Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019

A meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30am at the Merrylands Administration Building, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands on Wednesday, 12 June 2019.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.      Receipt of Apologies

2.      Confirmation of Minutes

3.      Declarations of Interest

4.      Address by invited speakers

5.      Reports:

          -        Development Applications

          -        Planning Proposals

6.      Closed Session Reports

 

 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

LPP039/19... Development Application for 20-24 Bridge Street, Lidcombe....................... 5

LPP040/19... Development Application for 9 McCredie Road, Guildford West............ 169

LPP041/19... Development Application for Adjacent to 28A Campbell Street, Berala. 309

LPP042/19... Development Application for Adjacent to 174 Woodburn Road, Berala 369

LPP043/19... Development Application for 14 Hilltop Road, Merrylands....................... 439

 

 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

12 June 2019

 

Item No: LPP039/19

Development Application for 20-24 Bridge Street, Lidcombe

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                                    DA-263/2018  

 

 

Application lodged

29-Aug-2018

Applicant

Moma Architects

Owner

Y L Pty Limited and Bridge Street Projects Pty Ltd

Application No.

DA-263/2018

Description of Land

20-24 Bridge Street, LIDCOMBE, Lot 692 DP 557863, Lot 691 DP 557863

Proposed Development

Demolition of existing structures and the construction of an 11 storey shop top housing development, comprising of 3 commercial tenancies and 60 residential units over 4 levels of basement parking and lot consolidation

Site Area

1095.68m2

Zoning

Zone B4 Mixed Use

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

No

Issues

Height, deep soil zone, building separation, floor to ceiling height, podium level private open space

Summary:

1.      Development Application No.DA-263/2018 was received on 29-Aug-2018 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of an 11 storey shop top housing development, comprising of 3 commercial tenancies and 60 residential units over 4 levels of basement parking and lot consolidation.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 11 September 2018 and 25 September 2018. In response, one submission were received. The application was renotified for a period of 14 days between 8 and 22 January 2019 and one re-submission was received.

3.      The key variations to the planning controls are as follows:

 

Control

Required

Provided

% variation

Height

36m

37.5m

4.2%

Building separation

[Note: taken to be half the minimum separation distance measured to the boundary to distribute the building separation equally between sites.]

 

 

 

Up to 4 storeys (approximately 12m):

·   12m between habitable rooms/balconies;

5 to 8 storeys (approximately 25m):

·   18m between habitable rooms/balconies;

9+ storeys (over 25m):

·   24m between habitable rooms/balconies;

Main non-compliances to the southern side are as follows:

Level 1 – 4 = 5.555m

 

 

 

 

 

Levels 5 – 8 = 5.5m

 

 

 

 

 

Levels 9+ = 5.555 to 11.02m

 

 

 

 

 

7.4%

 

 

 

 

 

38.9 %

 

 

 

 

 

8.2 to 53.7%

 

 

Deep soil zone

7% (76.7sqm)

Nil

100%

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

5.      The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal is considered to be sensitive development as it relates to a development to which SEPP65 applies and is 4 or more storeys.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site is identified as Lot 691 and 692 DP 557863, known as 20-24 Bridge Street, Lidcombe. The subject site is located on the western side of Bridge Street between Vaughan Street to the south and New Street to the north. The site is irregular in shape with an eastern front boundary measuring 39.4 m, western rear boundary measuring 30.77m and southern side boundary measuring 47.38 m and northern secondary boundary to New Street measuring 23.522m. The site has an area of 1095.68 m2 and is generally flat.

20 Bridge Street is occupied by a single storey retail shop and 22-24 Bridge Street is occupied by a two-storey commercial building with at grade parking accessed from Bridge Street.

The subject site is adjoined mixed use and commercial development to the south, the Renaissance reception and event centre to the west, Lidcombe Library and the commuter carpark to the north and east. Lidcombe railway station lies to the north-east and the rail line and Bridge St Gardens is to the north of the site. The site is within the Lidcombe Town Centre and is characterised by a variety of residential developments including commercial and mixed commercial / residential development.

 

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for demolition of existing structures and the construction of an 11 storey shop top housing development, comprising of 3 commercial tenancies and 60 residential units over 4 levels of basement parking and lot consolidation and includes:

·        Summary of components within the mixed use building including:-

i)                

o 3 commercial tenancies on the ground floor

o Total of 60 x 2 bedroom units (all units are 2 bedroom units)

o 6 adaptable units - Units 01 on levels 1 to 6 are adaptable units

o 74 car parking spaces to support all uses

The detailed breakdown of the proposal is as below:

Demolition

·        Demolition of all existing structures on the site including commercial buildings, shops and at-grade parking.

