Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019

An Extraordinary Meeting of Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30am at the Merrylands Administration Building, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands on Wednesday, 22 May 2019.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.          Receipt of Apologies

2.          Declaration of Interest

3.          Address by invited speakers

4.          Reports

        -       Development Applications

        -       Planning Proposals

5.     Closed Session Reports

 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                               Page No.

Development Applications

ELPP035/19 Development Application for 2C Factory Street, Granville.......... 19

ELPP036/19 Development Application for 2/2-6 Peel Street, Holroyd......... 1113

ELPP037/19 Section 4.55(2) Modification Application for 181-183 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill................................................. 1311

ELPP038/19 Development Application for 9-11 Lytton Street, Wentworthville..................................................................... 1411

 

 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

22 May 2019

 

 

Item No: ELPP035/19

Development Application for 2C Factory Street, Granville

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                              DA- 345/2018  

 

 

Application lodged

14 November 2018

Applicant

GAT & Associates Pty Ltd c/- Darren Laybutt

Owner

AA Noor Limited

Application No.

DA-345/2018

Description of Land

Lot 2, DP 1012953

2C Factory Street, Granville

Proposed Development

Construction of a place of public worship over two levels of car parking including terrace spaces, offices and reading room to be operated between 8am and 10pm (Monday to Saturday), and between 3pm and 10pm (Sunday)

Site Area

4,502.80m2

Zoning

IN1 General Industrial

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

The subject site does not contain a heritage item, is not located within a heritage conservation area, nor within the vicinity of a heritage item.

Principal Development Standards

Floor Space Ratio

Maximum: 1:1

Proposed: 0.59:1

Height of Buildings

Maximum: 12m

Proposed: 11.916m

Issues

·     Car Parking

·     Engineering matters

·     Environmental Health matters

·     Resource Recovery matters

Figure 1 – Perspective from Factory Street, looking East (Source: Naddi Designs, 2018)

Summary:

Council is in receipt of a Development Application from GAT & Associates Pty Ltd c/- Darren Laybutt seeking construction of a place of public worship over two levels of car parking including terrace spaces, offices and reading room to be operated between 8am and 10pm (Monday to Saturday), and between 3pm and 10pm (Sunday) at 2C Factory Street, Granville. The Development Application Architectural Plans are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The Development Application was publicly notified for a period of 35 days from 4 December 2018 to 8 January 2019, inclusive of 21 days in accordance with the Parramatta Development Control Plan (DCP) 2011, and an additional 14 days to account for the Christmas / New Year period. Following submissions from the public, the notification period was extended till 1 February 2019. In total, the application was notified for a period of 59 days.

In response, 120 submissions were received, as follows:

Objections

73 submissions (inclusive of 1 petition, with 17 signatures)

In Support

46 submissions (inclusive of 3 petitions, with 7, 8 and 270 letters of support respectively)

Unknown

1 submission

The site is zoned IN1 General Industrial, pursuant to the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011. Place of public worship is permissible with development consent in the IN1 General Industrial zone.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land), Sydney Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005, Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011, Draft SEPP (Environment), and Parramatta Development Control Plan (PDCP) 2011.

The Development Application was referred externally to NSW Police and Endeavour Energy, and internally to Council’s Development Engineer, Environmental Health Officer, Resource Recovery Officer, Tree Management Officer, Parks Officer, and Building Surveyor. Concerns have been raised by Council’s Development Engineer, Environmental Health Officer and Resource Recovery Officer.

The application seeks the following numerical non-compliance, which is not considered supportable in this instance:

Control

Required

Provided

% Variation

Car Parking

Min. 556 spaces

187 spaces

66.4%

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination, due to the number of submissions received. In light of the above, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel refuse the Development Application, subject to the Draft Notice of Determination provided at Attachment 7 to this report.

Report:

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 2C Factory Street, Granville, and is legally described as Lot 2, DP 1012953. The site is irregular in shape, with a frontage of 46.81 metres to Factory Street, a northern side boundary of 102.7 metres, a southern side boundary of 92.5 metres, and a rear “dog legged” boundary of 48.3 metres. The total site area is 4,502.8sqm, and is illustrated in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2 - Location Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2019)

The subject site is currently vacant, with a single Eucalyptus tree adjacent to the southern boundary, and a few small to medium size trees and shrubs along the front boundary.

The surrounding locality is characterised as follows:

·        North       2D Factory Street, Granville – Industrial tenancies

·        East         2B Factory Street, Granville – Place of public worship, with the Duck River corridor beyond.

·        South      2B Factory Street, Granville – Car park and driveway associated with the place of public worship, with Glasgow Park beyond.

·        West        Existing residential dwellings within an R2 Low Density Residential zone.

The topography of the site is maintained to a 0.03% gradient, with a 3 metre fall across the site from West to East. The subject site is situated on the eastern side of Factory Street. Figure 3 below illustrates an aerial perspective of the site and the general surroundings.

Figure 3 – Aerial Photo (Source: Cumberland Council, 2019)

The site is zoned IN1 General Industrial, with sites to the west zoned R2 Low Density Residential, pursuant to the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011, as shown in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4 – Zoning Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2019)

The subject site does not contain a heritage item, is not located within a heritage conservation area, nor within the vicinity of a heritage item.

Description of The Proposed Development

The proposal is for construction of a place of public worship over two levels of car parking including terrace spaces, offices and reading room to be operated between 8am and 10pm (Monday to Saturday), and between 3pm and 10pm (Sunday).

Specific details of the proposed development, as outlined within the Applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by GAT & Associates Pty Ltd, dated November 2018, are as follows:

A summary of the proposal is provided below:

Parking Level 02

·        This level contains 98 car parking spaces, including 2 accessible spaces.

·        A passenger lift and two sets of stairs provide pedestrian access to upper levels. A two way driveway ramp provides access from Factory Street into the parking level and to the above parking level.

·        A fire egress point is provided at the eastern end.

·        Direct pedestrian access from Factory Street is proposed via a separate pathway adjacent to the driveway. A rear and southern side fire egress point is proposed.

 

 

 

 

Parking Level 01

·        This level contains 89 car parking spaces, including 6 accessible spaces. Four (4) of these spaces are noted to be tandem arrangement.

·        A loading bay for a delivery van is proposed adjacent to the pedestrian lobby area.

·        Direct pedestrian access from Factory Street is available via a pathway and ramp. A security kiosk is proposed adjacent to the pedestrian entrance.

·        Fire egress is provided on the eastern and southern ends.

·        Worship Place Level

·        A circulation corridor provides access from the street into a covered terrace in the centre of the worship place level. A landscaped open air terrace is proposed to the rear of this level.

·        The main prayer hall is accessible through a prayer amenities component which is separated into male and female sections. Each section contains shoe storage, ablution rooms, toilets and cry rooms in addition to their main prayer halls.

·        Multi-purpose rooms are proposed adjacent to the prayer rooms.

·        The level also contains a kitchen, various storage rooms, baby and female change rooms and a security room.

·        A lift and staircase provide access to the car park levels below and the mezzanine level above.

Mezzanine Level

·        Access is available from the passenger lift and several sets of stairs.

·        The level contains various offices for the president, sheikh and other staff, a meeting room, reception area, first aid room and kitchenette, to facilitate the ongoing operation of the mosque

·        A reading room is also proposed for the use of the members.

·        An outdoor terrace is proposed off the reading room / central circulation area.

Vehicular access is proposed from Factory Street into Parking Level 02 via a new double width driveway.

 

The front, rear and southern side setback are to be landscaped in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by NADDI Designs.

A detailed Plan of Management has been prepared for Council’s review that details the general operations and procedures. This has been submitted under separate cover.

The following main particulars are also provided within the Plan of Management prepared by AA Noor Limited, dated September 2018:

Hours of Operation

The premises are intended to be open for meeting and other activities at the following hours:

Monday to Friday

From 8:00am – 10:00pm with most events starting from 6pm

Saturday

From 8:00am – 10:00pm with most events starting from 3pm

Sunday

From 3:00pm – 10:00pm with all events starting from 3pm

The application indicates that the programs will start with a prayer session in the Prayer Hall which all the members must attend. After completion of the prayers, members will be separated to engage in different activities in different sections of the premises including reading area and administration.

The application further indicates that the landscape and terrace area at the back of the premises will have no activities and will only be used for spiritual relaxation.

Proposed General Activities

A typical weekday (Monday to Friday) – Diary of Events

Time

Activity

Ave. Attendance

8:00am

Staff and crew arrive.

5

10:00am

A group of people arrive to use the Prayer Hall and then start engaging in different activities in the Reading and Admin Facilities.

20 - 25

12:00pm

Congregational Prayers to be conducted at the Hall – Must attend for all members.

50

6:00pm

Congregational Prayers to be conducted at the Hall – Must attend for all members.

50

7:00pm

Tuesday and Thursday – Regular Weekly Special Prayers.

100 - 150

8:00pm

Friday – Youth Programs on Fridays.

100 - 150

A typical Saturday – Diary of Events

Time

Activity

Ave. Attendance

8:00am

Staff and crew arrive.

5

10:00am

Some members arrive to use the facilities.

50 – 75

3:00pm

Member programs, gathering and events

200 - 300

A typical Sunday – Diary of Events:

Time

Activity

Ave. Attendance

3:00pm

Member programs, gathering and events – Not a regular occurrence and only required occasionally.

200 - 300

Note: No major program or gathering to commence before 3pm on Sundays.

Special Events

The two main Islamic months include the month of Ramadan and the month of Muharram.

In the month of Ramadan it is indicated that there will be prayer programs held in the Premises after sunset prayers. This will include three nights with late finishing lectures of 10:00pm.

In the month of Muharram there will be nightly programs for the first 14 nights of the month with finishing lecture times of 10:00pm.

With reference to DCP (Part 5 Other Provisions, Clause 5.3.3.6) please see below the following information:

·        Any, non-regular service will include multicultural and inter-faith programs when feasible. This will account to approx. 300 attendees.

·        Also, non-regular service may include attendance of an internationally recognised Scholar from overseas. This will account to approx. 300 attendees.

Waste Policy

The main bin will be located in designated holding on the Southern side of the premises. The waste that is produced during the regular times will be standard household waste and during special events there will also be waste of disposable plates, spoons, and food etc.

The bins can be collected either on a regular basis which means weekly or fortnightly or alternatively on request. An “on request” collection will be arranged after a special event as required.

Garbage collection will be undertaken on designated nights from the Factory Street frontage with bins to be wheeled out to kerbside for collection.

A member of the Committee shall be appointed as a Waste Management Officer, responsible for the implementation of the above procedures in regards to waste management. The Waste Management Officer shall ensure that the premises remains in a clean condition and that any complaints are responded to immediately.


 

Delivery Vehicles

Material deliveries the kitchen are proposed to be made out of peak hours by van or utility vehicle and to use the dedicated service bay area adjacent to lifts. Past experiences obtained from operating the previous centre suggests that vans or utility vehicles are sufficient to deliver the required food material in order to operate the kitchen as required.

Reading Room

This facility will help facilitate reading requirements for members especially reading the scripture books and the application indicates that this area will not be utilised during must attend prayer programs in the Prayer Hall.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects, prepared by GAT & Associates Pty Ltd, dated November 2018, which was received by Council on 14 November 2018 in support of the application.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comments, to which advice was received that the proposed development is not supported in its current form, noting:

·        The limited number of parking spaces proposed, as discussed in greater detail within the Planning Comments section below, and the proposed tandem car parking arrangement.

·        The proposed circular access ramp widths, which do not comply with Table 2.2 of AS 2890.1 – 2004.

·        The lack of detailed longitudinal sections along the internal curve of the access ramp, demonstrating compliance with AS 2890.1 – 2004.

·        The proposed above ground OSD basins in the front setback area, which are required to be below ground tanks.

·        A review of the SIDRA model provided within the Traffic Impact Assessment identifies the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the Mona Street / Clyde Street intersection. Specifically, the level of service pre and post development changes from an intersection with good operation with acceptable delays and additional capacity, to an intersection which will either be at capacity with any incidents causing excessive delays, or unsatisfactory and requiring additional capacity.

·        The Traffic Impact Assessment has not accounted for special events, in particular, Ramadan and Muharram.

Environmental Health Officer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comments, to which advice was received that the proposed development is not supported in its current form, noting:

·        The lack of mechanical ventilations details for the enclosed car park, bin room (if proposed within the enclosed car park), and commercial kitchen.

·        The lack of detailed plans showing the fitout of the commercial kitchen and compliance with AS 4674.

Resource Recovery Officer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Resource Recovery Officer for comments, to which advice was received that the proposed development is not supported in its current form, noting:

·        An area dedicated for storage of bins, which is both secured and enclosed, has not been provided.

Tree Management Officer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable, and if determined by way of approval, be subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure the recommendations stated within the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment are adhered to.

Parks Officer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Parks Officer for comments, noting the existing Grey-headed Flying-fox (fruit bat) within the Duck River corridor, located approximately 180 metres away. An Assessment of Significance has been submitted with the subject application, prepared by Ecological Australia. The report concludes:

It is unlikely that the proposed development at 2C Factory Street will cause significant impact on the Duck Creek Grey-headed Flying-fox (fruit bat) colony given that:

·        The species is highly mobile and can:

Avoid tall buildings whilst flying.

