls Strategy........ 735

 

 

 

8 May 2019

 

Item No: LPP026/19

Section 4.55(2) Modification for 10 Guernsey Road, Guildford

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                                    DA 2012/122/3  

 

 

Application lodged	14 January 2019
Applicant	Urbanesque Planning
Owner	Messers J and M Shi
Application No.	2012/122/3
Description of Land	Lot 10 in DP7419; 10 Guernsey Road, Guildford
Proposed Development	Section 4.55(2) modification to remove trial period requirements and increase hours of operation of an existing sex services premises to 24 hours and 7 days a week.
Site Area	408.77m2
Zoning	IN2 – Light Industrial
Principal Development Standards	Minimum Lot Size: 1200sqm – No change sought
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	The subject site does not contain a heritage item, is not located within the vicinity of a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area.
Issues	·  Validity of consent ·  24 Hour Operation

1.      DA2012/122/1 was lodged on 3 April 2012 for alterations and addition to building for use as a brothel. This application was approved under Delegated Authority on 3 October 2012.

2.      A Section 4.55(1A) application was lodged on 14 August 2018 and withdrawn by the applicant on 4 September 2018 for modification to existing brothel to operate 24 hours 7 days. This application was withdrawn as it failed to demonstrate the validity of the original consent.

3.      The subject modification application is for the deletion of condition number 9 of the consent which limits the brothel operation to a 12 month trial and for condition number 69 to be updated to allow for 24 hour operation, 7 days per week. The application was accompanied by documentation from Minter Ellison providing legal evidence as to the validity of the original consent, at Attachment

4.      The application was notified to surrounding properties from 12 to 26 February 2019, a site notice was placed on the site and was advertised in the local paper. No submissions were received as a result of the notification.

5.      The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination as it is a sensitive development type being for the purpose of sex services premises. 

6.      The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013.

7.      No variations are sought by the subject application.

8.      The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions in the draft determination at Attachment 2.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 10 Guernsey Road, Guildford and is legally described as Lot 10 in DP 7419. The subject site is located on the southern side of Guernsey Road. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 12.19m to Guernsey Road (replicated for the rear boundary) and an eastern and western side boundary dimension of 33.53m and a total site area of 408.77m2. The site is occupied by the existing approved single storey brothel within an industrial style building.

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

Zoning map. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Application History

 

Date	Action
14 January 2019	DA 2012/122/3 lodged with Council
8 February 2019	The application was referred externally to: -     New South Wales Police The application was referred internally to: -     Environmental Health Unit
12 to 26 February 2019	Application placed on public notification for 21 days
15 February 2019	Legal opinion sought from Council General Counsel as to validity of consent.
8 May 2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Urbanesque Planning, dated 4 January 2019 was submitted with the application and can be view at Attachment 3.

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

Environmental Health

Satisfactory subject to conditions applied under previous consent.

External Referrals

New South Wales Police

The application was referred to NSW Police for comment who advised that the operation is deemed Moderate-Major crime risk. The NSW Police have provided further updated CPTED principles and conditions to apply to the subject modification. It is thus recommended that condition number 1 be updated to reflect the NSW Police referral advice received on 4th March 2019.

Planning Assessment

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

Pursuant to Section 4.55(2), a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

Requirement	Comment
(a)  It is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and	The development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted. The proposal provides for a change in hours of operation to the approved brothel.
(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, and	The modified proposal was referred to NSW Police for comment. No objections were raised by the referral bodies beyond conditions recommended to be imposed.
(c)   it has notified the application in accordance with: (i)  the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii)  a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and	The application was notified for 14 days from 12 to 26 February 2019, in accordance with HDCP 2013.
(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.   Subsections (1) and (1A) do not apply to such a modification.	No submissions were received in response to the notification period.
(3)  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 provisions of the applicable EPIs are discussed elsewhere in this report.   The provisions of the applicable DCP are discussed elsewhere in this report.   There are no planning agreements or draft planning agreements related to this application.   There are no relevant matters referred to in the regulations.   The likely impacts of the development as proposed to be modified are considered satisfactory.   The site is considered to be suitable for the development as proposed to be modified.   No submissions were received as a result of the notification.   Approval of the subject application is not contrary to the public interest.
(4) The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified.	(a) Noted

Validity of the Consent

Concern was raised as to the validity of the existing consent given that condition number 9 had not been removed by way of a modification application within the 12 month period from initial operation of the brothel. The applicant provided their legal advice to support their application which can be viewed at Attachment 4.

Council’s General Counsel provided their own independent advice as to the validity of the consent and whilst relying on differing judicial precedents agreed in essence that the subject consent is legally valid and a S4.55 modification can be lodged and determined for the original consent on site.

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

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

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

The requirement at clause 7 of SEPP 55 for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development was considered under the original application. The proposed modifications do not include any building or ground works which will raise any new concerns about potential contamination.

b)      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP 2013)

The proposal is defined as ‘sex services premises’ under the provisions of HLEP 2013. ‘Sex Services Premises’ are not permissible within the IN2 – Light Industrial zone which applies to the land. However, as the consent is considered lawful and active it provides for existing use rights. Furthermore the proposed modification is consistent with the objectives of the IN2 zone.

The proposed modifications do not result in any change to the maximum lot size, which is the only development standard applicable to the subject site.

Development Control Plans

a)      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

HDCP 2013 contains general controls which relate to all developments under Part A, and Part D contains Planning Controls for Brothels. Below is a discussion of the relevant provisions of the HDCP2013, Attachment 1 contains a full assessment against the planning controls for Sex Services Premises

 

Cl 14.3 – Time Limited Consents and Cl14.6 Hours of Operation apply to the subject modification.

8. – Time Limited Consent:

A 12 month trial period may be applied to any brothel consent as a result of this clause. Accordingly, under the original approval such a trial period was enforced by way of Condition no. 9.

It is considered that a standalone request to remove the 12 month trial condition of consent (Condition No.9) is fair and reasonable, given that there has been no reported disturbance in the locality as a result of the brothel’s ongoing operation.

However, the subject application includes a proposed extension of trading hours from 9am to 11pm 7 days a week, to 24 hours, 7 days a week. In conjunction with C3, which states:

C3. Council may also impose conditions of consent relating to the hours of operation. This will also be the subject of review after 12 months. If after the 12 month trial, the approved hours of operation are causing a disturbance in the neighbourhood, the Council may further restrict operating hours.

a 12 month trial period is recommended to be utilised for the changed trading hours. This is considered necessary, to ensure the ability to review and manage accordingly any impact the increased hours will have on the locality and neighbouring properties.

As such Condition Number 9 is recommended to be deleted and Condition Number 69 include a 12 month trial period as part of any approval in accordance with the conditions in the draft determination at Attachment 2.

8.3. – Hours of Operation:

There are no specific standards imposed in relation to the operational hours of a sex services premises at the subject site, with hours subject to a merits based assessment. The objectives of this section of the DCP relate to hours of operation having the least impact on the community, the environment and nearby land uses.

Given the subject site is located within an industrially zoned area with the nearest residential properties located approximately 190m from the subject site, there is unlikely to be any impact as a result of the increased hours of operation on these dwellings.

 

Zoning map excerpt detailing Residential Zone at Carrington Road. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Further to this, the industrial nature of the adjoining properties mean that the extended operating hours will have minimal impact on their ability to continue to operate.

It is considered that per the referral commentary from internal and external bodies and given the industrial zoning and land use surrounding the subject site – coupled with no reported disturbances caused by the brothel’s ongoing operation – 24 hour operation, 7 days per week is appropriate, subject to the inclusion of a 12 month trial period.

As such, it is recommended that Condition Number 69 be reworded as part of any approval in accordance with the conditions in the draft determination at Attachment 2.

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 for a period of 14 days between 12 and 26 February 2019. As a result of the notification, Council received no public submissions.

Section 7.11 of The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

The subject development does not attract development contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013.

Accordingly no condition was imposed on the original consent requiring payment of contributions, nor is there any required condition under the subject application.

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

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 1991, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013, Holroyd Development Control Plan 2007 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory.

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: That development application DA 2012/122/3 for modification to remove trial period requirements and increase hours of operation of an existing sex services premises to 24 hours and 7 days a week be approved subject to the conditions within the draft notice of determination provided at Attachment 2.

 

1.      HDCP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

2.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

3.      Statement of Environmental Effects ⇩

4.      Applicants Legal Advice ⇩

5.      DA 2012/122 - Development Consent ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

HDCP 2013 Compliance Table

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Draft Notice of Determination

 8 May 2019

 

 

Attachment 3

Statement of Environmental Effects

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Applicants Legal Advice

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 May 2019

 

Item No: LPP027/19

Development Application for 1 Peggy Street, Mays Hill

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                                    DA 2018/278/1  

 

 

Application lodged	8 August 2018
Applicant	Blu Print Designs Pty Ltd (Anthony Charbel)
Owner	Peggy One Pty Ltd
Application No.	2018/278
Description of land	1 Peggy Street Mays Hill
Proposed development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of 4 storey residential flat building over 2 levels of basement parking including new ramps on the adjoining site (3-9 Peggy Street) providing access into the proposed basements; accommodating 16 residential units and 34 parking spaces
Site area	1195 m2
Zoning	R4 – High Density Residential
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	The site is not a heritage item and is not located within a heritage conservation area
Principal development standards	Height of Buildings – 15 m Floor Space Ratio – 1.2:1
Issues	·    Building separation (ADG) ·    FSR (HLEP 2013) ·    Lot frontage (HDCP 2013) ·    Site coverage (HDCP 2013) ·    Rear setback (HDCP 2013)

1.      The subject application was lodged on 8 August 2018 and notified to surrounding properties from 5 September 2018 to 26 September 2018. No submissions were received.

2.      The application was deferred on 16 January 2019 due to non-compliances with the FSR and building height standards, ADG apartment size controls, visual bulk of the proposal, inappropriate privacy treatment to habitable rooms, refinement to private/communal open spaces and landscaping, waste management traffic matters and stormwater plans. Additional information was also sought regarding owners consent from 3-9 Peggy Street, which will be burdened by a right of carriageway through 2 levels of basement benefitting the subject site.

3.      Owners consent from 3-9 Peggy Street, additional information, and amended plans to address the deferral items were submitted on 28 February 2019. Amended plans have addressed matters raised in the deferral letter and were not required to be renotified as there were no additional impacts resulting from the amendments.

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

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

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

 

7.      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.

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

Introduction

The subject site is known as 1 Peggy Street and is legally described as Lot 55 in DP 13239. The site has an area of 1195 m2 and frontage of 16.57m to Peggy Street and 59.06m to unnamed laneway. Single storey dwelling houses are located on the subject site and adjoining sites on the southern side. There are a number of established trees on the subject site, which falls approximately 1.15m towards the eastern boundary and a further 2.81m cross fall from north-west to south-east. The site is located within the Mays Hill Transitway Precinct, located approximately 45m south of Great Western Highway.

The subject site and neighbouring allotments are zoned R4 – High Density Residential. Properties located on the southern side of Rees Street are zoned RE1 – Public Recreation and R2 – Low Density Residential. To the north, developments facing Great Western Highway are mostly shop top housing within the B6 – Enterprise Corridor zone. The existing streetscape on Peggy Street is transitioning to replace the existing detached dwellings with residential flat buildings.