·        Removal of vegetation from site.

Construction

Basement 4:

·        19 resident car parking spaces (including 1 accessible space)

·        36 residential storage areas

·        Main switch room

·        Two stairs and two lifts have been provided to access the levels above.

Basement 3:

·        18 resident car parking spaces (including 2 accessible spaces)

·        12 residential storage spaces

·        Communication room

·        Two stairs and two lifts have been provided to access the levels above.

Basement 2:

·        14 resident car parking spaces (including 3 accessible spaces)

·        4 visitor spots for the residential component

·        12 residential storage spaces

·        Central hot water plant room

·        Two stairs and two lifts have been provided to access the levels above.

Basement 1:

·        5 commercial car parking spaces (including 1 accessible space)

·        8 visitor parking spaces

·        6 residential car parking spaces.

·        Hyrdrant pump room

·        12 bicycle parking spaces

·        Two stairs and two lifts have been provided to access the levels above.

Ground level:

·        3 commercial premises oriented to Bridge Street

·        Separate commercial and residential garbage rooms, bulky waste storage in the residential garbage room and a waste loading bay with access to New Street East.

·        Commercial amenities

·        Separated residential lobby

·        Accessible pedestrian ramp from street

Level 1:

·        6 x 2 bedroom units, each with ensuite, bathroom, laundry, storage, balcony and open kitchen / living / dining. Southern unit 6 has 2 balconies, one to the east and west.

·        Unit 01 is adaptable and Unit 05 is silver level

·        South-western communal circulation and open space.

Level 2 to 6 (on each level):

·        6 x 2 bedroom units, each with ensuite, bathroom, laundry, storage, balcony and open kitchen / living / dining. Southern unit 6 has 2 balconies, one to the east and west.

·        Unit 01 is adaptable and Unit 05 is silver level

Level 7 to 10 (on each level):

·        6 x 2 bedroom units, each with ensuite, bathroom, laundry, storage, balcony and open kitchen / living / dining. Southern unit 6 has 2 balconies, one to the east and west.

Open circulation is provided to the communal corridors.

Roof:

·        Landscaped communal open space with BBQ area, seating and shade sails.


 

History

Site History

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

·        PL-6/2018: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 10 storey building comprising 4 commercial tenancies, 70 residential apartments and basement parking – completed 6 April 2018

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects in support of the application prepared by Think Planners dated 27 August 2018 which was received by Council on 29 August 2018.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal may be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent including conditions related to requiring an updated flood impact report and stormwater plans as well as other stormwater drainage and parking design conditions.

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to imposition of recommended conditions of consent, if supported. These conditions include requirements for amended plans demonstrating provisions for mechanical ventilation of cooking equipment for ground floor shops which vents and extends through the rooftop.

Landscape Architect

The development application was referred to Council’s Landscape Architect for comment who has advised that the landscape plan is satisfactory.

External Referrals

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

Planning Comments

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

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

 

Matter for Consideration

Yes/No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site?

acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:

 

The subject development has been supported by a Detailed Site Investigation, rep E23835.E02_Rev2, prepared by eiaustralia and dated 13 September 2018. The report concluded that soils are suitable for the proposed development subject to recommendations in section 12 of the report. The application was referred to Council’s Environment Health Officers for comment that raised no concerns to the subject development and supporting documentation, subject to the imposition of conditions. Specifically the following;

 

·    Demolition of buildings and then excavation of site soils is to be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations contained at Section 12 of the Detailed Site Investigation Report prepared by EI Australia, their reference E23835.E02_Rev2 dated 13 September 2018.

 

Council officers can therefore be satisfied that the provisions of Clause 7 of the SEPP have been satisfactorily addressed and consent can be granted.

Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?