Will use alternative fly-out pathways, which occur at the site in the form of Duck River and adjacent business precinct.

Likely to use the Duck River to fly out of and into the colony, therefore is unlikely to fly over the proposed development site.

Unlikely to cause conflict due to smell and fecal drop due to the distance between the colony and the proposed subject site as well as the previously mentioned fly in and out pathways.

Due to the mobility of the species, if adversely impacted, individuals from this colony will move to and use alternative colonies, such as the Parramatta Park Colony, which is located ~10km away.

·        Will not result in the isolation of an area of known habitat from other areas of potential habitat.

Council’s Parks Officer has confirmed the findings of the Assessment of Significance submitted, and advised that if the application is determined by way of approval, be subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure the no impact of noise, light and air pollution, both during construction and occupation, be experienced by the colony.

Building Surveyor

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Building Surveyor for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable, and if determined by way of approval, be subject to standard conditions of consent.

External Referrals

NSW Police

The Development Application was referred to NSW Police Force for comments who has advised that the proposed development is supported.

Endeavour Energy

The Development Application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comments who has advised that the proposed development is supported.

Planning Comments

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

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

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

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

The requirement at Clause 7 of SEPP 55 for 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:  

 

A Detailed Contamination Report has been submitted with the subject application, prepared by Ground Technologies Pty Ltd, in accordance with the NSW EPA Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites and the National Protection of the Environment (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (2013 Amendment). The report concludes that the chemical concentrations present in the fill and natural material are not considered likely to pose a risk to human health of the environment.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the submitted Detailed Contamination Report and has advised that the subject site is suitable for the proposed use, and if determined by way of approval, be subject to standard conditions of consent.

(b)    State Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

(c)    Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP 2011)

The provision of the PLEP 2011 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the statutory requirements of the PLEP 2011.

Permissibility

·        The proposed development is defined as a place of public worship, and is permissible in the IN1 General Industrial zone with consent, to which the subject site is zoned.

Place of public worship means a building or place used for the purpose of religious worship by a congregation or religious group, whether or not the building or place is also used for counselling, social events, instruction or religious training.

The development standards to be considered under PLEP 2011 are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Attachment 8 to this report.

Development Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Height of Buildings

12 metres

11.916m

Yes

Floor Space Ratio

1:1

0.59:1

Yes

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

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

(a)    Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

The draft SEPP relates to the protection and management of our natural environment with the aim of simplifying the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property. The changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50 – Canal Estate Development.

·        Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment.

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997).

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.

·        Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property.

The draft policy will repeal the above existing SEPPs and certain provisions will be transferred directly to the new SEPP, amended and transferred, or repealed due to overlaps with other areas of the NSW planning system.

As noted within the assessment above under the heading ‘State Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005’, the proposed development raises no issues, as no impact on the catchment is envisaged.

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

The following Development Control Plans are relevant to the assessment of the subject modification application:

(a)    Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 (PDCP 2011)

The PDCP 2011 applies to the subject site. The proposed development has been assessed, and found not to comply with the car parking provisions of the PDCP 2011, representing a considerable departure from Council’s controls, which is discussed below. A comprehensive assessment against the provisions of the PDCP 2011 is contained in Attachment 9 to this report.

Car Parking

·        Part 5, Clause 5.3.3.5 of the Parramatta Development Control Plan (PDCP) 2011, stipulates the following:

On-site parking shall be provided at the rate determined by the traffic impact statement, having regard to the objectives of this clause. As a general guide for places of public worship, new development shall provide 1 car parking space per 5m² of usable floor space for the first 100m², and 1 car parking space per 3m² of usable floor space thereafter.

Useable floor space not being corridor space, stairways, storage areas, toilets and other floor space that will not increase the capacity of the development.

The application submitted to Council proposes a total of 187 car parking spaces to service the development, with the following justification:

Given the use of the site as a place of public worship for the Islamic faith, it is our position that the usable floor space to be counted toward the parking assessment should be limited to the prayer halls. The reason for this is that during prayer services, other area of the building are not in use. This, therefore, represents the maximum usage of the site.

Council comment:

The Parramatta DCP 2011 stipulates that only ‘floor space that will not increase the capacity of the development’, shall be excluded from the calculation of parking. In this regard, based on the extent of usable space provided, that being 1,705.87m², 556 car parking spaces are required to service the development, resulting in a shortfall of 369 car parking spaces.

The proposed development therefore is contrary to Objectives 3 and 4 under Part 5, Section 5.3.3.5 Traffic, Parking and Access, those being:

O.3  To minimise the impact of parking on the local streets.

O.4  To minimise impact upon the amenity of the neighbourhood.

The provisions of any Planning Agreement that has been entered into under Section 7.4, or any Draft Planning Agreement that a Developer has Offered to Enter into under Section 7.4 (EP & A Act s4.15(1)(a)(iiia))

There is no planning agreement or draft planning agreement associated with the subject 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 Regs).

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

The likely impacts of the development have been considered in the assessment of the application and are not considered acceptable, namely due to the limited number of parking spaces provided on-site to service the development, and the impact on the local road network.

The Suitability of the Site for the Development (EP & A Act s4.15 (1)(c))

The site is located within the IN1 General Industrial zone, to which places of public worship are permitted with consent. However, due to the significant departure from numerical compliance with Council’s on-site car parking requirements, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed use.

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, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 35 days from 4 December 2018 to 8 January 2019, inclusive of 21 days in accordance with the PDCP 2011, and an additional 14 days to account for the Christmas / New Year period. Following submissions from the public, the notification period was extended till 1 February 2019. In total, the application was notified for a period of 59 days. In response, 120 submissions were received, as follows:

Objections

73 submissions (inclusive of 1 petition, with 17 signatures)

In Support

46 submissions (inclusive of 3 petitions, with 7, 8 and 270 letters of support respectively)

Unknown

1 submission

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

Parking

Issue: Concern is raised regarding:

·        The limited amount of car parking spaces on-site to service the development.

·        Limited parking is available within surrounding streets during week days and weekends, due to the existing industries within Factory Street, and the place of public worship located at 2B Factory Street, Granville. Examples are given of vehicles currently blocking driveways, and emergency vehicles often having to double park. A request has been made for consideration of time limited parking within the locality.

·        The application underestimates the parking requirements of the proposal, and does not provide the required number of parking spaces to service the usable portion of the development, as per the Parramatta DCP 2011. To this end, the documentation refers to a trained attendant being employed to control on-street parking, with the Applicant recognising that more than 187 car parking spaces will be required.

·        It is unclear how a single parking attendant could control on-street parking when that parking is likely to extend not only along Factory Street but also intersecting streets. Moreover, it is unclear what power or legal authority would the parking attendant have to control on-street parking.

·        The capacity of the prayer halls, specifically, the area allocated within the prayer halls will accommodate in excess of the expected 300 persons. As such, the reports shall consider the extent of parking required, against the capacity of the prayer halls. Concern is raised that there is ample space elsewhere in the proposed development, both internally and externally, which could accommodate additional worshippers, should they not be able to be accommodated within the prayer halls.

·        The suggestion in the Plan of Management that no street parking will be utilised and no queuing for on-site parking will be experienced, is unrealistic. Furthermore, the Traffic Impact Assessment does not consider whether the proposed place of public worship might cause queuing on Factory Street.

·        The obstruction of vision and sight lines will be made worse due to the further reliance on on-street parking.

Comment: As noted within the assessment, Council raises concern with the number of parking spaces provided on-site, noting the proposed development does not maintain the minimum number of parking spaces to service the development as required by the Parramatta DCP 2011, which is provided as a reason for refusal in the draft Notice of Determination.

Traffic

Issue: Concern is raised regarding:

·        The impact of traffic generation upon residents, children walking to nearby schools, cyclists, persons with disability, and persons travelling to Clyde Station.

·        The traffic generated by the proposal is inconsistent with the DCP requirement “to minimise the impact of parking on the local streets”, and “to minimise impact upon the amenity of the neighbourhood”.

·        Traffic generation will substantially increase beyond that already experienced due to the existing industries within Factory Street, and the place of public worship located at 2B Factory Street, Granville, leading to an increase in accidents, and limited viability of nearby industry.

·        The Traffic Impact Assessment underestimates the impact of existing traffic and the conflict that will arise between existing traffic and the new users wishing to access the site.

·        The Traffic Impact Assessment is based on an understanding of an additional 300 patrons in the area, and does not account for new residential developments in Granville, the associated population increase, as well as the utilisation of existing capacity with the proposed place of public worship to accommodate more than 300 persons.

·        The Traffic Impact Assessment does not account for the existing place of public worship, and does not discuss the impact of special events.

·        The Traffic Impact Assessment downplays that all ingress and egress to the development is through residential streets, and does not estimate the likely volumes which will travel along these streets. The assessment focuses on regionally important intersections; however, experience with the existing place of public worship suggests traffic will use local streets between William Street and Seventh Street, generating significant impacts.

·        The proximity of the proposed place of public worship to a childcare centre located at 6-8 Factory Street, Granville, specifically, the safety of children in the context of the existing and expected traffic generation.

·        The assumption used in the Traffic Impact Assessment are inconsistent with the proposed use of the site, which brings into question the validity of the assessment.

·        The design of the entry / entry driveway is inconsistent with Council’s requirement for a 4-6 metre wide entry / exit point, with a proposal for only a 3 metre entry point.

·        Appendix D referred to in the Traffic Impact Assessment was not publicly available, and the validity of the information cannot be independently verified.

·        Whether additional traffic lights are required at the corner of Clyde Street and the streets between First and Seventh Street.

Comment: A Traffic Impact Assessment has been provided as a part of the Application. As noted within the assessment, Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the provided Traffic Impact Assessment in conjunction with the proposal, and notes a number of concerns with the assessment, including the impact of the proposal of the local road network, which is provided as a reason for refusal in the draft Notice of Determination.

Acoustics

Issue: Concern is raised regarding:

·        The proposed hours of operation, identifying a number of acoustic amenity concerns, with some submissions requesting clarification on the proposed hours of operation and whether the use will continue after 10pm.

·        The lack of a specific mitigation control within the submitted Noise Impact Assessment to address special care being taken within religious months to ensure patrons leave in a quiet manner.

·        The lack of information regarding hours of operation for the special events, and subsequent lack of assessment within the Noise Impact Assessment.

·        The initial noise assessment undertaken with DA-397/2016 recommended the use of 1.6 metre high noise barriers around outdoor areas, which has been changed within the current application to be 1.39 metres to avoid the outdoor areas being considered as usable space. The noise modelling as a result likely underestimates the noise impacts of the proposal.

·        The assumption made within the Noise Impact Assessment that over 100 people in outdoor areas will not make more than minimal noise is unrealistic, with the impact on surrounding residences being significant.

·        The Noise Impact Assessment assumes that it will take 1 minute for each vehicle to leave the car park, which equates to a period of over 2 hours of traffic movements in order to clear the car park and this has not been assessed.

·        The elevated turf area with no noise barrier at the rear of the property is likely to be used as an outdoor meeting location, which has the potential to cause significant noise and privacy issues for residences in Seventh Street. The assessment focuses on noise impacts to 10pm, as this is when planned activities will end. However, noise impacts will continue into the night, as users leave the site after the 10pm conclusion, with traffic noise continuing for a period of over 2 hours along the surrounding residential streets.

·        The predicted noise levels rely on users of the site not making unnecessary noise in the outdoor areas and arriving and departing from the site “in an orderly and quiet manner”. This is unrealistic when the proposal involves 100-300 people arriving and leaving the site at the same time.

·        The roller door the carpark entrance will create significant audio intrusion and does not appear to have been considered in the Noise Impact Assessment, with residences opposite the site on Sixth Street, with the proposed driveway fronting directly onto bedroom windows.

·        The noise logger was placed adjacent to the Presbyterian Church car park and one of the few remaining trees remaining on site. This location is not representative of the background noise of the site, and will overestimate existing noise levels. Furthermore, the noise logger recorded a significant spike in noise levels at the start of services at the adjacent place of public worship, and is unrealistic to assume that the same spikes in noise levels will not occur from the subject site, as people arrive and depart.

·        Residents will be subject to late evening traffic noise from both existing place of public worship, and the proposal, with the cumulative noise impact not addressed in the submitted Noise Impact Assessment.

·        The pathway to where the bins will kept is a gravel path, which is not an ideal surface for moving a wheelie bin, and will create a noise issue.

·        References in the Noise Impact Assessment to View Street are incorrect, as there are no View Street in the immediate area, representing a ‘cut and paste’ report.

·        The validity of the Noise Impact Assessment, noting the date of the assessment conducted.

·        The need for the extent of hours of operation proposed.

Comment: The proposed hours of operation, as detailed within the Applicant’s Plan of Management, are as follows:

Monday to Friday

From 8:00am – 10:00pm with most events starting from 6pm

Saturday

From 8:00am – 10:00pm with most events starting from 3pm

Sunday

From 3:00pm – 10:00pm with all events starting from 3pm

The following information has been submitted regarding special events:

The two main Islamic months include the month of Ramadan and the month of Muharram.