Figure 1 - Aerial view of the locality with subject site shown highlighted in red. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Figure 2 – Zoning map with subject site shown hatched. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

 

Description of The Proposed Development

DA 2018/278 proposes demolition of existing structures and construction of 4 storey residential flat building over 2 levels of basement parking including new ramps on the adjoining site (3-9 Peggy Street) providing access into the proposed basements; accommodating 16 residential units and 34 parking spaces.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

Level	Details
Basement 2	18 car parking spaces (including 2 accessible spaces) 8 bicycle spaces Storage, plant room, lift and fire stairs Caretaker’s toilet Shared access to 3-9 Peggy Street
Basement 1	10 car parking spaces (including 2 accessible spaces) 6 visitor car spaces 1 car wash bay 8 bicycle spaces Storage, plant room, waste room, lift and fire stairs Shared access to 3-9 Peggy Street
Ground floor	3 x 2 bedroom units and 1 x 3 bedroom unit Communal Open Space with BBQ and seating areas
First floor	2 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units
Second floor	2 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units
Third floor	2 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units

Access to the basement car park is provided from 3-9 Peggy Street which is burdened by a right of carriageway benefitting the subject site. Suitable conditions to this effect are recommended to be imposed on any consent granted.

The proposed apartment mix is as follows:

·        9 x 2 bedroom (56.25%)

·        7 x 3 bedroom (43.75%)

Application History

Date	Action
8 August 2018	The subject development application (DA 2018/278) was lodged with Council.
28 August 2018	The application was referred to the following internal and external sections: ·    Development Engineering ·    Traffic Engineering ·    Landscape and Tree Management ·    Environmental Health ·    Waste Management ·    Transgrid ·    Endeavour Energy
5 September 2018 to 26 September 2018	Application placed on public notification. No submissions were received.
16 January 2019	Application deferred requesting additional information relating non-compliances with the FSR and building height standards, ADG apartment size controls, visual bulk of the proposal, inappropriate privacy treatment to habitable rooms, refinement to private/communal open spaces and landscaping, waste management traffic matters and stormwater plans. Additional information was also sought regarding owners consent from 3-9 Peggy Street, which will be burdened by a right of carriageway through 2 levels of basement benefitting the subject site.
28 February 2019 to 23 April 2019	Additional information submitted for review.
8 May 2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

Statement of Environmental Effects dated 30 July 2018 and a Clause 4.6 written request to vary the FSR standard dated 23 April 2019, prepared by Think Planners submitted 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 shared arrangement of basement access (right of way) and stormwater management, 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 parking, traffic management, waste collection area and on-site parking provision in the basement level, 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, 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, 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 acoustic assessment, subject to conditions.

External Referrals

Transgrid

The development application was referred to Transgrid for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to not affecting Transgrid’s asset.

Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to electricity connection and sufficient clearance to existing electricity asset, subject to conditions.

Planning Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

BASIX certificate 942893M dated 19 July 2018 was submitted with the application. The proposal achieves the target scores for energy, water and thermal comfort and relevant commitments are shown on the architectural plans.

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

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

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

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

 

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

A comprehensive ADG assessment is provided at Attachment 2.

d)      State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

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

The 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 45m 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 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.

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

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

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

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

g)      State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

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

h)      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP 2013)

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

The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio (FSR) that stipulates that the FSR is not to exceed 1:2 on the subject site. The proposed development result in or FSR = 1.23:1 (1475.18m²), or exceedance of 41.18m² (2.87%).

Clause 4.6 – Variation to Floor Space Ratio

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. 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:

Residential flat buildings are a permitted land use and it is evidenced within the locality which is undergoing a transition particularly to support housing needs of community within a high density zone. 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 development seeks to depart from the floor space control noting that the proposal remains consistent with the objectives of the clause and is a more appropriate outcome on the site because of the following:

-        The development is consistent with the intent of the maximum floor space ratio control and will provide an attractive building that addresses its street frontage;

-        The additional floor space will not increase generation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic noting that the number of parking spaces remains unchanged and that further the modification does not increase the potential population on the site;

-        The increased FSR has no unacceptable impacts on heritage items in the wider vicinity of the site;

-        The non-compliance is minor in nature and the impacts to the streetscape are negligible as the additional floor space ratio will not be visually noticeable when viewed from the street level;

-        The proposal promotes the orderly and economic development of land;

-        Due to the minor nature of the variation it will not have any adverse amenity impacts. In this regard, it is noted:

·     The variation will not lead to the unacceptable reduction in solar penetration on site or to adjoining properties nor will it lead to excessive sunlight loss or overshadowing;

·     The proposed variation will not lead to view loss or interrupt on views   to and from the site; and

·     The proposed variation will not lead to a reduction in privacy afforded to surrounding properties or future residents of the proposal;

-        The proposal is not located within a low-density area and the proposal represents an appropriate built form on the site.

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 FSR standard are to enable appropriate built form while providing high level of amenity for the development to be achieved and to ensure that the building is compatible with the character of the locality as outlined above. The departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. The additional FSR 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, minimises overshadowing to the property at the southern side 3 Peggy Street 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:

There is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard as it relates to the current proposal. The departure from the FSR control is acceptable in the circumstances given the underlying objectives are achieved and it will not set an undesirable precedent for future development within the locality based on the observed building forms in the locality and based on the unique site attributes when considering the dedication of land that is an approach taken by Council in other parts of the LGA where laneways and the like are identified as being desired. 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 proposed variation to the development standard is due to the inclusion of semi-open hallway, 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. It is considered, therefore, that the non-compliance with the Development Standard is not 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 FSR, 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 FSR development standard is considered acceptable in this instance.

A comprehensive LEP compliance table is provided at Attachment 1. 

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

There are no draft SEPPs applicable to the proposed development.

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

a)      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

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

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

Control	Provided	Complies (Yes/No)
Minimum lot frontage for residential flat building is 28m	Subject site has frontage of 16.57m to Peggy Street which is less than the required minimum. There are no reasonable opportunities for amalgamation with adjacent sites and the proposed design has demonstrated satisfactory levels of amenity can be achieved for the subject site, and adjoining developments despite the limited site width.	No – Acceptable in this instance.
Max site coverage 30%, or 358.5m²	36.9% (441.74m²), non-compliance is considered acceptable given that the proposal will result in adequate provision of deep soil planting, landscaping, driveways, communal open space and OSD system.	No – Acceptable in this instance.
Rear setback 20% of site length, or 10.4m for 4 storey	15% (7.8m), non-compliance is considered acceptable given that the setbacks satisfy with the ADG requirements, as discussed above.	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 (EP&A Act s 4.15(1)(a)(iiia))

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

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

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

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

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

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

Advertised (newspaper)            Mail           Sign               Not Required  

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days between 5 September 2018 to 26 September 2018. As a result of the notification, no submissions were received.

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

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

Section 7.11 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.

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

·        9 x 2 bedroom dwellings – $14,205 x 9 = $127,845

·        7 x 3 bedroom dwellings – $19,887 x 7 = $139,209

·        minus credit for the existing 1 x 3 bedroom dwellings – $19,887

At the time of this development consent, the current rate of the contribution is $247,172. The draft determination at Attachment 4 includes a condition to require payment of contributions prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

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

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: That Development Application 2018/278 for demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building over 2 levels of basement parking including new ramps on the adjoining site (3-9 Peggy Street) providing access into the proposed basements; accommodating 16 residential units and 34 parking spaces be approved subject to the conditions within the draft notice of determination provided at Attachment 4.

 

1.      HLEP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

2.      ADG Compliance Table ⇩

3.      HDCP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

4.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

5.      Architectural Plans External ⇩

6.      Architectural Plans Internal ⇩

7.      Landscape Plan ⇩

8.      Clause 4.6 Variation request to FSR ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

HLEP 2013 Compliance Table

 8 May 2019

 

 

Attachment 2

ADG Compliance Table

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

HDCP 2013 Compliance Table

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Draft Notice of Determination

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Architectural Plans External

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Architectural Plans Internal

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Landscape Plan

 8 May 2019

Attachment 8

Clause 4.6 Variation request to FSR

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 May 2019

 

Item No: LPP028/19

Development Application for 3-9 Peggy Street, Mays Hill

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                                    DA 2017/563/1  

 

 

Application lodged	22 December 2017
Applicant	Anthony Charbel
Owner	Jemcon Developments Pty Ltd and KBCO Kashro Pty Ltd
Application No.	2017/563/1
Description of Land	3-9 Peggy Street, Mays Hill
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot and construction of a part 4, part 5 storey residential flat buildings over lower ground and basement parking accommodating 59 units and 65 parking spaces under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009
Site Area	3,300.4m²
Zoning	R4 High Density Residential
Principal Development Standards	Floor Space Ratio: Max. 1.2:1 (GFA of 3960.48m²) + ARH 29.8% Bonus (represents GFA of 983.5m²) Represents overall GFA of 4,943.9m² or FSR of 1.498:1   Height of Buildings: Max. 15m across the entire subject site ·    Proposed Max. 15.8m (5.3% variation sought) ·    Clause 4.6 Written Variation Request submitted for the departure sought to building height
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	The subject site does not contain a heritage item, located within the vicinity of the heritage item or heritage conservation area.
Issues	·     Variation to maximum 15m building height (HLEP 2013) ·     Solar Access (ARH SEPP and ADG) ·     Building Separation (ADG) ·     Accessible car and bicycle parking spaces (HDCP 2013) ·     Site coverage (HDCP 2013) ·     Rear setback (HDCP 2013) ·     Maximum number of storeys limit (HDCP 2013) ·     Unit mix (HDCP 2013)

1.      On 22 December 2017, development application (DA 2017/563) for the demolition of existing structure, consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot and construction of a part 4, part 5 storey residential flat buildings over lower ground and basement parking accommodating 60 units and 70 parking spaces under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 was lodged with Council.

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 21 days from 31 January 2018 to 21 February 2018. In response, the application received one (1) submission.

3.      The application was deferred on 9 April 2018, 16 January 2019 and 9 April 2019 requesting additional information relating to site isolation of 1 Peggy Street, revised QS Report and compliance with the overall development, particularly for changes in landform, building separation, setbacks, solar access, natural ventilation, apartment layout, building height, gross floor area, visual privacy, fencing, traffic, waste management and stormwater.

4.      The CIV of the affordable component of the proposal did not exceed $5 million to require determination by Sydney Central City Planning Panel.

5.      Additional information confirmed that reasonable and genuine attempts have been made to purchase the isolated property (1 Peggy Street). However, the site at 1 Peggy Street could not be acquired by the owners of the subject site. Subsequently, DA 2018/278 for a residential flat building was lodged on 8 August 2018 for 1 Peggy Street, which seeks to share access to its basement from the driveway access and basement. A separate report for 1 Peggy Street is also reported to this panel for determination.

6.      On 28 February 2019, amended plans and additional information was submitted seeking,  the demolition of existing structure, consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot and construction of a part 4, part 5 storey residential flat buildings over lower ground and basement parking accommodating 59 units and 65 parking spaces under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009. Amended plans did not warrant re-notification of the proposal.

7.      The subject application, as amended, 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).

i)                

8.      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	·        Max. 15m ·        (HLEP 2013)	15.8m to building roof 15.73m to top of lift core	4.8% - 5.3%
Solar Access - Min. 3 hours (9am to 3pm) mid-winter	·        70% of units ·        (ARH SEPP)	33.8%  (20 units)	51.5%
Building Separation (Between habitable rooms and balconies)	6m (4 storeys) 9m (5 storeys) (ADG)	Min 4.5m (4 storeys) Min. 6m (5 storeys)	25% 33.3%
Solar Access - No direct sunlight	Max 15% (9 units) (ADG)	18.6% (11 units)	24.3%
Bicycle parking space	36 (HDCP 2013)	32	11.1%
Accessible car space (1 per adaptable unit)	9 (HDCP 2013)	8	11.1%
Site coverage	30% (990.12m²) (HDCP 2013)	38.6% (1,275.8m²)	28.8%
Rear setback 30% of site length - 5 storey	14.2m (HDCP 2013)	11.6m	18.3%
Maximum Building Storey Limit	4 Storeys (HDCP 2013)	5 Storeys	20%
Unit mix	1 b/r – max. 20% (12 units) (HDCP 2013)	27.1% (16 units)	33.3%

9.      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.