 Yes  No

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

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

Clause 87 – Impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development and Clause 102 – Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development

The site is approximately 90m from the Lidcombe railway corridor to the north and 15m from Olympic Drive to the west which is a classified road with annual average daily traffic volume of more than 20,000 vehicles. The application is subject to clause 87 and 102 of the ISEPP as it is likely to be adversely affected by rail and road noise or vibration. The applicant has submitted an Acoustic Assessment, ref 20180613.1/1206A/R1/JL, rev 1, and a supplementary letter regarding ventilation of sole occupancy rooms, ref 20180613.1/2009A/R0/JL, dated 20/09/2018, both prepared by Acoustic Logic (T072585/2018 and T065888/2018) to determine appropriate measures which need to be taken to protect residential amenity. As part of the assessment, consideration was given to the ISEPP and Department of Planning’s Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines and the required residential noise levels which are to be achieved. Section 4.3 of the report provided construction recommendations including glazing and door, external wall, ventilation and roof materials and design to ensure that the noise levels in the SEPP and relevant guidelines are achieved. The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health officers for comment and no objections were raised subject to conditions to comply with the acoustic report recommendations and certification of acoustic constructions. It is therefore considered that appropriate measures will be taken to comply with ISEPP requirements for residential noise amenity.

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

N/A – No significant vegetation removal is proposed. Only some small shrubs in planters exist on site.

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

The subject site is not identified as a coastal wetland or land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands” or land identified as such by the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforest Area Map.

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

BASIX Certificate 952517M_03 dated issued on 17 April 2019 prepared by Outsource Ideas P/l has been submitted with Council and is considered to be satisfactory. The BASIX Certificate lists measures to satisfy BASIX requirements which have been incorporated into the proposal.  If supported, a standard condition is recommended ensuring the measures detailed in the BASIX Certificate are implemented.

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

SEPP 65 applies to the residential flat building part of the development as the building is 3 storeys or more, and contains more than 4 dwellings. A design statement addressing the 9 design quality principles prescribed by SEPP 65 was prepared by the project architect and submitted. Integral to SEPP 65 is the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which sets benchmarks for the appearance, acceptable impacts and residential amenity of the development as shown below. A full assessment is in attachment 5.

 

Design Criteria

Compliance

Comment

2F Building Separation

Separation - Building separation is measured from the outer face of building envelopes which includes balconies

Note: Where applying separation to buildings on adjoining sites, apply half the minimum separation distance measured to the boundary. This distributes the building separation equally between sites.

9+ storeys (over 25m):

·    24m between habitable rooms/balconies;

·    18m between habitable and nonhabitable rooms; and

·    12m between nonhabitable rooms

No – acceptable

 

On the ground floor, the proposal is built to the boundary which is supportable as there are no openings facing adjoining sites on this level and given the town centre location, a nil setback is acceptable to support ground floor commercial, associated amenities and parking, loading and waste access.

Above the ground floor, the residential units are built to the boundary which can be supportable given the town centre location. Blade wall extensions have been provided along the southern and western walls to provide additional privacy from future development. The development is in an L-shaped formation surrounding a podium courtyard. Future development is anticipated to adopt a similar layout.

Other non-compliances at podium level 1, include stair 3, which is setback 5.555m from the southern boundary. No objections are raised with this as there are no windows proposed along the southern side of stair 3.

The non-compliance of stair 3 carries through the upper levels and in addition, parts of the open circulation areas (which are treated as habitable spaces) do not meet the minimum 12m setback requirement to the southern boundary. Thus to address the privacy impacts arising from this, timber tone batten privacy screens are provided along parts of the circulation corridor to address the non-compliance which is considered satisfactory.

Objective 3B-2

Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during mid-winter

Yes – acceptable

As the subject site is located to the north of the street block, overshadowing of adjoining development is unavoidable. However, the shadow impacts are considered acceptable as it is anticipated by the building envelope envisaged by the development standards. It is noted that there is a minor height non-compliance, however, the areas of non-compliance have been setback from the southern boundary to minimise adverse shadow impacts to adjoining sites and thus is acceptable. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted shadow diagrams comparing a height compliant scheme against the proposal which demonstrates that there are negligible additional shadow impacts arising from the height non-compliance. The shadow will move from overshadowing the function centre and Olympic Drive in the morning to mainly shadowing the mid-block open hardstand parking area and then will move over the low scale mixed commercial development fronting Bridge Street in the afternoon. As the shadow moves throughout the day in midwinter, future development to the south will likely have sufficient solar access either in the morning or afternoon.

3D Communal and public open space

COS should have a minimum dimension of 3m.

Where COS cannot be provided at ground level, it should be provided on a podium or roof.

Objective 3D-1

An adequate area of communal open space is provided to enhance residential amenity and to provide opportunities for landscaping

Design criteria

·    Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)

·    Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter)

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

The communal open space includes bbq areas, seating, pergolas and suitable landscaping for the enjoyment of residents.

 

 

Proposed common open space = 750.1m2 (68.5%) (inclusive of 230.5sqm on the level 1 podium and the remainder being on the roof top)

69.27% of the common open space, being that located on the roof, receives solar amenity throughout the day in midwinter.