In the month of Ramadan there will be prayer programs held in the Premises after sunset prayers. There will include three nights with late finishing lectures of 10:00pm.

In the month of Muharram there will be nightly programs for the first 14 nights of the month with finishing lecture times of 10:00pm.

A Noise Impact Assessment prepared by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant, has been submitted as a part of this Application. The Noise Impact Assessment details the report has been prepared in accordance with the Parramatta DCP 2011, and found to meet the relevant acoustic requirements and criteria.

Council’s Environmental Health Unit has assessed the provided Noise Impact Assessment in conjunction with the Plan of Management, and found the proposal to be acceptable in maintaining acoustic privacy.

Regarding the need for the extent of hours of operation proposed, this is not a matter for Council to prescribe, but rather, for Council to assess the associated impacts, namely acoustic amenity, as detailed above.

Permissibility and Objectives of the IN1 General Industrial Zone

Issue: Concern is raised regarding:

·        The permissibility of the development, identifying the proposal is also inclusive of an educational establishment, which is prohibited in the zone. Conversely, other submissions note that a separate application will be lodged for an educational establishment, should the subject application be approved.

·        Changes to the proposal from DA-397/2016 do not resolve the underlying permissibility issue, i.e. the introduction of multipurpose rooms (for teaching / lectures), replace education rooms, and subsequently retain the same use. Furthermore, the ancillary spaces have been introduced into the development to provide room to accommodate an education component.

·        The application is inconsistent with the objectives of the IN1 General Industrial zone.

Comment: The Parramatta LEP 2011 provides the following definition with regards to a place of public worship, which is a permissible form of the development in the IN1 General Industrial zone.

Place of public worship means a building or place used for the purpose of religious worship by a congregation or religious group, whether or not the building or place is also used for counselling, social events, instruction or religious training.

As noted within the above definition, a place of public worship may also be used for instruction or religious training, to which the applicant has clarified the use on site is limited to, in associated with the main activities intended for the site, that being prayer services. In this regard, the proposed development is permissible within the IN1 General Industrial zone.

With respect to a separate application being lodged in the future, should the subject application be approved, while future applications are not the subject of this application, the IN1 General Industrial zone does not permit the use of the site for the purposes of an educational establishment.

Regarding the matter of the application being inconsistent with the objectives zone, the objectives of the IN1 General Industrial are as follows:

·        To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

·        To encourage employment opportunities.

·        To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

·        To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

·        To facilitate a range of non-industrial land uses that serve the needs of workers and visitors.

In this regard, as the proposal is for a place of public worship, objectives dot point 1 through 4 (inclusive) are not applicable. To this end, objective dot point 5 is satisfied, in that the proposal would provide for a non-industrial land use to serve the needs of workers and visitors, should the application be approved.

Safety, Crime, Potential for Violence and Disturbances

Issue: Concern is raised regarding the safety of children and families, the potential increased crime in the area, youths congregating within the locality late at night, and for violence and disturbances to occur, in particular due to the proximity of public of public worship of different faiths, to one another.

Comment: The Development Application was referred to NSW Police Force for comments who has advised that the proposed development is supported. Should the application be approved, and in the event that matters of safety, crime, violence and disturbances occur, this is a matter for the NSW Police.

Mechanical Plant

Issue: Concern is raised regarding:

·        The location of the mechanical plant not being shown, and that the Noise Impact Assessment fails to include noise emissions from mechanical plant (including air conditioning), which does not account for the impact upon surrounding development.

·        Concern is raised that mechanical plan is likely to be located on the roof, which will almost certainly result in the height of the building exceeding 12 metres. However, no request has been made pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Parramatta LEP 2011, seeking vary the height of buildings development standard.

i)         Comment: As noted within the assessment, Council raises concern with the lack of detail regarding mechanical plant, which is provided as a reason for refusal in the draft Notice of Determination.

Site Contamination

Issue: Concern is raised regarding:

·        The impact of the excavation on personal health, fauna and the surrounding environment, due to site contamination.

·        Site contamination and management measures have not been considered holistically. The documents suggest that it is the adjacent sites that have a history of contamination. This fails to recognise that the site has been subdivided post-remediation, and the contamination history is the same as that for the adjacent church site.

·        The report identifies that the consultants weren’t provided with / failed to obtain information on previous remediation works, but the depth of remediation works (and the associated landfill) are clear from the bore hole readings.

·        The conclusions regarding lack of groundwater on the site are inconsistent with the previous remediation information, and call into question the validity of the assessment.

·        There are inconsistencies between different aspects of the Detailed Site Assessment and other reports.

Comment: As noted within the assessment, a Detailed Contamination Report has been submitted with the application in accordance with the NSW EPA Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites and the National Protection of the Environment (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (2013 Amendment). The report concludes that the chemical concentrations present in the fill and natural material are not considered likely to pose a risk to human health of the environment. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the submitted report, and has agreed with the recommendations of the report, advising that the subject site is suitable for the proposed development.

Existing Fruit Bat Colony

Issue: Concerns is raised regarding the impact upon the preservation of local fauna, specifically the existing fruit bat colony.

Comment: As noted within the assessment, an Assessment of Significance has been submitted with the application, noting the existing Grey-headed Flying-fox (fruit bat) within the Duck River corridor, located approximately 180 metres away. The report concluded that the proposed development will not cause significant impact on the colony. Council’s Parks Officer has reviewed the submitted report, and has confirmed the findings of the report.

Proximity to Duck River Walk and Glasgow Park

Issue: Concern is raised regarding the location of the proposed development to the Duck River Walk and Glasgow Park.

Comment: No impact from the proposed development is envisaged to the Duck River Walk and Glasgow Park.

Waste Management

Issue: Concern is raised regarding:

·        The Waste Management Plan fails to meet the requirements to adequately demonstrate the destination of waste generation during the development.

·        The Waste Management Plan states that the premises will only have general waste and recycling bins (5 each), and no bins for compostables, even though the premises will have a commercial kitchen.

·        A waste storage room, floor drainage, lighting and water supply has not been shown on the submitted plans.

·        The number of bins is inadequate for the scale of development and the proposed levels of usage.

Comment: A Waste Management Plan has been provided as a part of the Application. As noted within the assessment, Council’s Resource Recovery Officer has assessed the provided Waste Management Plan and plans in conjunction with the proposal, and notes a number of concerns with the assessment, which is provided as a reason for refusal in the draft Notice of Determination.


 

Future Growth

Issue: Concern is raised that no allowance has been made to future growth, noting the expected 300 persons is the current membership of the centre at 37 Cowper Street, Granville, to which the proposal seeks to replace.

Comment:       Should the application be approved, a maximum of 300 persons on site will be conditioned, as per the information submitted with the application. Furthermore, the submitted Plan of Management identifies that the owners of the site will seek to acquire a new facility in a different location, should the need arise to cater for unforeseen growth.

Use of Ambiguity in Reports

Issue: Concern is raised regarding the use of ambiguous words such as ‘about’ and ‘likely’ within the submitted reports, which are not definitive, and are likely to lead to amenity impacts on surrounding residences which haven’t been accounted for.

Comment: The reports and documents submitted with the Development Application have been reviewed by Council’s internal departments and external authorities, as listed within the assessment above. Where inadequate information has been provided, or where compliance with a standard has not been adhered to, these matters are provided as a reason for refusal in the draft Notice of Determination.

Need for Transparency in Operations of the Place of Public Worship

Issue: Concern is raised with regards to a need for transparency in the funding of the mosque, and the origin of the Imam.

Comment: This is not a matter for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Out of Character

Issue: Concern is raised regarding the proposal being out of character with the existing residential area, with the development providing a lack of transition to the existing single storey development to the west of Factory Street.

Comment: The following is noted:-

·        The contemporary architectural design of the development is consistent with the contemporary nature of new development seen throughout the Cumberland Local Government Area.

·        The proposed front facade of the development is suitably articulated.

·        The height and scale of the development is in keeping with the desired future character of the area, conforming to the 12 metre height of buildings and 1:1 floor space ratio development standards applicable to the site.

·        Landscape treatments in the form of trees and shrubs have been designed to the front setback area of the development, to soften the built form.

Noting the above, the proposed development is considered to provide an acceptable presentation, as viewed from the public domain.

Flooding

Issue: Concern is raised regarding the potential for the area to flood, noting the extent of hardstand proposed with the subject application.

Comment: Council’s records identify the site is not flood affected.

Number of Places of Public Worship within Granville

Issue: Concern is raised regarding the number of existing places of public worship of the same religion within Granville, and the need for the proposed place of public worship.

Comment: This is not a matter for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Light Spill

Issue: Concern is raised regarding light spill from cars, the main building and safety lighting, which will create an unacceptable amount of light affecting the residences to the immediate west of the premises.

Comment: Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed the proposal, and does not consider the proposal will generate an unacceptable amount of light to affect nearby residences.

Discarded Rubbish

Issue: Concern is raised regarding existing industrial complexes within the area discarding rubbish on the street, with an expectation that this will increase with the proposed development. A request has been made that additional sanitation services be provided, to ensure the area is maintained in a clean and tidy manner.

Comment: It is not expected that the proposal will lead to an increase in discarded rubbish in the area.

Inadequate Detail regarding the Proposed Religion

Issue: Concern is raised that the information submitted does not denote the proposed religion of the place of public worship.

Comment: Several references has been made within the submitted documentation that the proposed place of public worship is that of a mosque, being of the Islamic faith.

Inadequate time to Lodge Objections

Issue: Concern is raised with regards to the limited time frame afforded to prepare and lodge a submission.

Comment: In accordance with Council’s notification requirements, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 35 days from 4 December 2018 to 8 January 2019, inclusive of 21 days in accordance with the Parramatta DCP 2011, and an additional 14 days to account for the Christmas / New Year period. Following submissions from the public, the notification period was extended till 1 February 2019. In total, the application was notified for a period of 59 days.

Condition of Existing Streets

Issue: Concern is raised that no effort has been made to regrading of existing laneways in the locality, noting there current condition.

Comment: This is not a matter for consideration for this application under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Kitchen

Issue: Concern is raised regarding the proposed kitchen, as the documentation identifies that is only to be used on a few occasions annually, however, seems to have a servery window onto the large outdoor terrace, which is intended to cater for persons on the adjoining outdoor terrace.

Comment: A standard to limit the provision of servery windows does not exist. As such, no concern is raised regarding the proposed design.

Plan of Management

Issue: A question has been raised as to the worth of the Plan of Management. Specifically, the critical controls such as those relating to limiting the numbers of attendees, the parking generated and the timing of events, is unlikely to be observed, and compliance with the provisions unlikely to be enforced.

Comment: Should the development application be approved, the Plan of Management would be endorsed as a document to be adhered to for the life of the development, with breaches to the plan investigated by Council’s Compliance section.

Inadequate Arrangements for Servicing, Emergency Exits and Disability Access

Issue: Concern is raised regarding the lack of services, emergency exits and disability access designed to the development.

Comment: Emergency exits have been nominated within the submitted plans. Services will be nominated within the Construction Certificate plans, submitted to the nominated Certifying Authority, should the application be approved.

Regarding disability access, an Access Report has been submitted with the development application, which confirms the proposal can achieve compliance with the Disability (Access to Premises –Building) Standards 2010, the relevant provisions of the National Construction Code, Australian Standards, the Parramatta DCP 2011, and general best practice requirements.

Overshadowing

Issue: Concern is raised regarding overshadowing of the development to surrounding residences, with properties to the immediate west of Factory Street delayed from having sun until 9am. Furthermore, the development is likely to have an impact on the revegetation in the new Glasgow Park, which is part of an ecological restoration program in the Duck River Catchment.

Comment: In accordance with the Part 3, Clause 3.3.5 Solar Access and Cross Ventilation of the Parramatta DCP 2011, the following design principle is applicable regarding solar access:

Detached single and two storey, dual occupancy and townhouse dwellings within the development site and adjoining properties are to receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight in the primary living area, and in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

In this regard, sunlight to adjoining properties before 9am on 21 June (midwinter), is not a matter for consideration.

Regarding the impact of the proposal on Glasgow Park, a review of the submitted solar access diagrams reveals the proposed development will cast a shadow to the north-western corner of Glasgow Park at 9am midwinter, with no overshadowing impact at 12pm and 3pm respectively. In this regard, the proposed development is not anticipated to impact upon the revegetation of Glasgow Park.

Landscaping and Deep Soil

Issue: Concern is raised regarding:

·        The area of landscaping fails to meet the minimum landscaping requirements of the Parramatta DCP 2011, which fails to provide any form of screening or privacy protection for residents in Seventh Street, and will degrade the streetscape and contribute to increased urban heat island effects.

·        The proposal fails to comply with the design principles and objectives within the Parramatta DCP 2011 related to landscape design.

·        The proposal fails to integrate landscaping with Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD).

·        The removal of existing trees from the site have not been compensated.

·        The landscaping list is generally innocuous, though uses a standard palette of native cultivar landscaping species which miss the opportunity to add any ecological and habitat value to the area.

·        The proposed landscape design suggests the development will require the relocation of a power pole; however, no evidence of consultation has been made with the owners of the infrastructure.