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

Introduction

The subject site is known as 3-9 Peggy Street, Mays Hill, and is legally described as Lots 56, 57, 58 and 59 in DP13239. The site has an area of 3,300.4m² and frontage of 90.96m to Peggy Street. It has a significant cross fall from north-west to south-east of approximately 5m (gradient of 1:15). The property is currently occupied by detached dwelling houses, ancillary structures and vegetation. The site is located within the Mays Hill Transitway Precinct, located approximately 60m south of Great Western Highway.

The subject site and neighbouring allotments are zoned R4 – High Density Residential. Properties located on the southern side of Rees Street are zoned RE1 – Public Recreation and R2 – Low Density Residential. To the north, developments facing Great Western Highway are mostly shop top housing within the B6 – Enterprise Corridor zone. The existing streetscape on Peggy Street is transitioning to replace the existing detached dwellings with residential flat buildings.

Figure 1 - Aerial view of the locality with subject site shown highlighted in red. Source: NearMap 16 April 2019

Figure 2 – Zoning map with subject site shown hatched. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Figure 3 – Left: No. 3 Peggy Street; Right: No. 9 Peggy Street. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

 

Figure 4 – No. 1 Peggy Street. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

 

Figure 5 – No. 11-15 Peggy Street. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Description of The Proposed Development

DA 2017/563, as amended, proposes for the demolition of existing structure, consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot and construction of a part 4, part 5 storey residential flat buildings over lower ground and basement parking accommodating 59 units and 65 parking spaces under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

Level	Details
Basement	42 residential car spaces (including 6 accessible parking spaces) 24 bicycle spaces Storage, plant room, lift and fire stairs Caretaker’s toilet Shared access to 1 Peggy Street
Lower Ground level	4 residential units to Buildings A and B 23 residential car spaces (including 1 car wash bay and 2 accessible parking spaces) 8 bicycle spaces Communal Open Space with BBQ and seating areas Bin trolley pull store room, bulk waste storage, storage, plant room, lift and fire stairs Shared access to 1 Peggy Street
Ground floor level	13 residential units to Buildings A and B Enclosed bin collection area
Level 1	14 residential units to Buildings A and B
Level 2	14 residential units to Buildings A and B
Level 3	14 residential units to Buildings A and B

 

 

Access to the basement car park is provided from subject site which is burdened by a right of carriageway benefitting the adjoining site (1 Peggy Street). Suitable conditions to that effect are recommended to be imposed on any consent granted.       

The dwelling mix of the proposal is as follows:

·        16 x 1-bedroom units (27.1%)

·        25 x 2-bedroom units (42.4%)

·        18 x 3-bedroom units (30.5%)

 

Figure 6 – Perspective of proposed development – Peggy Street frontage

Application History

Date	Action
27 August 2015	Pre DA lodgement held at Council.
13 April 2018	The subject development application (DA 2017/563) 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 ·    Transgrid ·    Endeavour Energy
31 January 2018 to 21 February 2018	Application placed on public notification. In response, one (1) submission was received.
9 April 2018, 16 January 2019 and 9 April 2019	Application deferred requesting additional information relating to site isolation, revised QS Report and compliance with the overall development, particularly for changes in landform, building separation, setbacks, solar access, natural ventilation, apartment layout, building height, gross floor area, visual privacy, fencing, traffic, waste management and stormwater.
9 April 2019	Additional information submitted for review.
8 May 2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

Statement of Environmental Effects dated 21 December 2017 and dated 28 February 2019, and a Clause 4.6 written request to vary the building height standard dated 18 April 2019, prepared by Think Planners submitted 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 shared arrangement of basement access (right of way) and stormwater management, 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 parking, traffic management, waste collection area and on-site parking provision in the basement level, 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, 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 acoustic assessment, subject to conditions.

External Referrals

Transgrid

The development application was referred to Transgrid for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to not affecting Transgrid’s asset.

Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to electricity connection and sufficient clearance to existing electricity asset, subject to conditions.

NSW Police

The application was referred to NSW Police for comment regarding CPTED. Response dated 9 May 2018 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

Planning Assessment

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

14 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1)  (e) solar access

If living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 70 per cent of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

A consent authority must not refuse consent to development if the solar access to the proposed development satisfies the above requirements. The development however will receive 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter only to 33.8% of the dwellings, or 20 units. Non-compliance with the solar access provision is supported in this instance given the proposal continues to satisfy Part 4A-1 of the Apartment Design Guide for solar and daylight access, in which 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter will be provided to 70% of the units.

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 thick blue line in the figure below:

 

Figure 7 – Local Area catchment

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 B6 Transport Corridor 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.      Proposed 4 storey residential flat building currently under assessment at 1 Peggy street Mays Hill (DA 2018/278);

2.      Existing/recently constructed 4 to 5 storey residential flat buildings located on the eastern and western sides of Peggy Street (4, 11-15, 14 and 20 Peggy Street);

3.      Detached dwelling houses and attached dual occupancy development located on the eastern and western sides of Peggy Street (2, 8, 8A, 10, 12, 17 and 19 Peggy Street);

4.      Detached dwelling houses to the eastern side of Peggy Street all facing Patricia Street; and

5.      Existing/recently constructed 6 to 7 storey shop top housing facing Great Western Highway (179 and 181-183 Great Western Highway).

 

 

Figure 8 – Left: 4 Peggy Street, to right: 2 Peggy Street and 181-183 Great Western Highway          

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 the subject site (11-15 Peggy 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 significant fall in the landform towards the southern side of the subject site. Appropriate privacy measures are proposed for the northern elevation and southern elevation of the proposed development to minimise any adverse impacts to the approved residential flat building at 11-15 Peggy Street and future development of 1 Peggy Street.

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 breaches 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. Part of the fifth storey at the rear does not comply with maximum number of storeys as prescribed in Part N of HDCP 2013, however, it will be situated within the area with significant fall in the landform. The buildings are appropriately articulated to complement the existing and changing streetscape within the local area. Although the development will result in overshadowing to the existing 4 storey residential flat building on the southern side (11-15 Peggy Street), 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 Simon Hanson was submitted with the application.

SEPP 65 sets nine design quality principles. The development has adequately addressed the principles in the following way:

 

Figure 9 – SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles Table

Integral to SEPP 65 is the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which sets benchmarks for the appearance, acceptable impacts and residential amenity of the development. Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, it is considered the proposal is generally compliant with the exception of the variations discussed below:

A comprehensive assessment against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls is provided at Attachment 2.

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 60m 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 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 891652M dated 21 December 2017 was submitted with the original plans. Updated BASIX certificate however has not been submitted with the amended plans. Condition is to be imposed requiring amended BASIX certificate that achieves target scores and is consistent with the architectural plans. 

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

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

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

The proposal includes removal of all existing trees within the subject site. However, this does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold and the majority of the trees on site are exempt species. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable.

h)      State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

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

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

i)       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

j)       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 15.8m (RL 52.00) to the roof of the building, and 15.73m (RL 51.90) to the top of the lift core. The proposal breaches the height by 0.8m to the roof of the building, and 0.73m to the lift core representing variations of 5.3% and 4.8% respectively. The majority of the height breach is associated with the roof of the building and the top of the lift core.

Figure 10 – Elevation Plans 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. 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 development seeks to depart from the height control noting that the proposal remains consistent with the objectives of the clause and is a more appropriate outcome on the site because of the following:

-        The proposal will provide a high quality urban form that relates well to the context of the site in terms of the natural topography and adjoining development;

-        The proposal incorporates an Affordable Housing component which provides for a discernible public benefit and this additional floor space needs to be accommodated within the same building envelope of planning controls;

-        The top level is pulled towards the street frontage to minimise overshadowing and potential privacy impacts to adjoining residential land parcels to the south.

-        The proposal presents a suitable scale of development relative to surrounding development and future development within the locality given the provisions of the Holroyd LEP 2013.

-        The proposed development will permit the site to develop to its full zoning potential whilst complementing the future vision envisioned for the site by providing a residential flat building that provides good address to Peggy Street whilst complying with key planning controls applying to the proposal.

-        The development proposal has been designed to comply with key planning requirements, whilst providing an attractive building that addresses the context, streetscape whilst being consistent with the evolving high residential built form characters along the eastern side of Peggy Street. The development provides a mix of dwellings that will contribute towards increasing housing choice, diversity and stock of the Cumberland LGA.

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 result in an additional level for residential use, as it comprises portion of the roof of the building where the land slopes down to the rear and the top of the lift core.

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, minimise overshadowing to the property at the southern side (11-15 Peggy Street) 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 52.00 for the roof of the building, and height of RL 51.90 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, would not impinge on the changing streetscape that is anticipated for the immediate area and does not result in additional overshadowing to the adjoining properties. 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.

Control	Provided	Complies (Yes/No)
Bicycle parking (36)	32, subject to condition to provide additional 4 bicycle parking spaces.	No, subject to condition
Accessible car space (9)	8, subject to condition to provide an additional accessible car space.	No, subject to condition
Max site coverage 30%, or 990.12m²	38.6% (1,275.8m²), non-compliance is considered acceptable given that the proposal will result in adequate provision of deep soil planting, landscaping, driveways, communal open space and OSD system.	No – Acceptable in this instance.
Rear setback 30% of site length, or 14.2m for  5 storey	11.6m, non-compliance is considered acceptable given that the setbacks satisfy with the ADG requirements, as discussed above.	No – Acceptable in this instance.
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. 0.8m 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 at the rear that corresponds with the landform, 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.
Total number of studio and 1 bedroom dwellings shall not exceed 20%	The proposal results in 27% of the dwellings being 1 bedroom units, which is 4 units exceedance than the maximum number permitted. The exceedance is considered acceptable in this instance given that the subject site is located nearby Parramatta city centre. Furthermore, the remaining units have been designed to accommodate broad range of occupants, including, family, adaptable and affordable housing. Satisfactory.	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 (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(iv))

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

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

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

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

Advertised (newspaper)             Mail                Sign                  Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified from 2 May 2018 to 23 May 2018. As a result of the notification, one (1) submission was received discussed as follows. Amended plans submitted did not warrant re-notification of the proposal.

Concerns:

Privacy, reliance on indoor use, poor health and construction impact.

Planner’s Comments:

The rear setbacks of the proposed residential flat buildings comply with the ADG requirements. Minor non-compliance with the Level 3 balcony rear setback has been minimised with the provision of suitable privacy screening. A well-landscaped communal open space provided at the rear of the site will create a buffer with the adjoining properties and maintain privacy. The zoning of the subject site and the objector’s property permits the construction of residential flat buildings. Conditions are to be imposed to minimise the impact of building construction on site, which are not atypical to other building construction that has been previously undertaken within the street. It is therefore considered satisfactory given the impact of the proposed development will be minimised and the amenity of the adjoining properties should be maintained.