3E Deep soil zones

Objective 3E-1

Deep soil zones provide areas on the site that allow for and support healthy plant and tree growth. They improve

residential amenity and promote management of water and air quality

Design criteria

1. Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

No – acceptable

Nil proposed.

The non-compliance is considered acceptable given the Town Centre nature of the site as the need to provide a functional basement carpark and commercial uses at ground floor makes the deep soil requirements difficult to achieve.

 

The proposal does however, propose a substantial area of landscaped common space upon at various levels including level 1 podium and roof top which is considered acceptable.

3F Visual privacy

Separation - Building separation is measured from the outer face of building envelopes which includes balconies

Note: Where applying separation to buildings on adjoining sites, apply half the minimum separation distance measured to the boundary. This distributes the building separation equally between sites.

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved.

Adjoining a different zone with a less density, add 3.0m.

Retail, office spaces and commercial balconies use habitable room separation.

No separation is required between blank walls.

Objective 3F-1

Adequate building separation distances are shared equitably between neighbouring sites, to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy

Design criteria

1. Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations

depending on the type of room (see figure 3F.2)

Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties

No – acceptable

 

 

 

 

 

No – acceptable

 

 

 

 

 

See discussion under 2F. Visual privacy has been addressed through privacy screening where there is insufficient building separation.

 

 

 

Objective 3F-2

Site and building design elements increase privacy without compromising access to light and air and balance outlook and views from habitable rooms and private open space

Yes

A combination of privacy screening, highlight windows and landscaping have been employed at the interface of residential units and public circulation/ communal areas at the podium level and above. Windows have been provided where possible to improve ventilation, provide outlook and maximise solar access to habitable spaces on the residential levels.

3J Bicycle and car parking

Objective 3J-1

Car parking is provided based on proximity to public transport in metropolitan Sydney and centres in regional areas

Design criteria

1. For development in the following locations:

·    on sites that are within 800 metres of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or

·    on land zoned, and sites within 400 metres of land zoned, B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use or equivalent in a nominated regional centre

the minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less

The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

The ADG requires parking to be provided for the residential component as follows:

 

60 x 2br (0.9/unit) = 54 spaces are required

12 visitor spaces required (0.2/unit)

 

Total required: 66 spaces required

Total provided: 69 residential and visitor spaces provided

 

There is sufficient parking provision on site to accommodate both residential and commercial uses on site as discussed under the DCP (see Appendices).

 

4A Solar and daylight access

Objective 4A-1

To optimise the number of apartments receiving sunlight to habitable rooms, primary windows and private open space

Design criteria

1. Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas

2. In all other areas, living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter

3. A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

The proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with the Solar and Daylight Access objectives as the orientation of units to the street, being to the north and east, allows for daylight infiltration. In this regard, all units, living areas and the main private open space receives at least 2 hours sunlight mid-winter.

 

 

 

 

 

4B Natural ventilation

Objective 4B-3

The number of apartments with natural cross ventilation is maximised to create a comfortable indoor environment for residents

Design criteria

1. At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building. Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed

2. Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83.3% of units are naturally cross ventilated (50/60 units)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4C Ceiling heights

Objective 4C-1

Ceiling height achieves sufficient natural ventilation and daylight access

Design criteria

1. Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are:

These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired

Yes

 

 

 

No – acceptable

 

Sections have been provided showing that a 2.7m floor to ceiling height is achieved for the residential units. However, the ground floor use only provides 3.1m floor to ceiling. This minor non-compliance can be supported given the raised nature of the site due to flooding and the current exceedance in building height. The minor non-compliance will still result in sufficient floor to ceiling heights to accommodate commercial uses on the ground floor.

 

4E Private open space and balconies

Objective 4E-1

Apartments provide appropriately sized private open space and balconies to enhance residential amenity

Design criteria

1. All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m

2. For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15m2 and a minimum depth of 3m

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – acceptable

The shape and arrangement of the balconies support flexibility in private recreation.

 

 

 

 

All primary balconies meet the minimum required depth of 2m for 2 bedroom units and annotations on plans show that all balconies meet the minimum area of 10sqm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balconies facing the podium are secondary private open spaces accessed off bedrooms and a compliant balcony is provided which is oriented to the street. This is preferred in order to manage amenity at the interface of the balcony with the podium communal open space.