Comment: In accordance with Part 3, Clause 3.1.3 Preliminary Building Envelope Tables of the Parramatta DCP 2011, the minimum landscape area required is 10% of the site area. In this regard, the required landscape area is 450.28m², and the proposed landscape area is 838.8m², equivalent to 18.62% of the site area.

Regarding the proposed landscape design, and removal / provision of new tree species, a landscape design and Arboricultural report have been provided as a part of the Application. As noted within the assessment, Council’s Tree Management Officer has assessed the provided landscape design and Arboricultural report in conjunction with the proposal, and notes the landscaping and tree management aspect of the proposal to be supportable.

With respect to the relocation of the power pole, as referenced within the submitted landscape design, Endeavour Energy has assessed the proposal and raises no concerns.

Front setback

Issue: Concern is raised that the proposed development does not adhere to the front setback provisions of the Parramatta DCP 2011.

Comment: In accordance with Part 3, Clause 3.1.3 Preliminary Building Envelope Tables of the Parramatta DCP 2011, the front setback shall correspond to the existing predominant building line in the street, where there is a defined built edge. The design principle notes that a continuous setback to the street is desirable.

In this regard, the front setback of the four industrial complexes in Factory Street range from nil to approximately 25 metres. The proposed front setback is 15 metres, which in the context of the adjoining development to the north, which maintains a front setback of approximately 13 metres, is considered acceptable.

Stormwater

Issue: Concern is raised regarding:

·        The Parramatta DCP 2011 contains a number of design principles that are not met through the proposal. They include integrating the stormwater system with the landscaping on site, minimising the impact on natural systems, and water efficiency.

 

·        The proposal does not incorporate rainwater capture for the use of watering the landscaped areas, flushing the toilets, and the like.

Comment: Stormwater plans have been provided as a part of the Application. As noted within the assessment, Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposed stormwater design in conjunction with the proposal, and notes concerns, which are provided as a reason for refusal in the draft Notice of Determination.

Exhaust Fumes and Air Quality Assessment

Issue: Concern is raised regarding exhaust fumes from vehicles, specifically, the need for an Air Quality Assessment to be submitted with the Development Application, with the proposal failing to consider the impact on air quality arising from the proposed car park.

Comment: Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed the proposal, and does not consider the extent of exhaust fumes to pose a significant risk to public health. Furthermore, the development application submission requirements for a place of public worship do not require an air quality assessment to be submitted.

Site Suitability and Public Interest

Issue: Concern is raised that the site is not suitable for the proposed development, and that it is not within the public interest.

Comment: As noted within the assessment, Council concurs that the site is not suitable for the proposed development, and that the proposal is not within the public interest.

Usable Space

Issue: Concern is raised that the outdoor spaces should be considered as usable space, as the space is designed to form part of the day to day operation of the facility. Furthermore, concern is raised that there is a large amount of open space within the development which can be used for other purposes, with little information submitted about the uses proposed.

Comment: The Parramatta DCP 2011 identifies the calculation of car parking shall be based on the extent of usable floor space proposed, to which the outdoor spaces are not defined.

Regarding the expanses of open space proposed within the development, it is understood from the documentation submitted that these spaces will be used for quiet reflection, and have accordingly been added to the calculation of usable floor space.


 

Schedule of Events

Issue: Concern is raised regarding the schedule of events are dissimilar to the schedule of events held at 37 Cowper Street, Granville, and envisaged within DA-397/2016.

Comment: Council has relied upon the information submitted with the application to form an understanding of the proposal, and associated assessment.

Minimum Clearance of Ramp

Issue: Concern is raised regarding the minimum clearance of the ramp into the car park, being 2.386 metres, which is inadequate to permit any vehicle larger than an SUV to enter, which could render the proposed loading bay of little utility.

Comment: As noted within the assessment, Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposed design, and notes a number of concerns with the proposed access ramps, which is provided as a reason for refusal in the draft Notice of Determination.

Preparation of Reports

Issue: A question has been raised as to whether the reports submitted with the Development Application were prepared by Council or the Developer.

Comment: The plans and documents submitted with the Development Application were prepared by or on behalf of the Applicant. To clarify further, the information submitted with the development application was not prepared by Council staff.

Street Lights, Pedestrian Crossings and Roundabouts

Issue: A question has been raised as to whether Council has considered installing additional street lighting between First Street and Seventh Street, and pedestrian crossings and roundabouts on Factory Street and Clyde Street.

Comment: This is not a matter for consideration for this application under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Development East of the Subject Site

Issue: A question has been raised as to whether the development to the east of the subject site, on the opposite side of Duck River, is related to the subject development.

Comment: No developments to the east of the subject site, on the opposite side of Duck River, are related to the subject application.


 

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 information provided within this report, it is considered that the development, if carried out in its present form, will have an adverse impact on the public interest by virtue of the limited extent of parking provided on-site and the impacts on nearby intersection and local road network.

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94 Contributions)

The development would require the payment of contributions in accordance with the Parramatta Development Contributions Plan 2008, as the cost of works is over $200,000.00. A contribution equal to 1% of the estimated cost of works would be required. A Quantity Surveyors estimate of $11,286,754.00 was submitted with the application, and therefore the contributions applicable are $112,867.54. Section 7.11 contributions would therefore be payable for the proposed development, should the application be approved.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

The NSW Government has introduced disclosure requirements for individuals or entities with a relevant financial interest as part of the lodgement of various types of development proposals and requests to initiate environmental planning instruments or development control plans. The application and notification process did not result in any disclosure of Political Donations or Gifts.

Conclusion:

The proposed development has been assessed against the matters for consideration listed in Section 4.15 of the EP & A Act, 1979. Due to the significant departure from numerical compliance with Council’s on-site car parking requirements, and matters noted within this report from Council’s Development Engineer, Environmental Health Officer, and Resource Recovery Officer, the application is recommended for refusal.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

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

Communication / Publications:

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

 

Report Recommendation:

That Development Application 345/2018 seeking construction of a place of public worship over two levels of car parking including terrace spaces, offices and reading room to be operated between 8am and 10pm (Monday to Saturday), and between 3pm and 10pm (Sunday) at 2C Factory Street, Granville, be refused, subject to the draft Notice of Determination contained in Attachment 7 of this report.

 

Attachments

1.     Architectural Plans

2.     Council's Calculation of Additional Usable Space.

3.     Stormwater Plans

4.     Plan of Management

5.     Traffic Impact Assessment Report.

6.     Noise Impact Assessment

7.     Draft Notice of Determination

8.     Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 Compliance Assessment

9.     Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 Compliance Assessment

10.   Redacted Submissions Part 1

11.   Redacted Submissions Part 2

12.   Redacted Submissions Part 3

13.   Redacted Submissions Part 4

14.   Redacted Submissions Part 5

15.   Redacted Submissions Part 6

16.   Redacted Submissions Part 7

17.   Redacted Submissions Part 8

18.   Redacted Submissions Part 9

19.   Redacted Submissions Part 10

20.   Redacted Submissions Part 11

21.   Redacted Submissions Part 12  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 1

Architectural Plans


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 2

Council's Calculation of Additional Usable Space.


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 3

Stormwater Plans


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 4

Plan of Management


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 5

Traffic Impact Assessment Report.


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 6

Noise Impact Assessment


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 7

Draft Notice of Determination


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 8

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 Compliance Assessment


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 9

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 Compliance Assessment


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 10

Redacted Submissions Part 1


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 11

Redacted Submissions Part 2


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 12

Redacted Submissions Part 3


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 13

Redacted Submissions Part 4


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 14

Redacted Submissions Part 5


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 15

Redacted Submissions Part 6


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 16

Redacted Submissions Part 7


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 17

Redacted Submissions Part 8


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 18

Redacted Submissions Part 9


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 19

Redacted Submissions Part 10


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 20

Redacted Submissions Part 11


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP035/19

Attachment 21

Redacted Submissions Part 12


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

22 May 2019

 

 

Item No: ELPP036/19

Development Application for 2/2-6 Peel Street, Holroyd

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                              2018/185  

 

 

Application lodged

1 June 2018

Applicant

MB Town Planning

Owner

The Charitable Islamic Association of Beirut City Incorporated

Application No.

2018/185

Description of land

2/2-6 Peel Street, Holroyd

Proposed development

Use of premises as place of public worship

Site area

2995.7 m2 (entire site) 535 m2 (lot 2 in SP75506)

Zoning

IN2 – Light Industrial

Principal development standards

N/A

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

Site is opposite Goodlet & Smith (brickmaking plant and chimney and Hoffman kiln and chimney), which is listed as a local heritage item

Issues

·  Traffic and parking

·  Public submissions (14)

Summary:

1.     The subject application was lodged on 1 June 2018 and notified to properties within a 100 m radius from 27 June 2018 to 18 July 2018. In response, 14 public submissions were received.

2.     The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination due to the number of public submissions received.

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

4.     The application involves the following numerical non-compliances which are not considered supportable in this instance:

 

Control

Required

Proposed

% Variation

Car parking

60

6

90%

Accessible parking spaces

2 per 100 spaces

0

100%

Minimum carriageway width

10 m

7.5 m

25%

It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons detailed at attachment 3.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as unit 2, 2-6 Peel Street, Holroyd. The legal description of the site is lot 2 in strata plan 75506. The site is zoned IN2 – Light Industrial under the provisions of the HLEP 2013. 2-6 Peel Street is a factory complex with 6 units, constructed pursuant to DA 2003/1166. Unit 2 that is the subject of this application is located at the south eastern corner of the allotment and has frontage to both Walpole Street and Peel Street.

The sites to the east, west and north of the subject site are also zoned IN2 – Light Industrial. The sites to the south are zoned R4 – High Density Residential and have vehicular and pedestrian access via Refractory Court. Holroyd Sportsground is located at the opposite end of Peel Street. 

Subject site hatched red – 2-6 Peel Street, Holroyd.

View of subject site from corner of Peel Street and Walpole Street.

View of subject site, looking north along Peel Street

Description of the Proposed Development

DA 2018/185 proposes change of use of the existing factory unit as a place of public worship (mosque). No building works, internal or external, are proposed as part of this application. The proposal is for the place of public worship to operate 7 days a week as detailed in the following table:

 

Prayer service

Maximum duration

Maximum participants

Outside of Ramadan

Pre-dawn (45 minutes prior to sunrise)

15 minutes

30

Noon (Saturday to Thursday)

25 minutes

30

Noon Fridays

25 minutes

80

Mid-afternoon (approx. 3pm)

15 minutes

30

Sunset daily

15 minutes

30

Night (90 minutes after sunset)

15 minutes

30

During Ramadan

Pre-dawn daily

15 minutes

30

Noon (Saturdays to Thursdays

25 minutes

30

Noon (Fridays)

25 minutes

80

Mid-afternoon (approx. 3pm)

15 minutes

50

Sunset daily

15 minutes

50

Night (90 minutes after sunset

15 minutes

50

Eid Al Fitr (one day per year)

Between 6 am and 7.30 am

90 minutes

80

Eid Al Adha (one day per year)

 

 

Between 6 am and 7.30 pm

90 minutes

80

Site History

Council’s Compliance Officers attended the subject site on 12 May 2017 in response to a complaint that was lodged regarding unauthorised use and works at the subject site. At the time of the inspection it was observed that building works that would have required development consent had been carried out within the building without the necessary consent having been obtained.

On 15 May 2017 Council issued a notice of intention to give orders to demolish the unauthorised works and reinstate the premises to its prior condition; and to cease the use of the premises as a place of public worship.

The applicant attempted to lodge an application (DA 2017/211) to regularise the unauthorised use of the premises on 25 May 2017. That application was rejected for the following reasons:

1.     No. 2-6 Peel Street Holroyd is subject to Strata Plan 75506. The submitted Development Application does not provide owners consent from the Strata Title/Body Corporate and legal advice has not been provided to support your claim that this consent is not required.

2.     Failure to provide the following details on the submitted plans in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000:

·    The uses of existing buildings on the land;

·    The location and uses of buildings on sites adjoining the land; and

·    Layout, partitioning, room sizes and intended uses of each part of the building

3.     Any future Development Application should also address the following issues:

·    The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) indicates that the place of public worship within Unit 2 is 537m2 with a maximum capacity of 150 people. A floor plan is required detailing the area required for each person to worship. It appears that Unit 2 could potentially hold a larger number of people so details are also required on how the floor area will be physically divided or managed to prevent this occurring.

·    A Social Impact Assessment is required

·    Sufficient separate male, female and accessible toilet facilities complaint (sic) with the BCA should be show (sic) on plans if you are applying for a place of public worship.

The issues raised in the rejection letter were addressed by the applicant, and DA 2017/270 was lodged with Council on 28 June 2017.

DA 2017/270 was withdrawn by the applicant on 13 December 2017, following correspondence from Council advising that the application would not be supported. The reasons for staff not supporting DA 2017/270 related to the lack of on site parking, and the inadequacies of the acoustic report and plan of management submitted with the application.

The history of the site and the subject application is summarised in the following table.

Date

Action

28 June 2017

DA 2017/270 lodged with Council

13 July 2017

DA 2017/270 referred to Council’s internal departments, and to NSW Police for review

26 July to 16 August 2017

DA 2017/270 publicly notified. A total of 21 submissions were received as a result of the notification.