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 Mays Hill Centre contribution area, the following contributions apply:

·        16 x 1-bedroom dwellings – $8,400 x 16 = $134,400

·        25 x 2-bedroom dwellings – $14,205 x 25 = $355,125

·        18 x 3-bedroom dwellings – $19,887 x 18 = $357,966

·        credit for the existing 4 x 3-bedroom dwellings = $79,548

The required Section 7.11 contribution payable for the proposal is $767,949. The draft determination at Attachment 5 includes a condition to require payment of contributions prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

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

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

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

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

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 2017/563/1 for which seeks consent for demolition of existing structure, consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot and construction of a part 4, part 5 storey residential flat buildings over lower ground and basement parking accommodating 59 units and 65 parking spaces under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009, be Approved via Deferred Commencement, subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 5. 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.      SEPP ARH 2009 Compliance Table ⇩

2.      ADG Compliance Table ⇩

3.      HLEP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

4.      HDCP Compliance Table ⇩

5.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

6.      External Architectural Plans ⇩

7.      Internal Architectural Plans ⇩

8.      Landscape Plan ⇩

9.      Solar Diagram ⇩

10.    Clause 4.6 Variation request to Building Height ⇩

11.    DA 2018/278 1 Peggy Street Mays Hill Architectural Plans ⇩

12.    Public Submission ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

SEPP ARH 2009 Compliance Table

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

Attachment 2

ADG Compliance Table

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

HLEP 2013 Compliance Table

 8 May 2019

 

 

Attachment 4

HDCP Compliance Table

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Draft Notice of Determination

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

External Architectural Plans

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Internal Architectural Plans

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 8

Landscape Plan

 8 May 2019

 

Attachment 9

Solar Diagram

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 10

Clause 4.6 Variation request to Building Height

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 11

DA 2018/278 1 Peggy Street Mays Hill Architectural Plans

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 12

Public Submission

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

8 May 2019

 

Item No: LPP029/19

Development Application for 216 William Street, Granville

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                                    DA -348/2018  

 

 

1.      Development Application Number 348/2018 was received on the 21 November 2018 for the demolition of existing dwelling and associated structures and construction of a three storey boarding house over basement parking and landscaping.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of thirty six (36) days between Tuesday December 4 2018 and Tuesday 8 January 2019. There were thirty four (34) submissions, including one submission containing a petition with thirteen (13) signatures received.

3.      The variations to the development are:-

 

4.      The application is recommended for “Deferred Commencement Consent” subject to the conditions as provided in the attached schedule to address stormwater issues.

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

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The site is located at 216 William Street Granville and has the following dimensions:-

·        North West boundary being the William Street boundary - 20.12 metres.

·        South east boundary - 20.115 metres.

·        North east boundary - 45.455 metres.

·        South west boundary being the Carhullen Street boundary - 45.72 metres.

This provides a site area of 919.8 square metres.

 

There is a single storey dwelling house with an attached garage situated on the site. A steel shed is situated at the rear. There are ten trees situated across the site that provides much shade to the rear yard however a number of the trees are suffering from decline.

The land has a fall of between 880 mm and 1,070 mm towards William Street and a fall of between 260 mm and 450 mm toward Carhullen Street.

The site is situated within a residential area of Granville in which:-

·        Three storey apartment buildings predominate along the western side of William Street except for 227, 229 and 231 William Street.

·        There is one property numbered 66 and 68 Railway Terrace close by which has a rear yard fronting onto William Street. That site comprises dwelling houses and a truck depot.

·        There is an apartment building to the immediate north at 210 to 214 William Street which is almost complete.

·        There is a dwelling house at 11 Carhullen Street to the east.

The site is shown below:

 

The site is shown in the aerial photo below.

Photos of the site are provided below.

Photos 1 and 2:- Single storey dwelling house on site from the street and from the rear yard.

 

Photos 3 and 4:- There are powerlines adjacent to the curtilage of the property including power poles. However the poles are not affected by proposed works and construction work is occurring more than 5 metres from the cables.   

Photos 5 and 6:- The adjoining development to the north at 210 to 214 William Street (Photo 9) is an apartment complex (3 storeys) and nearing completion. The adjoining development to the south east in Carhullen Street (Photo 10) is a single storey dwelling house and an attached dual occupancy within a different zone being R3 (Medium Density Residential).

Photo 7:- The streetscape of William Street is transitioning into apartment buildings, all of which are three storeys in height.

Description of The Proposed Development

The development application is seeking consent for the demolition of the dwelling house, removal of the shed and most trees on site and construction of a three storey boarding house with one level of basement car parking. The development comprises the following:-

Demolition work

The dwelling house will be demolished and most of the existing trees on site will be removed to facilitate a cleared site.

Excavation work

Excavation to a depth of 3.2 metres below the natural ground level is proposed. The excavation works will enable a basement car park to be constructed with enough room for parking seven (7) vehicles plus one additional space to allow for turning vehicles. It is estimated that 1,150 cubic metres of spoil will need to be removed to facilitate construction of the basement car park.

Construction of a basement car park

The plans show the basement car park occupying an area of 457 square metres and having room for parking eight (8) vehicles. Notwithstanding this, one (1) car space will need to be dedicated for a vehicle turning bay to allow vehicles to turn around and leave in forward motion. As such, the basement car park will have seven (7) spaces. There are two car parking spaces shown for people with disabilities. There is room for a ramp, parking five motor cycles and seven bikes. A lift is provided that connects the basement to the upper levels of the building.

Construction of a boarding house

A three storey boarding house incorporating thirty five (35) boarding rooms is proposed. The building incorporates the following features:-

·        Thirty five (35) boarding rooms divided into thirty three (33) double rooms and two (2) single rooms which includes a manager’s room.

·        One internal common living space per floor.

·        A solar panel system on the roof of the building to generate up to 6 kW of power for the building.

At the conclusion of the works, the plans show the creation of landscaping across the site, especially across the rear, a drying court and a waste store room.

History

A pre lodgement application and meeting was made to Council prior to the application being lodged. The pre lodgement application was finalised on August 28 2018.

The development application for the development was lodged to the Council for determination on 16 November 2018.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Charles Hill Planning and dated 18 November 2018.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions. In this regard, modifications to the stormwater drainage is required which are capable of being addressed via deferred commencement conditions.

Building Surveyor

The development application was referred to Council’s Building Surveyor for comment who has advised that the development is compliant or capable of being compliant with the Building Code of Australia. As such, the development is supported subject to conditions.

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that no objection is raised to the development. No additional information is requested and conditions are provided addressing relevant matters.

Landscape Architect/Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Landscape Architect who has provided a table showing the trees to be removed, retained or transplanted as follows.

 

Tree Removal/Retention

 

Tree No	Tree Species	Remove/Retain
1	Melaleuca armillaris	Retain & Protect
2	Eucalyptus robusta	Remove
3	Cinnamomum camphora	Remove
4	Ligustrum lucidum	Remove
5	Ligustrum lucidum	Remove
6	Cotoneaster spp.	Remove
7	Grevillea robusta	Remove
8	Eriobotrya japonica	Remove
9	Lagestroemia indica	Remove
10	Livistonia australis	Retain & Transplant
11	Tristaniopsis laurina	Retain & Protect

Relevant conditions are provided addressing the removal, protection or the relocation of the trees.  

External Referrals

Cumberland Police Area Command

As per correspondence dated 11 December 2018 from the Cumberland Police Area Command, it is identified that a risk assessment process has been undertaken and the development is rated as “Low risk”. Due to this, no further comment is required regarding safety recommendations. No objection is identified and no conditions are required.

Planning Comments

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

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:-

 

 

Matter for Consideration		Yes/No
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?		Yes  No
Is the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (eg: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?   Comment:   The development is for a boarding house.		Yes  No
Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site? Acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation.		Yes  No
Is the site listed on Council’s Contaminated Land database?		Yes  No
Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?		Yes  No
Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?		Yes  No
Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?		Yes  No
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:   The applicant has submitted a Phase 1 audit prepared by I Environmental Australia (Reference 20190116) and dated 13 February 2019. The report concludes on Page 31 that the site has low potential for surface and subsurface impacts. The report concludes that the site is suitable for such a development.
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

 

 

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

The development application calls for the removal of a number of trees on site as follows:-

·        1 x Eucalyptus Robusta.

·        1 x Cinnamomum Camphora.

·        2 x Ligustrum Lucidum.

·        1 x Cotoneaster.

·        1 x Grevillea Robusta.

·        1 x Eriobotrya Japonica.

·        1 x Livistonia Australis (Replant).

·        1 x Lagerstroema Indica (As recommended by Council’s Tree Officer).

Wholesale removal of native vegetation is not occurring on site and a number of trees need to be removed due to their declining vigour and age.

The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold and as such, the removal of the trees is considered acceptable.

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

A BASIX Certificate Number 974243M dated 8 November 2018 prepared by Certified Energy has been submitted with the development application. A score of 40 and 46 for Water and Energy is achieved which is a pass mark for both elements. The BASIX Certificate is generally satisfactory for approval.

d)      State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing” 2009

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 are applicable to the development application. The development is found to achieve compliance with the core statutory requirements of the State Policy.

 

Requirement	Yes/No	Comments
Part 1 Preliminary
3   Aims of Policy The aims of this Policy are as follows: (a)  to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing, (b)  to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards, (c)  to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing, (d)  to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing, (e)  to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing, (f)  to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work, (g)  to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.	Yes	The development is not inconsistent with the aims of this policy.
Part 2 New affordable rental housing
Division 3 Boarding houses
26   Land to which Division applies This Division applies to land within any of the following land use zones or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones: (a)  Zone R1 General Residential, (b)  Zone R2 Low Density Residential, (c)  Zone R3 Medium Density Residential, (d)  Zone R4 High Density Residential, (e)  Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre, (f)  Zone B2 Local Centre, (g)  Zone B4 Mixed Use.	Yes	The subject site is within zone R4 High 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.	Yes	The development is proposed on land zoned R4 High Density Residential. The site is located within an accessible area and less than 800 metres to a railway station being the Merrylands Railway Station.   The Merrylands Railway Station is approximately 620 metres walking distance due to the road network.   There is a bus stop located approximately 210 metres from the site on William Street but close to the intersection of Bennalong Street with William Street.
28   Development may be carried out with consent Development to which this Division applies may be carried out with consent.	Yes	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).	Yes       N/A           Yes                                             Yes           Yes         Yes                   Yes         Yes                 No but considered to be satisfactory.                                                                                                                                                         Yes       Yes           Yes       Yes	The maximum permitted floor space ratio is 1.3.1 Under Part (i), it is possible to gain an extra 0.5:1 floor space ratio for the site. Therefore, a maximum floor space ratio for the site is permitted to be 1.3:1.   The floor space ratio of the development is calculated at 1,039.5 square metres or 1.13:1. Compliance is achieved.                               The maximum building height for the site permitted under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 is 11m. The building has a height of 10.4 metres or less which complies.     There is landscaping on site including the front area consistent with the streetscape.       The common living room on each level will comply with the requirement.                 This is achieved for the rear area. The private area occupies 66 square metres and is 3.2 to 6 metres in width.     This is achieved. The private outdoor space for the manager is 8 square metres in area.               The applicant has shown 7 spaces car parking spaces within the development and the site is within an accessible area of Granville close to the Merrylands Town Centre.   It is identified that:-   ·   For a development not undertaken by a social housing provider, the number of car parking spaces required for the development is 34 x 0.5 plus one space for the manager. As such, 18 spaces would be required in this instance.   Notwithstanding the above, there is a car parking requirement contained within the Parramatta Development Control Plan at Table 3.6.2.3 for boarding houses which is:-   ·    1 space per 10 boarding rooms; plus ·    1 space per resident manager / caretaker (where applicable); ·    1 space for any vehicle operated by the facility; plus 1 motorcycle space per 5 boarding rooms   The development would need 5 car parking spaces under this provision plus room for parking 7 motorbikes, both of which are achieved.   The applicant is requesting within the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment that the Parramatta Development Control Plan provision of Table 3.6.2.3 be applied to the development.   In this regard and should this occur, the development is provided with 7 car parking spaces following the removal of one space to allow for a turning bay within the basement car park.   Only 5 spaces are required. This would result in a surplus of 2 car spaces in this instance.   If the State Policy were to be applied, a significant shortfall of 11 spaces would be observed.   This development satisfies the minimum development control plan standard for car parking and as such, there is no scope to require additional parking to meet Clause 29(2)(e).   By virtue of Section 4.15(3A)(a) of the EPA Act reproduced below, Council may not require more onerous parking in this instance.   (3A) Development control plans   If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority: (a)  if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards—is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development, and   In this situation, the applicant has complied with the development control plan regarding car parking.   In this situation, it is considered appropriate to support the development given that the applicant has complied with the car parking provision of the Parramatta Development Control Plan.   Furthermore, it is noted that the site is within an accessible area in which the Merrylands Town Centre is situated close by which has a range of retail, commercial and transport services.     The gross floor area for each boarding room (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) exceed 16 square metres for the double rooms and 12 metres for the three single rooms.   Most of the double rooms are at least 17 square metres in area with the larger rooms being 20 square metres in area.   All boarding rooms are proposed to contain open plan kitchenette arrangement and private bathroom facilities.
30   Standards for boarding houses (1)  A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following: (a)  if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided,       (b)  no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres, (c)  no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers, (d)  adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger, (e)  if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager, (f)    (Repealed) (g)  if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use, (h)  at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms. (2)  Subclause (1) does not apply to development for the purposes of minor alterations or additions to an existing boarding house.	Yes             Yes         Yes     Yes       Yes           N/A               Yes       N/A	There are 35 boarding rooms proposed. Accordingly, a minimum of one communal room is required.   One communal room per level is proposed. The rooms are available to all lodgers for recreational purposes.   The gross floor area for each boarding room (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) do not exceed 20 square metres.   Each boarding room contains a kitchenette and bathroom.           The boarding house has the capacity to accommodate a maximum of 66 lodgers (excluding the room earmarked for the boarding room manager). Accordingly, a boarding room for a boarding house manager is proposed.                   The plans show 7 bike spaces and 7 spaces suitable for parking motor bikes.
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	Clause 30AA is not applicable to the development application.
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.	Yes	See discussion below.