Local Environmental Plans

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP)

The provisions of Auburn LEP 2010 are applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development generally achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements and zone objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone which seek to:

·        To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

·        To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

·        To encourage high density residential development.

·        To encourage appropriate businesses that contribute to economic growth.

·        To achieve an accessible, attractive and safe public domain.

The proposal is well located within walking distance of Lidcombe railway station and town centre. The mixed use development is considered appropriate within the zone as ground floor commercial assists in activating the town centre and expanding the commercial core of Lidcombe Town Centre. The proposed high density residential component is suitably located near transport, shops and services.

Permissibility:-

The proposal is defined as shop top housing, which is permitted with consent in the zone. Shop top housing means one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises.

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

Figure 4 – Auburn LEP 2010 Compliance Table

 

Provision

Compliance

Comment

Part 4 Principal development standards

4.3  Height of buildings

·    36m

No

The proposed height of 37.5m is non-compliant and a clause 4.6 exception to the development standards has been submitted with the application, as discussed in detail below.

4.4  Floor space ratio

·    5:1

Yes

The proposed FSR is 5:1 (2478sqm) as proposed.     

4.6  Exceptions to development standards

See discussion

The application is accompanied by a written request pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LEP to vary the height development standard. A detailed discussion of the variation to the development standard is presented below this table.

Part 6 Additional local provisions

6.1   Acid sulfate soils

·    Class 5

Yes

The proposed development does not involve the carrying of works within 500m of adjacent class 1-4 land that is below 5m AHD and by which the watertable is likely to be lowered below 1m AHD. No further investigation is necessary in this instance.

6.2 Earthworks

Yes

Earthworks associated with the basement are proposed. The basement excavation is located within the boundaries of the site and is not considered to have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land. Standard conditions of consent will be imposed regarding the excavation. The proposal has been considered against the criteria of the Clause and is satisfactory, subject to conditions of consent.

6.3 Flood planning

Yes – conditioned

The application was referred internally to Council’s Engineers who has provided recommended conditions to be imposed to address the flood related issues which have been included in the draft conditions of consent.

The following is a detailed discussion of the issues identified in the compliance table above in relation to the Auburn LEP 2010.

Exceptions to Development Standards

Clause 4.3 Height of buildings

The proposal has an overall building height of 37.5m, which exceeds the height of buildings development standard of 36m prescribed under clause 4.3 of Auburn LEP 2010 by 1.5m or 4.2%.

A written request pursuant to clause 4.6 of Auburn LEP 2010 has been made, seeking to vary the development standard. The justification presented in the written request is summarised as follows:

·        The habitable floor space is contained below the maximum building height line and the development complies with the FSR provision which indicates that the variation is not to achieve additional development yield on site.

·        The height results from compliance with floor level requirements above the flood level and provision of rooftop common open space area.

·        The development is predominantly consistent with the building height except for a small portion of the roof form, lift over-run and structures associated with the communal open space areas within the roof level.

·        The development proposal is consistent with the intent of the height control with the primary portion of the height non-compliance limited to a parapet and lift overrun with all habitable floor space below the height limit.

·        The building incorporates high-quality design with articulated façades to its street frontages with a mixture of quality external finishes and materials. The proposal will contribute positively to the streetscape and visual amenity of the area.

·        The increased height is a response to flooding inundation.

·        The variation is minor and will be visually unnoticeable given its recessed location and will have no adverse impact on the physical bulk, height or scale of the development as viewed from the street.

·        The variation will not lead to a reduction in solar penetration on site or to adjoining properties nor will it lead to sunlight loss or overshadowing.

·        The proposed variation will not lead to a reduction in privacy afforded to existing residents or future residents of the proposal.

·        The proposal has been designed to comply with the maximum permitted FSR on the site and complies with key controls pertaining to setbacks, and car parking which indicates an appropriate scale of development on the site.

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

·        The proposal ensures that the mixed-use nature of the zone is retained with the proposal aiming to be consistent with the upscaling of the built form within the immediate locality and delivers a mixed-use development in proximity to public transport and expands the delivery of housing.

·        The proposal is responding to its prominence on a key corner. The departure from the height control is acceptable in the circumstances given the underlying objectives are achieved and it will not set an undesirable precedent for future development within the locality.

·        The proposed development meets the underlying intent of the control and is a compatible form of development that does not result in unreasonable environmental amenity impacts.

·        The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the surrounding locality in the context of the current planning controls, which is characterised by residential and mixed-use development of comparable height and character. The proposal promotes the economic use and development of the land consistent with its zone and purpose.