28 November 2017

Correspondence sent to the applicant for DA 2017/270 advising that the application would not be supported by Council

13 December 2017

DA 2017/270 withdrawn by the applicant

1 June 2018

DA 2018/185 (subject application) lodged with Council

20 June 2018

DA 2018/185 referred to Council’s internal departments, and to NSW Police for review

27 June to 18 July 2018

DA 2018/185 publicly notified. A total of 15 submissions were received.

19 October 2018

Correspondence sent to the applicant advising that staff would not support the proposal and inviting withdrawal of the application

4 March 2019

Additional information submitted to address the issues raised in Council’s correspondence dated 19 October 2018

22 May 2019

DA 2018/185 reported to CLPP for determination

As physical works have already been carried out without the necessary consent, a deferred commencement condition requiring the lodgement of an application for a building information certificate would be imposed if consent were to be granted.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by MB Town Planning, dated 31 May 2018 was submitted in support of the application. Additional correspondence dated 1 February 2019 was submitted in support of the amended application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

The assessment 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 Unit

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment. The response received on 7 March 2019 raised concerns about inconsistency between the plan of management and the acoustic report with regard to the number of attendees. These matters could be addressed by condition if the application were to be approved.

Traffic Engineering

The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineering section for comment. The response received indicated that the proposal is not supported due to the significant deficiency in the number of off-street parking spaces provided. 

Council’s Traffic Engineer also raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the information provided in the traffic report, use of Holroyd Gardens and Holroyd Sportsground car parks, and road/lane closures as proposed in the traffic management plan.

Whilst the proposal has been amended and no longer seeks to rely on the Holroyd Gardens or Holroyd Sportsground car parks, no additional on site parking has been proposed and the traffic management plan has not been updated to clarify the measures that are proposed to manage impacts of the development on the local road network.

Building Services Unit

The application was referred to Council’s Building Services Unit for comment. The response received 10 January 2019 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions for an NCC compliance report to be prepared, and the recommendations implemented prior to the issue of an occupation certificate. As the proposal is for change of use only, and the physical works have already been carried out without consent, there is no requirement for any construction certificate or occupation certificate to be issued. However, if consent were to be granted for the use, a deferred commencement condition could be imposed to require the applicant to obtain a building information certificate prior to the issue of operative consent. Any NCC non-compliance issues would be resolved in the assessment of the building information certificate application.

Development Engineering

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineering section for comment. No concerns were raised and no conditions recommended.

Waste

The application was referred to Council’s Waste section for comment. Council’s Senior Resource Recovery Project Officer advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to a condition requiring the provision of a dedicated waste storage area.

Development Compliance

The application was referred to Council’s Development Compliance unit for comment. The response received indicated that it may not be possible for the applicant to lodge a building information certificate application for the unauthorised works; as the consent of the owners corporation would be required for such an application to be lodged, and the owners corporation had previously indicated that it would not consent to such an application.

This is not a matter for consideration under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. As mentioned elsewhere in this report, a condition would be imposed if consent were to be granted requiring the applicant to obtain a building information certificate for the unauthorised work prior to the consent becoming operational. If consent were to be granted and the applicant was unable to obtain a building information certificate, the consent would not become operational and would then lapse.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

NSW Police – Cumberland Police Area Command

The application was referred to NSW Police – Cumberland Police Area Command for comment. The LAC raised concerns regarding:

·        theft of motor vehicles due to the proximity to public transport,

·        competition for use of parking spaces on Fridays between the sportsground and the place of public worship,

·        amenity impacts on nearby residential properties, and

·        access control.

The LAC also recommended conditions be imposed on any consent relating to:

·        surveillance (CCTV)

·        lighting

·        territorial reinforcement

·        maintenance policy, and

·        access control

Planning Assessment

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

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

The following Environmental Planning Instruments are relevant to the assessment of the subject 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 for 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?  

There is no information in Council’s records that would indicate that the site is contaminated and there are no works proposed that would penetrate the existing concrete slab. Based on the available information there is nothing to warrant further investigation in relation to contamination.

(b)    Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

The proposed development is defined as a ‘place of public worship’ under the provisions of Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013. A place of public worship is permitted with consent in the IN2 – Light Industrial zone which applies to the land. The proposal complies with the relevant development standards. A comprehensive HLEP compliance table is provided at attachment 1.

The objectives of the IN2 – Light Industrial zone are as follows:

·        To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses.

·        To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres.

·        To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

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

·        To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

The applicant provided the following commentary regarding compliance with zone objectives:

“The proposed land use relates to the use of an existing building and will not impact upon or detract from the use of adjoining industrial premises. In addition, the proposed use will:

·    Not restrict the provision of a wide range of industrial and warehouse and uses on the site noting the occupied units in the buildings on site will continue to operate unchanged;

·    Encourage employment opportunities, including for the maintenance of the building when required; and

·    Enable the change of land use to a place of public worship that is highly desired in the local area and to provide for the daily religious practices of local residents and workers of the Islamic faith.

As demonstrated above, the proposed change of land use to a place of public worship is in keeping with the objectives of the IN2 Light Industrial zone and will not adversely impact on the existing operation of surrounding land uses.”

Planner’s comment:

The applicants contentions regarding the development’s compliance with the zone objectives are considered to be generally acceptable.  

(c)    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).

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

(a)    Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

The draft SEPP relates to the protection and management of our natural environment with the aim of simplifying the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property. The changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

·        State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50 – Canal Estate Development

·        Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997)

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

·        Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property.

The draft policy will repeal the above existing SEPPs and certain provisions will be transferred directly to the new SEPP, amended and transferred, or repealed due to overlaps with other areas of the NSW planning system.

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

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

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013 contains general controls which relate to all developments under Part A, controls for Places of Public Worship under Part G and controls relating to industrial premises under Part D.

A comprehensive HDCP assessment is attached to this report at attachment 2. The DCP non-compliances are discussed below.

 

 

 

 

No.

Required/Permitted

Provided

Compliance

Part A – General Controls

 

Yes

No

N/A

3

Car Parking

 

 

 

 

 

1 space per 8.5m2 of GFA. In this case, 506.8 m2 floor space = 59.62 (60) spaces required

6 spaces provided (existing). This is a significant non-compliance and cannot be supported. See further comments below.

Parking for the disabled at the rate of 2 spaces per 100 visitors

0 accessible spaces existing /proposed. A non-compliance with this control could be supported if no additional spaces were required. However, as detailed above, the proposal involves a significant non-compliance with the minimum off street parking space requirement.

Part D - Industrial Controls

 

 

 

i)         4

Retail and Commercial uses in industrial zones

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Council, under normal circumstances, restricts the hours of industrial operations to the hours of 7 am to 7 pm, Monday to Friday; 7 am to 12 noon, Saturday and no work on Sunday.

The proposed hours of operation are approximately 5 am to 10 pm, 7 days which is outside the times permitted by the control.

 

An acoustic report was submitted by the applicant and indicates that the place of public worship is capable of operating within the relevant noise criteria.

 

Subject to implementation of recommended noise management practices, and compliance with standard consent conditions, the hours of operation would be supportable.

Part G – Places of Public Worship Controls

 

 

 

1

Locational requirements

 

 

 

 

 

Places of public worship not permitted on roads with carriageway width less than 10 m

 

Peel Street has carriageway width of less than 10 m. As identified in the public submissions received, the location of the facility of Peel Street and associated on street parking by patrons of the facility is having a detrimental impact on the operation of existing businesses, and residential amenity in the area. Accordingly, this is included as a reason for refusal.

 

Acoustic privacy

 

 

 

 

 

Noise Impact Statement to be submitted where proposal is located within or adjacent to a residential zone

The site is located adjacent to a residential zone (opposite side of Walpole Street). An acoustic report was submitted with the application and reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Unit. As detailed above, the referral comments identified inconsistencies between the acoustic report and the other information submitted by the applicant. If the application were to be supported this issue could be resolved by requesting additional information from the applicant or by the imposition of conditions.

7

Parking and traffic

 

 

 

 

 

Car parking to comply with requirements under Part A

Proposal is deficient by 54 car parking spaces.

 

All parking to be provided on site

Application seeks to rely on parking spaces on street to support the proposed development.

 

Traffic impact statement shall be submitted for establishment of place of public worship or where proposal is to increase capacity to 50 persons or more

Note: A Traffic Impact Statement, at a minimum, shall assess the number of parking spaces required for such development, the impact of the proposed place of public worship on the surrounding locality and the measures taken to minimise any potential issues. The statement shall also detail the impact of any festivals or functions (i.e. weddings) and their impact in relation to car parking and vehicular access.

A traffic impact statement was submitted with the application and additional information regarding traffic management was provided with the amended application.

 

As detailed above, the proposed development does not satisfy the minimum on-site parking requirements for this type of development.

 

Council is not satisfied that the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed development are adequately addressed by the plan of management. See further comments below.

8

Operational management

 

 

 

 

 

An operation management plan is to be submitted addressing the following:

·    The frequency of all proposed services, events and the like;

·    The proposed hours of operation for all proposed services and events and the like:

·    The likely number of persons to attend each type of service, event etc.;

·    Whether street parades or road closures are proposed.

·    Any other uses that may take place within the place of public worship (i.e. community uses – youth group, community colleges etc.), the frequency of these uses and the number of patrons proposed for these.

·    Any particular custom or practice (such as ringing bells) that may occur and the frequency and length of such rituals.

·    The nomination of a contact person that will be responsible in responding to any issues or complaints raised by the community or Council.

The operational management plan submitted with the application deals with the issues specified in the DCP control.

 

However, a central aspect of the amended application is the capping of attendees at 80. There are no details in the plan of management, or in any other documentation provided by the applicant to indicate how this would be achieved. See further comments below.

Car Parking

Section 3, Part A of HDCP 2013 requires a minimum of 1 car space per 8.5 m2 of GFA for all places of public worship. In this case, the facility has a GFA of 506.8 m2, and therefore requires a minimum of 60 car spaces to satisfy the control.

The subject unit has access to 6 existing car spaces, and no new spaces are proposed under this application. The parking shortfall is, therefore, 54 spaces.

The applicant seeks to justify the non-compliance on the following grounds:

·        The operators proposed to cap attendee numbers at 80 persons

As detailed below, Council is not satisfied that there are adequate measures either currently in operation, or proposed under this application to cap the number of attendees at 80 persons.

·        Observations of the demand for parking spaces as a result of the unauthorised use indicate that the place of public worship generates demand for 0.66 spaces per attendee.

The Traffic and Parking Assessment Report identified that the use of the premises as a place of public worship is generating demand for 0.37 to 0.66 spaces per attendee. If a rate of 0.66 spaces per attendee is applied to the proposed number of 80 attendees, the facility would require 53 car spaces to satisfy demand. This is not significantly lower than 60 spaces required when applying the DCP rate and as detailed elsewhere, only 6 spaces are proposed/existing. Given that Council is not satisfied that the numbers can reasonably be capped at 80, the 0.66 spaces per attendee rate would indicate that parking demand as a result of the proposal is in the order of 180 to 210 spaces. 

The applicant’s correspondence dated 1 February 2019 suggests that the 0.66 spaces rate could be mitigated by the implementation of measures seeking to encourage attendees to use alternate means of travel. However, insufficient details regarding specific management measures and methods of implementation have been provided for assessment.

It is also not considered practical that attendees would opt for public or active transport modes if they are not already living or working in the immediate vicinity of the site as most of the services provided at the facility have a maximum duration of 25 minutes. It is also unlikely that people would choose active or public transport options for the early morning or late evening services.

·        There is sufficient off-site parking in the vicinity of the subject site to accommodate the proposal.

The applicant identified in the correspondence dated 1 February 2019 that there are 316 on street parking spaces in the vicinity of the subject site, as well as 105 spaces in the Holroyd Gardens car park. That is, there are a total of 421 publicly accessible car spaces in the vicinity of the site. The Traffic and Parking Assessment submitted with the application indicates that the spaces closest to the subject site on Peel Street, Fox Street and Walpole Street were in highest demand at the time of the survey.

There is no footpath on either side of Peel, Robert or Fox Streets, and this raises concerns about pedestrian safety and accessibility if on street parking in these locations is to be utilised.

Spaces on Walpole Street or within the Holroyd Gardens are accessible from the subject site via footpaths. However, the DCP controls specifically require parking spaces to be provided on site. In this case, the vast majority of the spaces required to support the development are located on street or on Council land (Holroyd Gardens).

·        The Auburn DCP has a less onerous parking rate for places of public worship.

The Auburn DCP has a rate of 1 car space per 20 m2 of GFA. This would equate to 25.34 (26) spaces for the subject proposal. The applicant acknowledges that the Auburn DCP does not apply to the subject land but suggests that this control should be considered as the Holroyd and Auburn DCPs apply to the same LGA.

The Traffic and Parking Assessment submitted with the original application states that ‘mosques typically generate a higher parking demand than the DCP typically allows for ‘religious land uses’ due to the higher population density in the prayer area’. This would suggest that applying the less onerous Auburn DCP control is not appropriate in the circumstances. Notwithstanding, the proposal would still have a significant non-compliance of at least 20 car spaces if the Auburn rate were applied.