Clause 30A   Character of local area

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

Part A - Identify the local area

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

The site is close to the Merrylands Town Centre and associated services including a railway station and bus services.

Part B - Determine the character of the local area.

The site is on a zone boundary change where the subject site is within the R4 High Density Residential zone. Land to the east along Carhullen Street is within zone R3 Medium Density Residential.

The immediate locality specially along William Street is characterized by apartment buildings either built or under construction. There is existing detached housing to the south of Carhullen Street and to the east that are generally within a landscape setting. There are apartment buildings situated on the northern side of William Street.

It would be expected that further apartment buildings will be constructed within the locality, especially along William Street, given the location of the area close to the Merrylands Town Centre and associated transport links.

Land along Carhullen Street is within a zone that allows for medium density housing. At the present time, single storey and two storey dwelling houses predominate, although given the zoning of the area, it is probable that redevelopment for medium density housing could occur in future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

·        The predominant height of buildings along William Street is 11 metres and the building is consistent with the height limitations imposed.

·        The building setbacks are relatively consistent, there is a balance of landscaping and the architectural form is consistent with other buildings.

·        Privacy is satisfactorily addressed or can be addressed wherever there are issues. There are no balconies within the development and landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site to minimise any perception of privacy impact upon adjoining properties.

·        The development does not create adverse shadow impacts onto the adjoining neighbours. In this regard, the development allows for 3 hours of sunlight to Number 11 Carhullen Street to the immediate south east on June 21. After midday, the shadows begin to encroach across the dwelling house at 11 Carhullen Street.

·        An acoustic report has been prepared addressing noise. The report makes recommendations to address noise impacts.

·        The boarding house will feature a manager as per the plan of management to ensure noise disturbances from future occupants do not disturb surrounding residential land.

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

There are detached dwelling houses along Carhullen Street and there are apartment buildings predominating along William Street. The site is within zone R4 High Density Residential which allows for apartment buildings to be constructed. The development is of a scale and size that is consistent with other newer buildings along William Street. The building is designed as one entity and colours and building materials are consistent with that of other buildings.

The wide setbacks to William Street and Carhullen Street are maintained and will be landscaped.

New and intensive planting is proposed to compliment the new building to ensure that the building is not dominant across the site.

The new building will feature materials and colours that are comparable to the streetscape.

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

e)      State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007

The site is located approximately 142 metres from a railway line. There are two roads being Railway Terrace and William Street as well as residential development that acts as an adequate separation distance and buffer between the site and the railway line.

Clause 85, 86 and 87 do not require review and the site is not within zone A or B in relation to railway noise and vibration. Full assessment using the State Policy is not required.

Division 4 “Electricity Generating works or solar energy systems” Clause 33 to 39

The development includes the installation of 38 solar panels onto the roof of the building to generate at least 6 kW of power to supply the building. This has been reviewed under Clause 39 “Exempt development” and it is determined that the solar panel system would fit the exempt development provisions. As such, formal assessment under Clause 33 to 38 is not required.

f)       Regional Environmental Plans

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment area and SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 is applicable to the development application. The development application raises no issues as to consistency with the requirements and objectives of the planning instrument and associated development control plan.

(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

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011

The provision of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 are applicable to the development application. A boarding house is a permitted form of development within the R4 High Density Residential zone subject to consent. A boarding house is defined as:-

“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 or more lodgers,

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

The development is consistent with the definition provided.

The development achieves compliance with the core statutory requirements of the plan as follows:-

·        Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings

A maximum building height of 11 metres is provided for the site. The building has a height of 10.4 metres or less which is compliant with the provision.

·        Clause 4.4 - Floor space ratio

The maximum permitted floor space ratio is 0.8:1. Clause 29 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 permits an increase in floor space ratio of 0.5:1 for a boarding house on a site where the floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less. A maximum floor space ratio for the site is permitted to be 1.3:1.

The floor space ratio of the development is calculated at 1,039.5 square metres or 1.13:1 which is compliant with the floor space ratio limit provided for such a development.

A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix A.

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)

There are no draft planning instruments that will apply to the development application.

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

The Parramatta Development Control Plan provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the local environmental Plan.

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

The following table highlights the most important controls and variations identified. Generally, there is one variation and the variation sought is considered satisfactory on merit in this instance:

 

Key Control	Permitted/Required		Proposed	Complies
Part 5.1.4	Residents to have reasonable access to retail services, community services and facilities, recreation and entertainment facilities, employment and public transport.		The site is situated approximately 620 metres from the Merrylands Railway Station and shops. The site is within an accessible area and close enough to services.	Yes
Part 5.1.4 Subpart P6       (Subpart P60)                 (Subpart P61)	Development should be designed to minimise the extent of shadows cast across private and common space of adjoining development.   (Part P60) - Boarding houses should be located so that solar access to at least 50% of the communal open space areas and to communal living area windows is achieved for at least 3 hours between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice (21 June).   (Part P61 - Dwellings on adjoining properties are to receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in habitable rooms and in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, this should not be unreasonably reduced. In order to demonstrate that this can be achieved, shadow diagrams may be required with the development application).		The shadows cast by the development fall onto Carhullen Street during the morning period then recedes.   By midday, the shadows cast by the development will begin to cross over onto 11 Carhullen Street toward the south east but the majority of the shadows will still be falling onto the street.   (It is identified that the shadows cast by the development at 210 to 214 William Street to the north east will be crossing over the rear yard of Number 11 Carhullen Street at the same time).   At 12 noon, the development does not contribute to additional shadowing across 11 Carhullen Street.   However, after 12 noon and throughout the afternoon period, the degree of shadowing changes in which the dwelling house at 11 Carhullen Street becomes shaded by the development.   By 3 pm, the rear year yard of 11 Carhullen Street is shaded by the new apartment building at 210 to 214 William Street.	Yes.
Table 5.1.4.6   Internal common living area.	All boarding houses are to provide a common living area of a minimum 20m² in area, with a further 1.5m² provided per resident where resident numbers exceed 12 persons. Note: Class 1(b) buildings are to have a maximum of 12 residents.   Living areas are to have a minimum dimension of 4 metres.   Furniture including lounge suites and coffee tables are encouraged.   At least 101 square metres of internal common living area is required.		The development provides for 77 square metres of internal common living area across 3 common rooms.	No (See discussion below).
Development Control		Proposal		Yes/No
Table 3.1.3.7   Height 3 Storeys or 11 metres.		3 storeys Up to 11 metres but not exceeding the permitted height.		Yes
Minimum Site Frontage Minimum 18 metres for sites with two street frontages.		20.115 metres.		Yes
Front Setback Primary street frontage - 5-9 m, consistent with the prevailing setback along the street.   Secondary street setback 3 to 5 metres.		5.2 metres.     3.1 to 3.5 metres.		Yes     Yes
Side Setback Minimum 3 metres.		4.2 to 4.5 metres.		Yes
Rear Setback Minimum 15% of site length - 6.85 metres.		6.86 metres.		Yes
Deep Soil Zone (R4 zone) 30% of site area of which at least 50% is to be located at the rear of the site. 4m x 4m minimum dimensions.		275.9 square metres is required.   Up to 276.9 square metres of deep soil zone is provided with a majority located along the northern and eastern side of the site.		Yes
Landscaped Area 40% of site area		367 square metres is required.   Landscaping occupies 369 square metres of the site or 40.1% is achieved.		Yes

Table 5.1.4.6 - Internal common living area

All boarding houses are to provide a common living area of a minimum 20 square metres in area with a further 1.5 square metres being provided per resident where resident numbers exceed 12 persons.

Living areas are to have a minimum dimension of 4 metres.

Furniture, including lounge suites and coffee tables, are encouraged.

Comment

At least 101 square metres of internal common living area is required however the three common rooms as combined entities occupy 77 square metres. There is also a common bathroom attached to the ground floor common room occupying 6.24 square metres which has been excluded from the calculation. Generally this creates a variation of 24 square metres (23.7%).

In support of this, the outdoor common area is significantly larger in area. In this regard, a minimum common area of 20 square metres is required however 55 square metres is provided however this increases to 66 square metres if the outdoor patio is included into the calculation. A loss of residential amenity is not identified in terms of common areas as adequate common areas across the entire development is provided.

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)(iii))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)               Mail               Sign              Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 36 days between Tuesday 4 December and Tuesday 8 January 2019. There were thirty four (34) submissions including one containing a petition with thirteen (13) signatures attached. There were no submissions or objections that disclosed a political donation or gift. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:-

1.      The development will result in a loss of twelve (12) trees including native trees on site which is essential for the local amenity. A three storey building will be constructed that does not have standard setbacks and is totally out of character with the local area.

Comment

There are nine (9) trees on site that will require removal. As specified in the assessment report above, the development application has been assessed by Council’s Landscape Architect who has assessed the Arborist Report and has provided appropriate conditions.

It is identified that the landscape plan is showing the planting of new trees to replace the trees that are lost as a result of the development.

Additionally, the building has been assessed as having compliant front, side and rear setbacks and the height of the building is acceptable and consistent with the height of newer buildings within the locality.

2.      On the plan, only three trees are to be retained and none are over three metres in height.

Comment

There will be three trees that will be retained being two on site and one on the street frontage as follows:-

·        T1 Melaleuca Armillaris - (Height 9 metres).

·        T10 Livistonia Australis - (Height 7 metres) This tree will be relocated.

·        T11 Tristaniopsis Laurina - (Height 5 metres).

i)                

3.      The development incorporates 35 double rooms to accommodate 70 people within one small block. The rooms are too small, lack adequate living space and facilities, kitchen and dining room. Such poor accommodation will cause severe social problems and there are no supporting services in the area.

Comment

The rooms have been assessed as being compliant with the minimum size requirement of State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing “Boarding House Provisions”. The development provides an adequate level of servicing for the residents.

4.      The development only provides 8 car spaces for 35 boarding rooms which is far less than the State Regulations allow for. There should be 0.5 car spaces per room and eighteen (18) provided for the development. This will cause chaos for the already overcrowded street making it unsafe for residents and children.

Comment

As described within the report, there is adequate car parking to support the development when assessed using the Parramatta Development Control Plan Table 3.6.2.3.

5.      The development is too big, too high and does not meet the standard setback and landscape requirement. A smaller scaled development would be more appropriate. As such, the development is unsuitable to the locality.

There are no communal amenities and the development appears to be cramped. There are too many bedrooms and overcrowding will occur.

Comment

The development is found to comply with the planning controls specific to height, floor space ratio, setbacks, landscaping and deep soil zone. Furthermore, there is adequate services to support the building such as car parking, facilities for cooking, laundry and cooking, common rooms, private outdoor areas and garbage disposal.

 

6.      The development creates privacy impacts especially toward the property at 11 Carhullen Street. The occupants of the boarding house will be able to monitor Number 11 Carhullen Street at all hours of the day. This will create safety and security fear.

Comment

Potential privacy impacts may be addressed via the use the louvres for the windows of the east facing common rooms on Levels 1 and 2 which is addressed via appropriate condition attached to the recommendation.

7.      The development will create an over shadowing burden to our property and the diagrams are inaccurate. Additionally, the cumulative effect of shadowing created by other developments should be considered in addition to the shadows created by this development.

Comment

The shadow diagram has been assessed as being accurate. As described within the report, the shadows cast by the development are compliant with Part P60 and Part P61 of the Parramatta Development Control Plan, addressing solar penetration and solar access to adjoining developments.

8.      The proposed white walled boarding house is a sore thumb and does not blend into the streetscape. Furthermore, the building is likely to be subjected to eyesore graffiti attacks due to its colour. As such, the development is out of character with the streetscape due to its colour.

The building should be finished in brickwork material.

Comment

The development has been assessed as having a satisfactory appearance to the street and building materials and finishes are assessed as being satisfactory.

A crime safety audit has been conducted for the development which has been assessed by the Cumberland Police Area Command who have raised no objection to the proposed development.

9.      The development will create issues of noise, danger to our children, waste management and social problems and us neighbours will be left to put up with it. The development will increase the number of cars in the street which in turn will lead to heavier traffic flows and associated dangers.

Comment

A Plan of Management has been prepared that addresses the following:-

·        Role of the site manager and care taker.

·        Lease agreement.

·        Furniture and equipment.

·        Fire safety.

·        Cleaning and maintenance.

·        Safety and security.

·        Handling of complaints.

The plan of management is incorporated into any consent that may be issued.

10.    The types of people who reside in boarding houses pose a risk to children, young adults and teenagers who walk from Merrylands Station to the TAFE and back. Their safety may be compromised by the type of occupants who would reside in such a building.

Comment

The Cumberland Police Area Command has assessed the development application who has raised no objection to the proposed development.

11.    The sign advertising the development was only in place for three days before it was removed and destroyed. This is not satisfactory. The development needs more transparency and community consultation rather than ordinary public display. Residents need to be fully aware of what is proposed.

Comment

The development application was notified correctly and a sign was placed on site in the correct manner prior to notification commencing. The plans were made available for viewing at Council’s libraries and offices and were available on line as part of the notification period.

12.    The location of the rubbish bin collection area is not provided on the plans.

Comment

The waste bin store is situated adjacent to the driveway entry area and has adequate room for storing 13 waste bins.

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 7.12 (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:

The development will require the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 7.12A Contributions Plans.

The calculation is based on a figure of 1% of $3,799,605. As at 30 January 2019, the fee payable is $38,338.05. The figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the following planning instruments:-

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land.

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

·        State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing” 2009.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007.

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

·        Parramatta Development Control Plan

The development is considered to be satisfactory for approval.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the High Density Residential R4 zone under the relevant provisions of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011. The proposal is generally consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. Minor non-compliances with 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.

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 No. DA-348/2018 for the demolition of existing dwelling and associated structures and construction of three storey boarding house over basement parking and landscaping on land at 216 William Street Granville be deferred commencement approved subject to attached conditions. 2.      Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Architectural Plans ⇩

2.      Survey Plan ⇩

3.      Landscape Plan ⇩

4.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

5.      Part A - Submissions Received ⇩

6.      Part B - Submissions Received ⇩

7.      Appendix A ⇩

8.      Plan of Management ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

Architectural Plans

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Survey Plan

 8 May 2019

Attachment 3

Landscape Plan

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Draft Notice of Determination

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Part A - Submissions Received

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Part B - Submissions Received

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Appendix A

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 8

Plan of Management

 8 May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 May 2019

 

Item No: LPP030/19

Development Application for 17 Brooks Circuit, Lidcombe

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                                    DA - 110/2018  

 

 

1.      Development Application 110/2018 was received on Monday 23 April 2018 for alterations and fitout works to the existing building for use as a mixed use development incorporating a neighbourhood supermarket, liquor shop, cafe, medical centre, and restaurant to operate 7:00 a.m to 10:00 p.m. daily, four (4) retail tenancies to operate 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily and a 52 place child care centre to operate 7:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Mondays to Fridays - Integrated Development (Heritage Act, 1977).

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 30 days between Wednesday 23 May 2018 and Friday 22 June 2018 and there were sixteen (16) submissions objecting to the proposed development and one (1) submission in support of what is proposed.

3.      The subject site is listed as a State Heritage item and located within the heritage conservation area known as the former Lidcombe Hospital site under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 as Heritage Item C07144. The development is occurring within a building affected by the State heritage listing.

4.      On Monday 25 March 2019, the applicant withdrew the request for a child care centre under the development application following the refusal of the New South Wales Department of Education to grant concurrence consent to the proposed child care centre.

5.      There are no significant variations to the planning controls.

6.      The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

7.      The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal is considered to be contentious development which includes a high number of submissions.

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The site is identified as being Lot 4 DP 270668 which forms part of the former Lidcombe Hospital site. The site has a frontage onto two roads being Main Avenue to the east and Brooks Circuit to the west. There is a pedestrian walkway (Benedict Way) to the immediate north that provides pedestrian access between Main Avenue and Brooks Circuit. The walkway also separates the site from residential premises to the north at 1 to 16 Brooks Avenue.

The allotments to the south comprise Strata Titled buildings, one of which is used for a sales office while the rest are dwellings.

The development site comprises a former dining hall and cottages erected in 1886, a mess hall and kitchen for the Lidcombe Hospital. The building on site presently comprise two main wings with a smaller connecting building situated around a small courtyard accessible from Brooks Circuit.

The Lidcombe Hospital precinct comprises a large land area and a variety of land uses developed over different time periods. The original historic buildings associated with the construction of the Boys Reformatory was erected around Brooks Circuit and adjoining streets including Brooks Avenue and Sussex Street.

The wider locality has recently been the subject of much residential development with the Village Green being the focus of the development undertaken.

 

The location of the site is shown below.

The aerial photo of the site is shown below.

 

Photos of the site taken Monday 4 February 2019 are provided below.

Photo 1:- Site of the neighbourhood shops and other services from Brooks Circuit.

Photo 2:- The liquor store will be established within the front building facing Brooks Circuit.

Photos 3 and 4:- The courtyard facing Brooks Circuit is earmarked to be used for outdoor dining for the cafe as well as access to the medical centre, the small supermarket and shop Number 1.

Photo 5:- Inside the main building where the supermarket will be established.

Photo 6:- The southern side of the building where a future child care centre could be located subject to a separate future development application.

Photo 7:- Rear of the building from Main Avenue which will feature two shops and a restaurant on the lower ground floor.

 Photos 8 and 9:- Benedict Laneway being a pedestrian laneway separates the site from residents to the north.

 

Description of The Proposed Development

Development application 110/2018 proposes the adaptive reuse of the former Lidcombe Hospital Mess building at 17 Brooks Circuit for various commercial purposes including retail tenancies, a medical centre, a cafe and a restaurant. The focus of the development is for a local community shopping centre.

The development application initially incorporated a 52 place child care centre to operate within portions of the ground floor area. On March 19 2019, Council was informed in writing from the New South Wales Department of Education that concurrent consent would not be granted to the child care centre due to issues with the simulated outdoor play space. As such, on March 25 2019, the applicant requested in writing for the child care centre to be deleted from the development application prior to determination. Following this procedure, no assessment is made regarding a child care centre on site.

 

This is an application to establish the use of each individual tenancy with a separate development application to be submitted in future for individual tenancy fitouts.

The development application proposes the following building works:-

·        Minor works to the existing building including the creation of a new opening where necessary for circulation and code compliance, construction of partition walls and ceilings where necessary to create new internal spaces.

i)                

·        Remove an existing corrugated iron roof over the external central area of the building and the construction of a new glazed roof extending across the existing opening.

ii)              

·        Construction of a lift within the central external space of the building connecting the ground and lower ground floor.

·        Partial removal of existing non-compliant concrete steps in the central external space of the building and the construction of compliant timber stairs.

iii)            

·        Installation of skylights within the western slope of the rear roof.

iv)            

·        Addition of an external glazed awning at the Main Avenue entrance.

v)              

·        Addition of a new external timber deck around the north east portion of the building within the lower ground floor.

vi)            

·        Additional of rooftop mechanical plant on the roof of the building.

vii)          

·        Construction of a new glass and aluminium louvred roof across the outdoor cafe eating area.

An area on Main Avenue will be dedicated for loading and unloading operations to support the neighbourhood centre.

Retail tenancies

The development application is seeking the establishment of six (6) commercial tenancies on site occupying 715 square metres within the lower ground and ground floor of the building. The largest tenancy / shop will comprise a neighbourhood supermarket to act as the anchor tenant with five smaller tenancies to compliment the larger store. The breakdown of the development is shown below:-

 

Shop	Area	Location	Hours of operation
Supermarket (Anchor tenant).	342 square metres.	Ground floor	7 am to 10 pm daily.
Liquor shop.	128 square metres.	Ground floor	7 am to 10 pm daily.
Retail tenancy 1	71 square metres.	Ground floor	9 am to 6 pm daily.
Retail tenancy 2	36 square metres.	Ground floor	9 am to 6 pm daily.
Retail tenancy 3	78 square metres.	Lower ground floor	9 am to 6 pm daily.
Retail tenancy 4	60 square metres.	Lower ground floor	9 am to 6 pm daily.
Total area	715 square metres.

Medical centre

A medical centre occupying an area of 147 square metres is proposed within the former cottage / kitchen wing of the ground floor of the building; however, the plans do not show the number of consulting rooms proposed.

The expected operating hours are 7 am to 10 pm daily.

Cafe

A cafe occupying 50 square metres within the former servery is proposed on the ground floor. The cafe will feature new bi fold doors that will open onto an external courtyard space. The courtyard space occupies an area of 56 square metres will be occupied with twelve (12) new tables and seating for forty (40) patrons.

The cafe will also feature three (3) internal tables with seating for ten (10) patrons.

The expected operating hours are 7 am to 10 pm daily.

Restaurant

A restaurant occupying an area of 241.9 square metres is proposed within a former bakery space within the lower ground floor. The restaurant incorporates a kitchen a private dining area, store rooms and a toilet facility. A layout plan showing table and chairs is not provided.

The expected operating hours are 7 am to 10 pm daily.

Car parking

The development application does not include the development of any additional car parking spaces to support the neighbourhood centre.  There is room for thirteen (13) car parking spaces on the street adjacent to the neighbourhood centre in Brooks Circuit although there is additional on street car parking to service the centre close by. A detailed discussion of car parking is provided within the report under “Parking and Loading” Chapter of the Auburn Development Control Plan below.

Service areas

A service area is provided at the rear of the development on the lower ground floor facing Main Avenue. The service area includes a garbage room, a loading garbage zone and storage rooms. 