For the reasons detailed above, Council is not satisfied that the number of existing on-site parking spaces is sufficient to meet the demand generated by the proposal. Approval of an application with such a significant parking non-compliance with the relevant parking rate would set an undesirable precedent for other development in the locality. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

Plan of Management

The applicant submitted a number of separate documents dealing with operational management aspects of the proposal. The original application included an operational plan of management prepared by MB Town Planning, and a separate plan of management prepared by TTPP dealing with traffic and parking aspects of the development.

The amended application included a revised operational plan of management, and additional correspondence from MB Town Planning including updated survey of on street parking spaces.

A key aspect of the applicant’s argument to support the on-site parking non-compliance is a suggested cap in the number of attendees. In the correspondence dated 1 February 2019, the applicant indicated that the number of attendees would be capped at 80. This would be achieved by ‘advising some of the current attendees to attend services that are available at another place of worship at Merrylands, and by refusing to admit additional attendees when the numbers have reached a specified limit.’

Whilst the above strategy would be very effective in limiting the total number of attendees with the premises at any one time, the strategy relies on attendees arriving at the site and parking their vehicles without prior knowledge as to whether they would be permitted entry to the premises. The impacts of vehicular traffic and parking in the locality are therefore not effectively reduced by refusing entry to attendees upon arrival. Accordingly, Council cannot be satisfied that adequate measures have been proposed to reduce car parking demands for the development.

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

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


 

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

Pursuant to clause 93, a consent authority must take into consideration whether the fire protection and structural capacity of the building will be appropriate for the proposed use. Council’s Senior Building Surveyor reviewed the application and conducted an inspection of the site. As detailed under ‘internal referrals’ above, it is considered that any existing deficiencies with the building could be rectified as part of the assessment of a building information certificate application. No specific non-compliances with the relevant clauses of the NCC have been identified.

The likely environmental, social or economic impacts in the locality (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(b))

Insufficient information was submitted with the application to satisfy Council that the proposed development will have acceptable environmental impacts in the locality. Accordingly, this is included as a reason for refusal.

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

The site is located within the IN2 – Light Industrial zone, where places of public worship are permitted with development consent. However, owing to the significant deficiency of on-site car parking, and the impacts on traffic movement within the light industrial area, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed use. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

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

The application was notified in accordance with Part E – Public Participation of HDCP 2013 for a period of twenty one days from 27 June to 18 July 2018. Fourteen (14) submissions were received by Council as a result of the notification. The concerns raised in the submissions are discussed below.

Concern

Response

Noise impacts on surrounding residences

·    Loud vehicles arriving and leaving

·    Persons congregating outside the mosque

The applicant submitted an acoustic report in support of the application which indicates that the proposal can comply with the relevant noise criteria.

 

However, the acoustic report makes a number of assumptions that are not consistent with the other information submitted by the applicant.

 

Council is also not satisfied that there are any practical measures proposed to limit the number of attendees to 80 as suggested in the operational plan of management. It is considered that compliance with this proposed cap is key to minimising the acoustic and other impacts in the locality.

 

The inadequacy of the acoustic assessment is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination. 

Traffic

·    restricting truck access to existing businesses.

·    conflict between trucking business and large numbers of people parking on the street

·    Excessive traffic and parking impacts multiple times per day

·    Impacts of significant increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic

Whilst the amended proposal indicates that the facility will accommodate a maximum of 80 attendees at any one time, there are no specific practical measures identified in the applicant’s operational plan of management to achieve this limit. Accordingly, Council is not satisfied that the 80 person cap can be achieved and regardless, there is still a significant non-compliance with the required on-site parking rate that would continue to impact on the local road network, potentially affecting truck access to existing businesses in the locality.

 

The impact of the significant under-provision of on site parking on existing businesses in the locality is considered to be unsatisfactory and is included as a reason for refusal.

·    No proper footpath for people parking at Holroyd Sportsground.

 

·    Conflict between proposed development and events held at Holroyd Sportsground.

 

·    Pedestrian safety concerns

The application as lodged sought to rely on the use of the Holroyd Sportsground car park to support the proposed use. The applicant was advised that the use of the  Holroyd Sportsground car park could not be relied on due to

·    The lack of owner’s consent (from Council)

·    The lack of an ongoing agreement or ability to register a restriction on the title of the land

·    The distance separating the two sites

·    The lack of a footpath connecting the car park with the subject site

·    The undesirable precedent that would be set by allowing the proposed development to rely on a Council owned car park to accommodate a shortfall in the on-site parking requirement.

 

The application was subsequently amended to reduce the number of attendees to a maximum of 80. The applicant is also no longer seeking to rely on the Sportsground car park to support the proposed use.

 

However, the proposal still relies on off-site parking (on street and at Holroyd Gardens) to support the development. There are no footpaths on Peel Street, Fox Street or Robert Street which raises pedestrian safety and accessibility concerns.

Traffic problems in existing narrow street

HDCP 2013 requires that new places of public worship be located on streets with a minimum carriageway width of 10 m. Peel Street has a carriageway of approximately 7.5 m which is less than the minimum required under the DCP. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

Inappropriate reliance on on-street parking to support the proposed use

 

 

The applicant contends that the non-compliance with the minimum parking requirement is satisfactory as there is plenty of on street parking available to cover the shortfall. Council considers that the proposal is not supportable due to the lack of on-site parking provided and the undesirable precedent that would be set by approving a development that relies on Council owned and on-street parking spaces.

 

Non-compliance with the DCP parking rate is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

Impact of traffic congestion and illegal parking on existing businesses in the locality.

The traffic and parking impacts of the proposal result from the lack of on-site parking and the limited carriageway width of the adjoining streets. These impacts are not considered satisfactory and the application is recommended for refusal.

Antisocial behaviour from attendees

The behaviour of attendees is a matter for consideration only to the extent that the behaviour has a specific impact on owners and occupants of neighbouring properties, or users of the public domain.

 

The parking, traffic and noise impacts of the proposal are relevant to the consideration of the application and as discussed elsewhere in this report, are not considered satisfactory.

 

Other behaviour of attendees that is not specifically linked with the operation of the facility is not a relevant matter for consideration.

The proposal is the same as the previous application but with a different applicant

DA 2017/270 was lodged by the Charitable Islamic Association of Beirut City Incorporated, and was withdrawn following advice from Council staff that the application would not be supported.

 

DA 2018/185 (the subject application) was lodged by MB Town Planning, with the consent of the property owner as required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

Nothing in the Act or Regulation prevents a person from lodging a new development application following the determination or withdrawal of another application for the same site.

Non-compliance with Order issued by Council

No orders have been issued. Council’s Development Compliance Officers have issued notices of intention to cease the use, demolish unauthorised works, and re-instate the premises to its condition prior to the carrying out of unauthorised works. However, these notices have not been progressed to orders because the owners made representations to the notices of intention by way of lodging development applications to regularise the unauthorised works and use. Further compliance action may be taken to address these issues once the subject application is determined.

·    Ongoing unauthorised use

ii)       

·    Unauthorised building works

The application is for use of the subject site as a place of public worship. Council cannot grant development consent for building work that has already been carried out. However, nothing prevents a consent authority from regularising an unauthorised use by granting consent.

 

If approval were to be granted for the change of use, a condition would be imposed requiring the applicant to obtain a building information certificate for the unauthorised works from Council.

 

If the application is refused, Council’s Development Compliance Unit will take appropriate action to remedy the unauthorised works and unauthorised use in accordance with Council’s enforcement policy.

New place of public worship compromise harmony of the local residential community

No new buildings are proposed, and the subject unit is located within the IN2 – Light Industrial zone. Accordingly, there is not considered to be any impact on the harmony or multicultural make-up of the neighbouring residential area resulting from the proposal.

Traffic and pedestrian management

·    suggestion to provide permanent barriers on the footpath to discourage people from spilling out onto the roadway.

·    suggestion to provide a drop off zone in Walpole Street

The application does not seek consent for the installation of barriers, or to formalise a drop off zone in Walpole Street. As such, these options have not been assessed or considered by Council. However, it is noted that these types of traffic management measures would require the approval of the Cumberland Traffic Committee.

Latecomers are not subject to traffic management procedures

The applicant’s revised operational plan of management indicates that there would be two traffic wardens deployed for Friday prayers, Eid al Fitr and Eid al Adha.

 

It is not clear where the wardens would be stationed, at what time they would commence their duties or at what time they would cease.

 

Due to the deficiencies of the plan of management, and inconsistency of the information submitted by the applicant. Council cannot be satisfied that appropriate measures can or would be taken to address manage the impacts of the development in the locality. This is included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

No owners corporation consent for the unauthorised works.

The subject application is for the use of the premises as a place of public worship. The applicant acknowledges that unauthorised works have been carried out within the unit and this has been subject to separate action by Council’s Development Compliance Unit.

 

It is not necessary to obtain Owners’ Corporation consent to lodge an application for change of use if no works are proposed to the common property.

Breaches of the Strata Schemes Management Act and non-compliance with NCAT orders

The provisions of the Schemes Management Act and any orders issued by NCAT are not matters for consideration under section 4.15 of the EP&A Act. The Owners Corporation can take further legal action to remedy breaches of the strata by-laws as necessary.

Concerns regarding structural adequacy of unauthorised building works.

Pursuant to clause 93 of the EP&A Regulation, in determining an application for change of use where no building works are proposed, a consent authority must take into consideration whether the fire protection and structural capacity of the building will be appropriate for the proposed use.

 

An inspection of the premises by Council’s Senior Building Surveyor did not identify any specific concerns regarding the structural adequacy or fire safety measures in the building. However, if consent were to be granted, any NCC non-compliance issues would be addressed through the lodgement and assessment of a building information certificate application. 

Inconsistency with the objectives of the IN2 – Light Industrial zone. Specifically, the development is not ‘required to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area.‘

The objectives of the IN2 – Light Industrial zone are as follows:

·    To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses

·    To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres

·    To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses

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

·    To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

 

The first three objectives are not relevant to the subject application as no industrial uses are proposed.

 

Council is satisfied that the proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the zone as it could provide a service to meet the day to day needs of workers, and it does not preclude the use of neighbouring sites for industrial uses. There is also no impact on the use of the subject lot for industrial purposes in the future.

Site does not benefit from existing use rights

The application does not rely on existing use rights under 4.11 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. The proposed land use is permitted with consent in the IN2 – Light Industrial zone.

Increase in maximum occupancy numbers from 150 people under the previous application to 320 people under the current application.

The application as lodged sought consent for up to 320 attendees. Following initial review of the DA, the applicant was advised that the proposal could not be supported due to the significant non-compliance with the minimum parking rate specified in the DCP. The applicant subsequently amended the application to limit the number of attendees to 80, in order to minimise the traffic and parking impacts of the development.

Ensuring compliance with the traffic management plan would place undue burden on Council resources.

The application is recommended for refusal. If the application were to be approved, a trial period could be imposed by condition. Non-compliance with any relevant conditions of consent or Plan of Management provisions would be considered in the assessment of a modification application to extend or permanently conclude the trial period.

 

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

The public interest is served by permitting the orderly and economic use and 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 approval of the development as proposed would 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.

Conclusion:

The application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013.

Due to the non-compliance with the on-site parking requirements and the uncertainty around proposed measures to manage traffic and parking impacts, and to manage the number of attendees, the application is recommended for refusal.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

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

Communication / Publications:

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

 

Report Recommendation:

1.  That DA 2018/185 be refused for the reasons contained in the draft notice of determination.

2.  That those persons who made a submission are advised of the determination.

 

 

Attachments

1.     HLEP 2013 Compliance Table

2.     HDCP 2013 Compliance Table

3.     Draft Notice of Determination

4.     Architectural Plans

5.     Statement of Environmental Effects

6.     Traffic Plan of Management

7.     Correspondence from Applicant

8.     Revised Operational Plan of Management

9.     Redacted Public Submissions  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP036/19

Attachment 1

HLEP 2013 Compliance Table


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP036/19

Attachment 2

HDCP 2013 Compliance Table


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP036/19

Attachment 3

Draft Notice of Determination


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP036/19

Attachment 4

Architectural Plans


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP036/19

Attachment 5

Statement of Environmental Effects


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP036/19

Attachment 6

Traffic Plan of Management


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP036/19

Attachment 7

Correspondence from Applicant


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP036/19

Attachment 8

Revised Operational Plan of Management


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP036/19

Attachment 9

Redacted Public Submissions


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

22 May 2019

 

 

Item No: ELPP037/19

Section 4.55(2) Modification Application for 181-183 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                              2018/12/3  

 

 

Application lodged

22 March 2019

Applicant

Jude 88 Pty Ltd c/o-Myriad Consulting

Owner

Jude 88 Pty Ltd

Application No.

2015/12/3

Description of Land

181-183 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill

Proposed Development

S4.55(2) modification seeking to enclose the approved ground floor under croft open area facing Great Western Highway within an approved shop top housing development pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Site Area

1,522.5m2

Zoning

B6 – Enterprise Corridor

Principal Development Standards

Floor Space Ratio:

Max. 2.2:1 (under Holroyd LEP 2013) 

·    Approved FSR under the original application: 2.43:1(23% Bonus FSR under ARH SEPP 2009)

 

·   Proposed FSR = 2.53:1(3.93% variation to previously approved FSR sought)

 

Height of Buildings:

Max. 23m

·    Approved building height under the original application : 24.77m

 

·    The subject modification does not seek any changes to the building height.