Signage

The applicant has advised that future signage will be the subject of a separate development application.

History

Development Application No. 572/2002 - Stage 1 Masterplan (as modified)

Consent orders for Development Application 572/2002 were issued by the Land and Environment Court on 7 July 2004 for the staged development of the former Lidcombe Hospital site, including subdivision, demolition, remediation, site grading, civil works, tree removal, landscaping and dedication of public roads, drainage and open space.

In accordance with Section 4.24(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, “while any consent granted on the determination of a staged development application for a site remains in force, the determination of any further development application in respect of that site cannot be inconsistent with that consent.”

Comment:

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the approval of DA-572/2002.

Development Application No. 176/2006 (as modified)

Council, at its meeting of 20 June 2007 resolved to approve Development Application No. 176/2006 for “Subdivision, demolition of Buildings 95A & 95B, site reshaping and compaction, civil works including construction of roads, drainage and provision of site services, landscaping of public domain areas and tree removal”.

This application is of relevance to the subject application as it includes the provision of on-street public car parking spaces to meet the demand generated by the future use of the buildings within the heritage precinct.

ALEP 2010 Amendment No. 12

The Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 was amended on 1 August 2014 and rezoned the subject site from R3 Medium Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre, increased the maximum FSR from 0.5:1 to 1:1 and the maximum building height from 9m to 12m.

 

23 April 2018

The development application was lodged to the Council for determination. Council records show no pre lodgement application for the development sought or meetings concerning the matter.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners and dated April 16 2018. The statement was submitted to Council on April 23 2018. An updated statement was provided on December 5 2018.

On March 25 2019, the applicant requested in writing for the child care centre to be deleted from the development application prior to determination.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is supported as per the memorandum dated February 20 2019, no objection is raised to the development application for the following reasons:-

·        There are no physical works to the building.

·        The parking for the precinct and arrangement is already accepted.

·        The precinct is heritage listed.

The matter concerning car parking is described in detail below.

Building Surveyor

The development application was referred to Council’s Building Surveyor for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory. There are no objections to the adaptive reuse of the buildings. As per the memorandum dated 28/5/2018, the development must comply with the Building Code of Australia.

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development is satisfactory and is supported subject to conditions. Conditions are provided addressing food related matters, land contamination and noise.

Heritage Advisor

The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment who has advised that the development application is supported on the grounds that the development is appropriate as buildings are preserved. There are no conditions provided.

Children’s Service Department

The development application was referred to Council’s Children’s Services department for assessment of the child care centre (now deleted). As per comments dated 14 February and modified on March 21 2019, the development does not provide adequate outdoor play space for the children and the indoor play space is barely achieved.

Comment:

The applicant has since requested that the child care centre not be included into the development application and as such, no further action is required in relation to the child care centre. 

External Referrals

Heritage Council of New South Wales

The development is occurring within a State Heritage listed building and conservation area (Item number C07144). As such, the development application is Integrated development for the purposes of Clause 58 of the Heritage Act 1977.

The development application has been referred to the Heritage Office for assessment and as per correspondence received December 3 2018, the Heritage Council of New South Wales provides its General Terms of Approval subject to conditions which are included in the attached condition set.

Department of Education

The development application was referred to the Department of Education as Concurrence Development because the applicant was initially proposing a child care centre to operate on site which incorporated 278 square metres of simulated outdoor play space.

As per correspondence dated March 19 2019, the Department of Education refused to grant concurrence development to the child care centre for a number of reasons. As a result of this, the applicant withdrew the child care centre from the development application which in turn would allow the remainder of the development application to progress forward.

 

Ausgrid

The development application was referred to Ausgrid February 4 2019 because there was initially a child care centre proposed on site situated adjacent to an electricity substation. However, Council did not receive any reply from Ausgrid. This matter is now not relevant to the development application as the child care centre component is withdrawn by the applicant.

Flemington Police Local Area Command

The development application was referred to Flemington Police Local Area Command due to the presence of a liquor outlet on site.

As per correspondence dated February 6 2019, the Flemington Police Local Area Command has supported the development subject to conditions to address concerns of safety and crime prevention.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

Matter for Consideration	Yes/No
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?	Yes  No
Is the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g.: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?   Comment   A medical centre is included into the development application.	Yes  No
Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site?   acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation.	Yes  No
Is the site listed on Council’s Contaminated Land database?	Yes  No
Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?	Yes  No
Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?	Yes  No
Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?	Yes  No
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:   Site Audit Statement No. 0301-1228R issued by Enviroview Pty Ltd on 14 January 2014 certifies that Lots 3, 4, 5, and 8 of DP 270668 (the subject site is Lot 4) are suitable for the following uses:-   ·     Residential with accessible soil, including garden (minimal home-grown produce contributing less than 10% fruit and vegetable intake), excluding poultry. ·     Day care centre, preschool and primary school. ·     Residential with minimal opportunity for soil access including units. ·     Secondary school. ·     Park, recreational open space and playing field. ·     Commercial / industrial.   i)               As per the updated statement of 1 November 2018 by Enviroview, a review of the site conditions undertaken has determined that the conclusions of the site audit statement are still relevant.
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

 

 

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

The provisions of the SEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application. The development application is affected by Clause 45(1)(b)(ii) in which development is occurring immediately adjacent to an electricity substation.

In this regard, there is an electricity substation situated on the Main Avenue frontage.

The development application was referred to Ausgrid on February 4 2019, although no comment was received. There are no other provisions that are relevant to the development application.

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

The site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment area and SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 is applicable to the development application. The development application raises no issues as to consistency with the requirements and objectives of the planning instrument and the associated development control plan.

Local Environmental Plan

The Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 is applicable to the development application. The development application achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

(a)              Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as:-

·        Neighbourhood supermarket.

·        Medical centre.

·        Food and drink premises (Restaurant and cafe).

·        Retail premises.

Under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010, a neighbourhood supermarket, a medical centre, cafe and restaurant (Food and drink premise) and retail premises (shops) are permitted with consent.

Auburn LEP 2010 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD	COMPLIANCE	DISCUSSION
4.3 Height of Buildings   Maximum height is 12 metres.   The buildings on site have heights that are less than 11 metres from natural ground level to the topmost roof elements.   There is an old chimney structure that appears to exceed 12 metres in height when viewed from Main Avenue but its height is 10.6 metres from the natural ground level.	Yes	There is no change to building height across the site.
4.4 Floor Space Ratio   The maximum floor spacer ratio is 1:0.   The maximum permitted floor space ratio is 2,329 square metres.   The site has a floor space ratio of 2,186.7 square metres or 0.938:1.	Yes	There is no change to building height across the site.
5.10 Heritage Conservation   This is a State Heritage item and located within the heritage conservation area known as the former Lidcombe Hospital site under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 as Heritage Item C07144.	Yes	The Lidcombe Hospital Precinct is a State Heritage listed building being the former Rookwood Asylum for the aged and infirm, Rookwood State Hospital and asylum for men, Lidcombe State Hospital & Home, Rookwood Boys Reformatory and Model Farm.   Lidcombe Hospital is of outstanding significance in the history of NSW health care, operating for over a century from 1893-1995 as a major State Asylum for the aged and infirm, then an important State teaching hospital specialising in geriatric care and rehabilitation. Lidcombe Hospital became a leader in geriatric care and rehabilitation practices in the 20th Century. The expansion, then the closure, of the hospital reflects the changes in State and Commonwealth government health care policies over the twentieth century. The site has significance for its association with innovative medical practitioners, specialists in geriatric heath care, nurses and the local community for over a century. The hospital was the site of the Media Village for the year 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, which provided short-term accommodation for approximately 5,000 visiting journalists.   The precinct contains an exceptional and rare collection of fine, intact architecture and landscapes of the Victorian, Edwardian, Interwar and late-20th Century styles, together with outstanding examples of asylum and institutional planning from leading Colonial, Government and private architects from the 19th and 20th Centuries. The asylum and hospital planning is an exceptional example of the 19th century advancements in health care along the principles of Florence Nightingale, where it was considered healthy to surround hospital and asylum buildings with gardens as part of patient treatment.   The collection of reformatory, asylum and hospital buildings include dormitories designed by James Barnet (1885-1887), the former Dining Hall (1885), the Superintendent's Residence (1887) and nine wards designed by Walter Liberty Vernon (1893-1906). All reformatory and asylum buildings are designed in harmony around the central Village Green and unite qualities of shelter and surveillance, community and destitution, within a landscape both picturesque and functionally self-sufficient. The Recreation Hall and Chapel (1963) designed by Ken Woolley, the No. 1 Nurses Quarters (1910), Herdsman's Cottage (c1885), Boiler House and Chimney (1901) and the later Nos 2 and 3 Nurses Quarters (1931 and 1939) all contribute to the aesthetic and historic qualities of the place.   Due to the nature of the site and its history, the development application is Integrated Development under Clause 58 of the Heritage Act 1977.   The development application has been extensively assessed by the New South Wales Heritage office and as per correspondence of  December 3 2018, General Terms of Approval is granted subject to conditions.
6.3 Flood planning   Development must be compatible with the flood prone nature of the site.	Yes	The site is not impacted by flooding or overland flow. Stormwater drainage for the site would have been established at the time the original buildings were constructed. There is no change to stormwater drainage for the site.

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

There are no draft planning instruments that are relevant to the development application.

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

Auburn Development Control Plan 2010

The Auburn Development Control Plan provides guidance for the design and operation of the development. A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Appendix A.

a)      Former Lidcombe Hospital Site Chapter:

The Chapter “Former Lidcombe Hospital Site” is relevant to the former Lidcombe Hospital site. At the time this was prepared and adopted by Council, the entire site was zoned R3 “Medium Density Residential”.

The Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 was amended on 1 August 2014 and rezoned the subject site from R3 Medium Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

The development control plan chapter applies to all land zoned R3 “Medium Density Residential” which applies to all residential development that occurs within the locality. The provisions of the development control plan will not apply to the development application because the site is now within zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

Notwithstanding this, the provisions of the “Local Centres” Chapter will instead become relevant and such an assessment is provided in the attached Appendix.

b)      Local Centres Chapter:

The following table highlights the variations to the Local Centres chapter of the development control plan.

Part	Control	Proposed	Complies
Part 6.1   Subpart D1	Car parking rates shall be provided in accordance with the Parking and Loading Part of this DCP.	The neighbourhood centre would require thirty two (32) spaces.   There are thirteen (13) car parking spaces provided, all of which are situated on street on Brooks Circuit at the front of the site. The car parking spaces on street are provided in designated spaces.   The existing building occupies almost the entire site and there is no opportunity to provide any on-site car parking.   There are exceptional circumstances surrounding the site which are discussed below under the Parking and Loading Chapter of the Auburn Development Control Plan.	Satisfactory.

c)      Parking and Loading chapter:

The Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 chapter “Parking and Loading” is applicable to the proposed development. The car parking rates for the development are:-

·        The retail component including the neighbourhood supermarket would need 18 spaces for 715 square metres.

·        The restaurant and cafe combined occupies 309.6 square metres and would need 8 spaces.

·        The medical centre occupies 147 square metres but there is no layout plan for this. The car parking rate is 3 spaces per consulting room. It appears that the medical centre will be large enough to house 2 consulting rooms and as such would need at least 6 car parking spaces.

The proposed uses would need a minimum of 32 car parking spaces. The car parking spaces on street are provided in designated spaces.

The existing buildings occupy almost the entire site and there is no opportunity to provide any on-site car parking. The constraints within the heritage precinct to provide on-site car parking were recognised by the developer and DA-176/2006 (as amended) included the provision of on-street public car parking spaces to meet the demand for parking within this precinct. At the time of consideration of the original application, the applicant provided a detailed schedule of indicative uses for each of the buildings within the precinct to demonstrate that the on-street car parking spaces would satisfy the requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan in respect of car parking provision. Since the original application was approved, modifications to the design and number of on-street car parking spaces have been approved. Development applications have also been submitted / approved for all buildings within the heritage precinct providing certainty of the end uses of the buildings and any reliance on on-street car parking to satisfy the parking provision.

It is identified that there are 150 car parking spaces within close proximity to the site within Main Avenue and Brooks Circuit. It is calculated that in the event that 17 Brooks Circuit was to be used to its maximum potential land use, at least 58 car parking spaces would be required. In the present case, only 32 spaces are required to support the land uses proposed. As such, there is a surplus of car spaces within the locality.

Loading and unloading

A loading area is located on Main Avenue adjacent to the building. The loading bay was designed subsequent to the community title subdivision of the Heritage Precinct and is partially located over the roadway (Main Avenue) which has since been dedicated to Council. The loading area is designated for the proposed uses.

Other provisions

There are other development control plan chapters that apply to the development application as follows:-

·        Access and Mobility.

·        Waste.

·        Stormwater Drainage.

The development application is determined as being acceptable under all three. In this regard:-

·        The development provides for adequate and appropriate provision for disability access including a new lift and upgraded or new toilets.

·        Adequate provision is made for waste removal.

·        Stormwater drainage for the site is not changing.

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)(iii))

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 identified that the retail shops and food outlets are satisfactory and could be supported as such uses would not have adverse environmental, social or economic impacts within the locality.

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

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)            Mail                   Sign                Not Required

The development application was notified for a period of 30 days between 23 May 2018 and 22 June 2018. During that time, there were sixteen (16) submissions to the proposed development all of which objected to the development and one (1) additional submission in support of what is proposed.

The following issues are raised.

1.      Car parking

Currently, there are only minimum parking spaces available for residents living in the street and for users of the park area. There is no allowance made for additional parking. This will affect the peaceful enjoyment and living environments of the current rate payers and residents and would be negligent for Council.

The residents are already affected by the visitors to the church which is on Main Avenue with no parking remaining for visitors of residents at any time on Saturday afternoons and Sundays so with additional cars arriving to use the businesses on site, the congestion will be unbearable.

Comment:

The traffic report identifies that there are 132 on street car parking spaces within 200 metres of the site.

The development is earmarked for the local community and it is envisaged that many will walk or cycle given the proximity of the site to residential areas.

The issue of car parking numbers is addressed within the report and given the circumstances that surround the site and its history, it is considered that adequate car parking is provided.

Furthermore, an appropriate condition is provided to the proposed condition set requiring the applicant to submit a parking assessment report to establish the potential demand for time limited street parking within the immediate vicinity of the site. The report shall include a parking plan showing the proposed location of any street signs including any time limited parking signs along Brook Circuit and Main Avenue within proximity to the development site. This is to ensure that any signs are compliant with the regulatory requirements.

2.      Speeding and traffic congestion

Concerns are raised to the following:-

·        Traffic from the additional bus routes now passing through Main Avenue.

·        Additional traffic flows and congestion created by the new businesses.

·        No speed signs on Main Avenue.

·        Cars speeding along Main Avenue.

·        Parking signage is also required for all areas within Brooks Circuit and Main Avenue.

·        The nearby Onuri Korean Church creates excessive traffic congestion.

·        Drivers stopping in Brooks Circuit obstruction all traffic behind.

 

Comment:

There is a 10 km/h speed limit applying to Brooks Circuit which is a shared zone which will be retained.

On Main Avenue, the default speed limit of 50 km/h applies. Main Avenue is wide enough for two cars to pass safely.

Council engineers have assessed the development application and have found the proposed uses to be satisfactory in terms of car parking numbers and traffic movements.

3.      Provide onsite car parking

The development application drawings show that the lower levels of the building fronts Main Avenue and the upper level fronts Brooks Circuit. It is our opinion that any adaptive reuse of the building should restrict the lower level use to goods delivery and off street parking only, accessed from Main Avenue.

Comment:

This is noted but not supported due to the unique nature of the site.

4.      Inadequate car parking could harm children

The subject site does not have a suitable drop off and pick up area and no on site car parking. The reliance of on street parking is potentially dangerous and may result in harm to children given the proposed level of intensity of use on site.

Comment:

The matter of car parking is addressed within the report and it is determined that there is adequate car parking to support the development. It is also identified that the child care centre is now withdrawn by the applicant and as such no further action is required concerning any child care centre on site.

5.      Loading and unloading

The inclusion of trucks unloading within the proposed loading zone and extra parking in Main Avenue could prove dangerous for deliveries and waste collection.

Comment:

A truck loading zone has already been established at the rear of the site on Main Avenue and no change is proposed. The loading zone is designated for deliveries and garbage collection. A waste storage room is provided for the temporary storage of waste.

 

6.      Pedestrian safety

Another concern is how the Council and the applicant will protect the safety of pedestrians along Brooks Circuit which is currently a shared zone but without footpaths. The park in Brooks Circuit attract local families and children. Drivers do not adhere to the 10 km/h speed limit and with increased foot traffic and lack of footpaths, someone will be seriously injured. There have already been several near misses due to drivers speeding on Brooks Circuit.

Comment:

The shared zone within Brooks Circuit will remain and the park is not impacted by the development.

7.      Non-compliant shared zones

My research indicates that the shared zone does not comply with RMS specifications in multiple criteria including traffic calming, signage and road signage and no education campaign has ever been carried out. Council needs to address the issue on Main Avenue.

Comment:

Council’s engineers have reviewed the shared zones and have determined that the shared zones are compliant with relevant guidelines. In this regard, the shared zone is approved by the former Auburn Council Traffic Committee, which included staff, Police and Roads and Maritime Services.

8.      Hours of operation and plant noise

There are residential homes nearby and as such, to allow businesses outside normal business hours is unfair. The proposed trading hours is 7 am to 10 pm which in unfair. The operating hours should be no later than 7 pm.

The plans show plant on the roof that will operate 365 days a year non-stop. There is a significant risk that noise will impact on neighbours. Neighbours should not be subjected to noise. The peaceful environment of the area should be upheld to be in line with standard housing.

Comment:

Council’s Environment and Health Department has determined that the acoustic report submitted with the development application addresses noise in an appropriate manner and conditions are provided.

The site is within zone B1 (Neighbourhood Centre) under the Auburn LEP 2010 and is designated to provide a range of small scale retail and community uses to service the local community which in turn will improve the amenity of the locality.

The proposed hours of operation of each use is considered to be satisfactory.

9.      Inadequate thought for the development

It is considered that there has been inadequate thought for the development. There is limited infrastructure and the safety, peace and quietness of the area will be adversely affected.

Comment:

The applicant has stated that the site is part of a planned development and most trade would come from surrounding areas. Many of the residents are within walking distance of the centre and the site is within walking distance of most dwellings within the locality.

10.    Cleanliness of the area

An increase in visitors will result in additional need for housekeeping and there will be issues of loose shopping trolleys and rubbish. Abandoned shopping trolleys will severely impact on the ethos of the residential area. There could be an issue with shoppers taking supermarket trolleys into the estate as people cannot find parking.

Comment:

The applicant has advised in writing that trolleys with electronic locks are likely to be used. This would prevent a trolley from being taken back into the estate following use. This is addressed via appropriate condition within the condition set for approval by the Panel.

Conditions would be required on any consent issued addressing adequate bins should the development be supported.

11.    Child care centre

The child care centre creates the following issues:-

·        Significant noise and disruption during peak drop off and collection times.

·        Increase the number of cars creating local congestion.

·        Provide inadequate internal play space for children.

·        Create adverse impacts in terms of car parking, access and pedestrian safety.

·        Breaches the seven design quality principles.

·        Does not have natural landscaped areas.

·        Has inadequate light and ventilation.

·        Is too close to an electricity substation.

·        Has poor viewing opportunities.

·        Inadequate access for parents with prams.

·        Does not comply with the National Regulations.

Comment:

The applicant has withdrawn the child care centre from the development application and as such, the issues raised are no longer relevant to the application and report being presented to the Panel for determination.

12.    Excessive development

A supermarket, medical centre, liquor store, restaurant, cafe, four shops and a child care centre is excessive and a gross overdevelopment of the site. Such a development will disturb residents in Brooks Circuit and nearby Main Avenue.

Comment:

The site is located within the B1 (Neighbourhood Centre zone) under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the site has been designated to provide a range of small scale services and retail outlets that services the local community. The proposed uses are consistent with the planning controls.

The development application retains the heritage fabric of the buildings and the development application is supported by the New South Wales Heritage Council.

13.    Proposed liquor store and safety

The proposed layout lacks the efficiency and surveillance opportunities and the level of competing uses on site gives rise to a compromised layout and deficiencies in service provision.

A liquor store operating daily between 7 am and 10 pm is not appropriate on the site given that it would share the premises with a child care centre. The area is close to residents. No amount of policing or signage will stop people from purchasing liquor late at night and drinking on the Village Green. Broken glass and other rubbish will be left behind.

Comment:

The development application has been referred to the Flemington Police Local Area Command for assessment. As per correspondence dated 6 February 2019, it is identified that any opportunities for crime can be mitigated with conditions.

14.    Safety for Ferguson Lodge and elderly residents

There is concern of the residents living at Ferguson Lodge who currently access the roads in motorised disability vehicles. The people travel around the circuit and surrounding roads and an increase in traffic will be potentially dangerous for them.

Comment:

The vehicles referred to in the submission are the motorised wheelchairs which have a top speed of 10 km/h on level ground. According to Transport for NSW’s Centre for Road Safety, they do not need to be registered and users do not need a licence. However, users must comply with the NSW Road Rules that apply to pedestrians.

While there will be an increase in vehicles using Brooks Circuit due to the presence of the neighbourhood centre, users of motor scooters travelling within the locality are bound by the road rules that apply to them and as such must travel in an appropriate manner at all times.

15.    Affect on heritage listed items and signage

Brooks Circuit is entirely a heritage listed area. The development will have an impact on the heritage listed buildings. What requirement is there for maintaining the integrity and appearance of the area and how will illuminated signage comply.

Comment:

The development application has been assessed by the New South Wales Heritage Council and as an integrated development matter, and General Terms of Approval has been given. The applicant is required to comply with the conditions of the General Terms of Approval.

No signage is proposed as part of this development.

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

The public interest is served by permitting the orderly and economic development of land, in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding environment and has regard to the reasonable amenity expectations of surrounding land users. In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development, if carried out subject to the conditions set out in the recommendation below, will have no significant adverse impacts on the public interest.

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

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

Comments:

The development would require the payment of contributions in accordance with Council Section 7.11 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 contribution payable is $18,564.83 and the figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the following planning instruments:-

 

·        State Environmental Planning Policy 55 “Remediation of Land”.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy “Advertising and Signage”.

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

·        Auburn Development Control Plan 2010:-

·        Local Centres chapter.

·        Parking and Loading chapter.

·        Access and Mobility.

·        Waste.

·        Stormwater Drainage.

Having regard to the relevant matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable for the reasons outlined in this report. It is recommended that the development application be approved subject to 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 No 110/2018 for alterations and fitout works to the existing building for use as a mixed use development incorporating a neighbourhood supermarket, liquor shop, cafe, medical centre, and restaurant to operate 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven (7) days a week and four (4) retail tenancies to operate 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. seven (7) days a week on land at 17 Brooks Circuit Lidcombe be approved, subject to conditions as outlined in the attachment provided. 2.      Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

2.      Architectural Plans ⇩

3.      Submissions Received - Part A ⇩

4.      Submissions Received - Part B ⇩

5.      Appendix A ⇩