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

The subject site is not a heritage item, and not located within a heritage conservation area.

 

Issues

·    Variation to FSR

·    Parking non-compliance for the commercial component

Summary:

Background / History

·        Development Consent was issued for DA - 2015/12/1 on 30 November 2015 for demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 3 lots into 1 lot, construction of a 7 storey shop top housing development comprising 2 ground floor commercial units and 45 residential units over 2 levels of basement parking accommodating 71 car parking spaces pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

·        Development Consent was issued for DA- 2015/12/2 on 8 May 2017 for S.96(1A) modification seeking variations to the height of lift overrun to the approved shop top housing development.

·        Development Application No. 2018/260 was lodged on 27 July 2018 for fitout and use of a ground floor commercial tenancy in an existing mixed use building as a 24 hour gymnasium. The application is currently being assessed by Council. 

Subject Section 4.55(2) Modification

Section 4.55(2) modification was lodged on 22 March 2019. The modification application, by way of amended plans seeks to:

·    Enclose the approved ground floor under croft open area, associated with Tenancy 1. The amendments will result in an increased gross floor area of the approved development and a variation to the FSR development standard.

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 17 April 2019 to 8 May 2019. In response, the application received no submission.

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

During a site inspection it was observed that the proposed works have already been completed and this application is seeking retrospective approval for the use of the unauthorised enclosing structures to the under croft of the building.

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination as the development seeks variation to a development standard.

The proposed modification application introduces the following non-compliances which are considered supportable as discussed in detail elsewhere in the report:

Control

Required

As Approved

Proposed under the subject Modification

% Variation

Floor Space Ratio

2.2:1 (B6 zone)

Max. GFA permitted:

i)             = 3,349.5m²

ii)            

iii)          

GFA = 3,700m²

FSR = 2.43:1

(Bonus FSR 23% under ARH SEPP)

GFA = 3,845.5m²

(additional GFA = 145.5m2)

FSR = 2.53:1

 

 

Variation of 3.93% to previously approved FSR

(resulting in an additional GFA exceedance of 145.5m²)

Commercial Car Parking Spaces

Commercial

Ground Floor Leasable GFA

- 1 per 20m²

22 spaces required for Shop 1

 

11 commercial spaces provided for Shop 1

(resulting in a shortfall of 11 spaces)

 

 

-

 

50%

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

Report:

Introduction

The site is located at 181-183 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill and legally described as SP93197. It is located on the southern side of Great Western Highway and has a site area of approximately 1522.5m2 with a primary frontage of 35.27m to Great Western Highway and secondary frontage of 37.06m to Peggy Street.  It is located within the enterprise corridor along the Great Western Highway surrounded by medium to high density residential land uses.

The subject site comprises of a recently completed multi-storey mixed-use commercial/residential building and 2 level of basement car parking. The ground-floor contains commercial tenancies with residential above. Vehicle access is provided from the rear laneway. The building works have been completed and a strata subdivision has been approved and registered with the NSW Land Registry Services. It is also observed that the majority of the residential units have been occupied. The ground floor commercial tenancies are currently vacant.

Aerial view of the locality with subject site (181-183 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill)

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

Subject site – Great Western Highway frontage.  Source: Council 2018

IMG_7056

Subject site – Peggy Street frontage.  Source: Council 2018

Description of the Proposed Development

DA2015/12/3 is seeking retrospective approval for the enclosure of the approved ground floor covered terrace area, associated with Tenancy 1 facing Great Western Highway.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-        

Level

Original Approval

Modified Proposal

Ground level

 

2 commercial tenancies (Shop1: 186m² and Shop 2: 57m²)

2 commercial tenancies (Shop 1: 444m² and Shop 2: 57m²).

Shop1: The ground floor under croft open area facing Great Western Highway within the ground floor is proposed to be enclosed and included in Shop 1.

Note: No changes are proposed to the floors above.

Application History

Date

Action

22 March 2019

The subject modification application was lodged with Council.

9 April 2019

The application was referred to the following internal sections:

·    Traffic Engineering

 

17 April 2019 to 8 May 2019

Application placed on public notification. In response, no submission was received.

15 May 2019

Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicant’s supporting statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Myriad Consulting dated 20 March 2019 was submitted with the application.

 Contact with relevant parties

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

Internal referrals

Traffic Engineering

The proposal was reviewed by Council’s Traffic Section and concern was raised with regard to the parking non-compliance in association with the additional gross floor area for commercial component. The assessment report considers parking variation as acceptable as discussed elsewhere in this report.

Planning Assessment

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

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

Requirement

Comment

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

The development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the original consent.

 

It has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) 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,

No Minister or public authority is required to be consulted.

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

No submission was received as a result of the notification.

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 as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.

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

(b)

(c) The provisions of HDCP 2013 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 proposal are considered satisfactory.

 

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

 

No submission was received as a result of the notification.

 

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

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

(d) N/A

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

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

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

13 Floor space ratios (FSR)

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

Under the provision of ARH SEPP a bonus FSR of 50% is available requiring a similar amount of floor area to be provided as affordable housing for a minimum period of 10 years. The original application sought a bonus FSR of 23% and an equivalent amount of gross floor area i.e., 851m2 was provided as affordable housing, requiring 14 units to be nominated as affordable units.

A breakdown of the FSR is as under:

FSR permitted (HLEP 2013)

Max. 2.2:1

·    Represents a maximum GFA of 3349.5m²

·    GFA (as approved): 3700m² i.e.; FSR (as approved): 2.43:1

·    Additional FSR (as approved): 23% as bonus FSR under ARH SEPP 2009

·    851m2 of GFA or 14 units were nominated to be kept under affordable housing for a statutory period of 10 years from the date of occupation certificate.

Under the subject application:

The under croft area in front of Tenancy 1 is 145.5m2 and this application proposes to enclose it, resulting in the following GFA breakdown which will result in GFA to be increased from 3700m2 to 3845.5m2 which is proposed to be retrospectively approved under this application. 

Proposed GFA = 3700+145.5 = 3845.5m²

Total proposed FSR = 2.53:1

% Variation to previously approved FSR = 3.93%

The proposed exceedance of the FSR is considered acceptable as it results in a better planning outcome with proper commercial enclosure at the ground floor level. The enclosed area can be better utilised for commercial activities compared to an open under croft area which has little utility.

Any such FSR exceedance would normally require allocation of similar GFA to be dedicated as affordable housing. However in this particular instance; the newly constructed units are subdivided and are under separate ownership. As such it is practically not possible to seek further affordable housing from this site.

Refer to further discussion under Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 later in the report.

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

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

(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. There are no changes proposed to the building footprint or to the residential units, as a result, a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the ADG is not required.  A relevant assessment against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls is provided at Attachment 2.

(c)    State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

No triggers for any further assessment.

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

 No triggers for any further assessment.

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

No triggers for any further assessment.

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

The proposal is defined as ‘shop top housing’ under the provisions of HLEP 2013. Shop top housing is permitted with consent in the B6 – Enterprise Corridor land zone which applies to the land. The proposed modification does not change land use as approved on the subject site.

The following table sets out the FSR non-compliance sought as part of the subject modification application:

Control

Required

As Approved

Proposed

% Variation to previously approved FSR

Floor Space Ratio

2.2:1

Max. GFA permitted:

 

iv)         2.2:1 portion = Max. 3,349.5m²

v)            

vi)          

GFA = 3,700m²

 

FSR = 2.43:1

(23% of  bonus FSR under ARH SEPP )

GFA = 3,845.5m²

 

FSR = 2.53:1

(No additional bonus FSR is sought under ARH SEPP)

3.93%

 

(Additional GFA exceedance of 145.5m²)

The subject site has a total site area of 1522.5m² (as per DP), and a FSR of 2.2:1 applicable to the site.

It is noted that at the time of assessment of the original application, the approved development sought a bonus FSR of 23% under ARH SEPP 2009.

The modified proposal does not alter the approved building envelope. However, the subject application seeks to further exceed the FSR development standard as a result of enclosing the approved ground floor outdoor open area. The amendments will result in an increased gross floor area of the approved development and a variation to the FSR development standard, which are further discussed below:

Original application

The original application was required to provide 23% of Gross Floor Area (GFA) as affordable rental housing. Condition 139 of the original approval required 14 units to be dedicated as affordable housing. The combined area of these units is 850 m2 which is equivalent to 22.9% of the total GFA. 

Planning comment

The desirable approach will be to nominate additional units under affordable housing to compensate for the FSR exceedance under the subject application. However, this approach is not considered to be feasible noting all the units have already been sold and are currently under individual ownership.

Having regard to the above, the subject modification with minor variation to previously approved FSR (3.93%) is considered to be supportable in this instance.  The outdoor open area as approved under the original application was associated with ground floor commercial tenancy 1. However, it was not considered to be a desirable design outcome, noting it failed to provide a pleasant and safe open space with regard to accessibility and surveillance. Considering its location, directly facing the Great Western Highway, this space was not considered a feasible area for the users as it provided poor amenity including noise and pollution from the adjoining highway as illustrated in the figure below.   In addition, it did not contribute to enhance the streetscape character and amenity in terms of provision of passive and recreational opportunities and failed to provide an attractive commercial façade.

With regard to the above, it is considered that enclosing the outdoor open area will result in a better planning outcome as it will provide for a larger and more viable functional floor space for commercial tenancy 1 as illustrated in the figure below:

 

The modified proposal does not alter the approved building envelope, and as such represents a comparable bulk and scale with the approved development, and that anticipated for the immediate area and changing streetscape.

In addition, the modified proposal does not adversely impact upon the residential amenity of future occupants and neighbouring properties, with respect to overshadowing or privacy.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the development standard and with the objectives of the zone. As such, the exception in this instance can be supported.

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

(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.

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 commercial controls under Part C.

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

 

No.

Clause

Comment

Yes

No

N/A

PART A – GENERAL CONTROLS

3

Car Parking

3.1

Minimum Parking Spaces

Car Parking

Residential

Studio/1 b/r unit = 0.8 spaces

2 b/r unit = 1 space

Visitor = 0.2 spaces per unit

 

Required:

9 x 1 b/r = 7.2

33 x 2 b/r = 33

3 x 3 b/r = 3.6

 

0.2 x 45 = 9

 

Total required under DCP = 52.8 (53)

Total required under ARH SEPP = 42

 

 

Commercial

Ground Floor Leasable GFA

- 1 per 20m²

 

Shop 1 = 444/20 = 22.2

 

Total commercial spaces required for shop 1 required = 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provided  under the original application:

56 spaces provided (including 9 visitor)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provided under the original application:

 

Shop1 =11 commercial spaces

(shortfall of 11 car spaces)

 

 

Refer to the discussion below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parking non- compliance

The original application approved 71 car spaces for the development with 15 cars spaces allocated to the two commercial premises. Tenancy 1 has 11 allocated on-title car spaces. Whilst the proposal’s provision of 11 parking spaces (shop 1) results in a shortfall of 11 spaces, the variation to the parking spaces can be supported on merits.

The applicant has provided the following justification to the parking non-compliance:

·     The site is located within a mixed use area surrounded by medium to high residential land uses, accordingly, a majority of members will be drawn from the immediate locality including lunchtime and after work users associated with existing business activities as well as a number of local residents who could walk to the site.

·     It is anticipated that most patrons will be either living or working (or both) within locality would have travelled to the area for several purposes rather than just specifically driving to the gym therefore not requiring to specifically park on the site.

·     There are numerous on-street car parking spaces in the area that could accommodate any potential parking overflow during the peak hours that are outside the general business hours of surrounding business land uses.

It is pertinent to note that the site is located within an accessible area i.e.; directly adjacent to the Transit-way within 200 metres of a Transit-way stop and therefore provides an opportunity to utilise public transport as well.

In addition, any future DA for the ‘use’ of the commercial tenancy will impose conditions regarding the intensity of the use and restricting the number of patrons.

Given the above reasons, the proposed variation to the minimum number of carparking spaces provisions contained in the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP 2013) is considered acceptable.

Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

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

The provisions of the Regulations

The regulations do not proscribe any relevant matters for consideration.

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

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

The likely impacts of the development

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

The suitability of the site for the development

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.


 

Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation

Advertised (newspaper)           Mail            Sign             Not Required  

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified from 17 April 2019 to 8 May 2019. No submissions were received in response.

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 was imposed on the original consent requiring the payment of contributions. However, the value of the contributions for the commercial component will increase as a result of the proposed modifications.

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

·    258m2 of commercial gross floor area x $25 = $6,450

The draft determination at Attachment 5 includes a recommendation for imposition of an additional condition to reflect the updated contributions.

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.

Conclusion:

The modification application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, 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.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

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

Communication / Publications:

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

 

Report Recommendation:

 

That DA 2015/12/3 which seeks consent for enclosing the approved ground floor terrace facing Great Western Highway within an approved shop top housing development pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 be approved subject to the conditions within the draft notice of determination provided at Attachment 5.

 

Attachments

1.     SEPP (ARH) 2009 Compliance Table

2.     ADG Compliance Table

3.     HLEP 2013 Compliance Table

4.     HDCP 2013 Compliance Table

5.     S4.55 Draft Notice of Determination

6.     S4.55 Architectural Plans

7.     Original Consent – DA 2015/12/1

8.     Approved Ground Floor Plan –DA 2015/12/1

9.     Locality Map  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP037/19

Attachment 1

SEPP (ARH) 2009 Compliance Table


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP037/19

Attachment 2

ADG Compliance Table


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP037/19

Attachment 3

HLEP 2013 Compliance Table


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP037/19

Attachment 4

HDCP 2013 Compliance Table


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP037/19

Attachment 5

S4.55 Draft Notice of Determination


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP037/19

Attachment 6

S4.55 Architectural Plans


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP037/19

Attachment 7

Original Consent – DA 2015/12/1


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP037/19

Attachment 8

Approved Ground Floor Plan –DA 2015/12/1


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP037/19

Attachment 9

Locality Map


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 22 May 2019


Extraordinary Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

22 May 2019

 

 

Item No: ELPP038/19

Development Application for 9-11 Lytton Street, Wentworthville

Responsible Division:                  Environment & Planning

Officer:                                      Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                              DA 2018/486/1  

 

 

Application lodged

19 December 2018

Applicant

Urbanlink Architects

Owner

Mr M M Shende and Ms B Pei

Application No.

2018/486/1

Description of Land

9-11 Lytton Street, Wentworthville

Proposed Development

Demolition of existing structures and Construction of a four (4) Storey residential flat building comprising 20 units over basement parking for 28 vehicles

Site Area

1682m²

Zoning

R4 High Density Residential

Principal Development Standards

Floor Space Ratio:

Max. 1.0:1 (GFA of 1682m²)

Proposed 1.0:1 (GFA of 1680.9m²)

 

Height of Buildings:

Max. 12.5m

Proposed Max. 12.45m

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

·     Vehicular Crossing Side Setback (HDCP 2013)

·     Car Wash Bay Provision (HDCP 2013)

·     Maximum number of storeys limit (HDCP 2013)

·     Bin Storage (HDCP 2013)

Summary:

1.     On 19 December 2018, development application (DA 2018/486) for the demolition of existing structures and Construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building comprising 20 units over basement parking for 28 vehicles 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 20 February 2019 to 13 March 2019. In response, the application received no submissions.

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

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

Control

Required

Proposed

% Variation

Vehicular Crossing Side Setback

·        1.5m

1m

40%

Car Wash Bay

·        1

0

100%

Maximum Building Storey Limit

3 Storeys

(HDCP 2013)

4 Storeys

33.3%

5.     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.

6.     The application is recommended for Deferred Commencement approval subject to the conditions in the draft determination at Attachment 4.

Report:

Introduction

The subject site is known as 9-11 Lytton Street, Merrylands, and is legally described as Lot 7 in DP739557 and Lot 5 in DP734364. The site has an area of 1682m2 and frontage of 30.48m to Lytton Street. The property is relatively flat with a fall of approximately 1m from the front to rear of the property. The property is currently occupied by detached dwelling houses, ancillary structures and vegetation.

The subject site and neighbouring allotments are zoned R4 – High Density Residential. Properties located on the eastern side of Lytton Street are zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential and R2 – Low Density Residential. To the west (rear) of the site is Lytton Street Park which is zone RE1 – Public Recreation. The existing streetscape on Lytton Street is diverse with a transition of some lots from detached residential dwellings, older residential flat buildings and commercial premises. There is a transition occurring currently with higher density zoned sites being developed into residential flat buildings.

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

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

Figure 3 – No. 9 Lytton Street. Source: Google 2019

Figure 4 – No. 11 Lytton Street. Source: Google 2019

Description of The Proposed Development

DA 2018/486, proposes for the demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising 20 units over basement parking for 28 vehicles.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

Level

Details

Basement

28 residential car spaces (including 3 accessible parking spaces)

12 bicycle spaces

Storage, plant room, lift and fire stairs

 

Ground floor level

5 residential units

Enclosed bin collection area

Communal open space

Level 1

5 residential units

Level 2

5 residential units

Level 3

5 residential units

Access to the basement car park is provided from a new vehicular crossing proposed on the northern side of the subject site.

The dwelling mix of the proposal is as follows:

·        2 x 1-bedroom units (10%)

·        17 x 2-bedroom units (85%)

·        1 x 3-bedroom units (5%)

Figure 5 – Perspective of proposed development – Lytton Street frontage

Application History

Date

Action

19 December 2018

The subject development application (DA 2018/486) was lodged with Council.

12 February 2019

The application was referred to the following internal and external sections:

·    Development Engineering

·    Traffic Engineering

·    Landscape and Tree Management

·    Parks and Buildings

·    Rates & Street Numbering

·    Waste Management

·    Transgrid

·    Endeavour Energy

20 February 2019 to 13 March 2019

Application placed on public notification. In response, no submissions were received.

22 May 2019

Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

Statement of Environmental Effects dated 12 December 2018, prepared by Mark Boutros at Pragma Planning 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 with regards to the proposed new vehicular crossing and stormwater management, subject to deferred commencement 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 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 impact of the development on the trees at 23-27 Lytton Street requires further detail and this is managed by way of deferred commencement conditions.

Parks and Buildings

The development application was referred to Council’s Parks and Buildings team for comment in regards to the site backing on to Lytton Street Park. They advised that the development is supportable in regards to the impact of the proposal on the adjoining Council Park (Lytton Street Park), subject to conditions.

Waste Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that there are concerns with the subject development application in regards to provision of bin tug, bin storage room, and waste collection and management plan. These concerns are discussed in further detail below in the HDCP2013 section and have been managed by way of deferred commencement 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

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 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 9 design quality principles. The development has adequately addressed the principles in the following way:

Figure 6 – SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles Table

ADG design quality principle

Response

1. Context and neighbourhood character

The area is designed to accommodate new development, including residential flat building that is a permitted type of development within the R4 zone. The existing character of the streetscape is in transition where existing dwelling houses are being replaced with higher densities development, such as residential flat buildings. The proposed development satisfies Holroyd LEP 2013 objectives in that it will provide a variety of housing type within a high density environment. The siting of development has been appropriately designed to minimise any potential overshadowing and visual privacy impact to the adjoining properties by maintaining a buffer area at the rear and side boundaries for communal open space.

2. Built form and scale

The development application is seeking consent for a 4 storey residential flat buildings over one level of basement car parking. The building has been designed to correspond with the existing landform. At grade communal open space will assist in softening the built form and minimise any potential overshadowing and visual privacy impact to the adjoining properties.

3. Density

The proposed development complies with the permitted FSR and Building Height.

4. Sustainability

A BASIX Certificate and relevant reports have been submitted with the development application. The certificates require sustainable development features to be installed into the development. The proposal will incorporate features relating to ESD in the design and construction of the development inclusive of water efficient fixtures and energy saving devices.

5. Landscape

Landscaped area of 447.56m² (26.6% of the site) has been provided, which will provide appropriate level of amenity to the resident and consistent with the environmental surrounds of the subject site.

6. Amenity

The proposal will deliver sufficient amenity to residents of the building. The proposal achieves compliance with the ADG in this regard which contains many amenity controls. The building design incorporates access and circulation, apartment layouts, floor area, ceiling height, private open space, common open space, energy efficiency rating, adaptability and diversity, safety, security and site facilities. The proposal is considered to generally comply with the ADG and HDCP 2013 which contains numerous amenity controls. Suitable access is provided to all parts of the building, through the efficient use of lift to access all levels. The development is considered to provide an appropriate level of amenity for future residents.

7. Safety

Suitable and secure access is provided to all parts of the building, through the efficient use of lift to access all levels.

8. Housing diversity and social interaction

The apartment mix is considered to be satisfactory. The specifics of the building are:-

2 x 1 bedroom apartments.

17 x 2 bedroom apartments.

1 x 3 bedroom apartments.

The number of adaptable units proposed is considered satisfactory with the provision of associated accessible car spaces.

9. Aesthetics

The residential flat building has an attractive contemporary appearance and utilises building elements that provide individuality to the development without compromising the streetscape or detracting from the appearance of existing surrounding development. The building responds well in this regard with its provision of good aesthetics through the use of high quality materials, attention to detail in its internal spaces and how it addresses the street frontage. The building provides an appropriate response to the existing and likely future character of the locality.

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 compliant with the development standards and controls. A comprehensive assessment against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls is provided at Attachment 1.

(b)    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 and TransGrid for comment, who raised no objections, subject to recommendations.

(c)    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.  

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

BASIX certificate 983618M dated 12 December 2018 was submitted with the original plans. The submitted BASIX certificate achieves target scores and is consistent with the architectural plans. Conditions of Consent have been applied requiring adherence to the BASIX Certificate requirements.

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

(f)    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.

Clause

Yes

No

N/A

Comment

4.3   Height of buildings

 

The height of a building on the subject site is not to exceed the maximum height of 12.5m.

 

 

 

 

The proposal complies with this maximum building height with the highest point measuring at 12.45m.

4.4   Floor space ratio

 

The maximum floor space ratio for a building on the subject site is not to exceed 1.0:1.

 

 

Max. FSR of 1.0:1 equates to GFA of 1682m²

 

Provided GFA = 1680.9m²

FSR = 1:1

The proposal complies with the maximum building height development standard of 12.5m and the maximum floor space ratio development standard of 1:1.

An assessment against all the relevant LEP provisions is provided at Attachment 2.

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.

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 1.5m setback from side property boundaries

Min. 1m provided to northern boundary. Whilst significantly less than the required 1.5m this proposal is considered appropriate as the setback accommodates appropriate screen planting and allows for an appropriate location for the vehicular crossing, so as not to be at the junction with Jordan Street or adjacent to the vehicular crossing for 23-27 Lytton Street. Furthermore, Council’s Traffic Engineers have not raised any concerns in regards to sightlines or other provisions with this setback non-compliance.

No – Acceptable in this instance.

Car Wash Bay (1)

None provided, whilst a condition could be applied to provide one, it is likely that such a condition would result in an increase to the basement footprint which would in turn decrease the provision of deep soil area on site. Accordingly, it is not considered essential to require strict compliance with this control and the departure is considered acceptable in this instance.

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 – 12.5 metres – 3 storeys

 

The proposal is 4 storeys in height, and exceeds the maximum number of storeys permitted, however the proposed development complies with the maximum building height permitted on site as per the HELP 2013 development standard.

 

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. Furthermore despite the departure in number of storeys the development is able to satisfy the minimum floor to ceiling height clearances required under the ADG.

 

The building is adequately articulated along the Lytton Street, street frontage and results in a building form which mitigates the majority of possible impacts on adjoining sites. The proposal is considered to be compatible with the existing and changing streetscape, including the commercial cantilevered building adjacent to the property at 23-27 Lytton Street. 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.

Bin storage must:

·     Be located behind the building line and screened from the street and any public place.

·     Be accessible and relatively close to each dwelling.

·     Not impact upon the amenity of adjoining premises or dwellings within the development, i.e. odour.

 

Allow for unobstructed access that does not exceed a grade of 1:8 for bins to be wheeled to the collection point.

A garbage and bulky waste room is provided on the ground floor of the proposed development. The proposed bin storage room does not provide direct access to the 5 units on the ground floor, whereas levels 1-3 have direct access via the staircase.

 

As such, Schedule A conditions have been proposed which require access for all units. Furthermore, conditions relating to the design of the bin enclosure have been included as per the Waste Officer’s referral:

·    The applicant needs to design an enclosed bin storage room behind the front building line which can accommodate 12 x 240 litre garbage and 7 x 240 litre recycling bins

·    The applicant can also consider having an enclosed bin storage on Basement Level. For this provision to occur, the bin tug must be made available. The bin tug must be stored in the bin storage room and clearly demonstrated in the Architectural Plans

The applicant is to determine how best to satisfy these by way of revised architectural plans.

No – Schedule A Deferred Commencement Conditions to ensure compliance

Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

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

The provisions of the Regulations

The regulations do not proscribe any relevant matters for consideration.

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

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

The likely impacts of the development

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

The suitability of the site for the development

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation

Advertised (newspaper)            Mail              Sign                  Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified from 20 February 2019 to 13 March 2019. As a result of the notification, no submissions were received.

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 Wentworthville Centre contribution area, the following contributions apply:

·        2 x 1-bedroom dwellings = $17,423.27

·        17 x 2-bedroom dwellings  = $250,459.42

·        1 x 3-bedroom dwellings = $20,000

·        Credit for the existing 2 x 3-bedroom dwellings = $40,000

The required Section 7.11 contribution payable for the proposal is $247,882.68.

The Public Interest

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

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

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

Conclusion:

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, 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.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

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

Communication / Publications:

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

 

Report Recommendation:

1.     That Development Application 2018/486/1 for which seeks consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building comprising 20 units over basement parking for 28 vehicles, be Approved via Deferred Commencement, subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 4.

2.     That the applicant be notified of the determination of the application.