The relevant matters to be considered under clause 4.6 of the LEP are addressed below:

·    Clause 4.6 (3) (a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case,

The objectives of the height standard relevant to the proposal are:

(a)  to establish a maximum height of buildings to enable appropriate development density to be achieved, and

(b)  to ensure that the height of buildings is compatible with the character of the locality.

The heights nominated in the LEP are well considered and appropriate and provides for a higher height near the Olympic Drive corridor where the subject site is located. The non-compliance as identified in the applicant’s written statement is for a roof parapet, lift over-run and structures associated with the rooftop communal open space areas but confining the habitable spaces within the maximum height limit thus addressing the intention of the objectives. 

Given the overall height of the structure, the minor non-compliance is unlikely to have significant visual impact as viewed from the street and surrounding development. The proposal is considered to be compatible with the desired future character of the locality as assessed in this report. 

·    Clause 4.6 (3) (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

The proposal, as discussed above, is considered able to comply with the objectives of the height development standard as the majority of the height is compliant and the resulting built form responds to the desired character of the local area. It has been assessed in the report that the proposal has demonstrated that the scale of the development is able to preserve the environmental amenity of neighbouring properties and minimise adverse impacts on the amenity of the locality. The non-compliant roof structures also services and supports use of the roof top communal open space which enhances amenity for the residents of the development and is in a location supported by the ADG. The roof parapet to the architectural framing which exceeds the height standard can be supported as it is located on the northern elevation and thus is unlikely to result in significant additional amenity impact to adjoining sites. The area of non-compliance is also setback from the southern boundary thus mitigating adverse solar impacts to southern properties.

The proposal complies with the maximum allowable FSR and has a bulk and scale that addresses the streetscape corner, which is acceptable in terms of the requirements of the relevant controls. Accordingly it is considered there are sufficient planning grounds to justify contravening the standard in this instance.

·    Clause 4 (a) (i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

The applicant’s written request is considered to have adequately addressed the matters required under clause 4.6 and the proposal is considered able to meet the objectives of the standard.

·    Clause 4 (a) (ii)  the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest as it satisfies the objectives of the height standard, as discussed previously, and also the objectives of the zone (as discussed in the LEP table above). The proposal is considered to be in the public interest as the proposal seeks to replace low scale commercial with shop top housing consistent with the town centre environment. 

The objectives in the LEP indicate the future desired character of the area and the proposed building reflects that character. The proposal is generally consistent with the built form and scale of the future character of the town centre and the proposed building is of a contemporary form which is well articulated for visual interest. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the B4 zone. The applicant’s written request is considered to be satisfactory for the proposed development, considering the building has been designed to minimise adverse amenity impact upon the adjoining neighbours and the streetscape. Hence whilst the proposal exceeds the height standard, it is considered to be in the public interest given the above assessment.

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

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

(a)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

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

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

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

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

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

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

·    Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

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

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

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

A full ADCP 2010 analysis is attached as Attachment 6 to this report. The proposal complies with the requirements of the ADCP 2010, with the exception of the following issues in the Local Centres part, which are considered acceptable on merit as discussed below:

Figure 6 – Excerpts of non-compliances from Auburn DCP 2010 Local Centres part

 

Section

Control

Complies

Comment

2.0 Built Form

D1 Ceiling heights for the ground floor is to be a minimum of 3.6 metres

 

D3 Secure entries are to be provided to all entrances to private areas, including car parks and internal courtyards.

N

 

 

 

N

3.1m floor to ceiling height proposed for ground floor commercial. Non-compliance has been previously addressed under 4C of the ADG.

The proposal is generally considered to provide suitable security to all entries within the development with the exception of the loading dock. Conditions will be imposed to require the loading dock to be enclosed and be provided with a roller door at the entrance to improve security.

2.1 Number of storeys

D1 The minimum finished floor level (FFL) to finished ceiling level (FCL) shall be as follows:

·    3300mm for ground level (regardless of the type of development);

·    3300mm for all commercial/retail levels

N

3.1m floor to ceiling height proposed for ground floor commercial. Non-compliance has been previously addressed under 4C of the ADG.

2.2 Articulation and proportion

D6 Where development has two (2) street frontages the streetscape should be addressed by both facades.

N

The development is oriented to Bridge Street being the primary frontage whilst New Street has been utilised as a secondary frontage and accommodates parking and loading access. This is acceptable as New Street is a dead-end street and it is considered more appropriate to locate vehicular access from that street.

3.0 Streetscape and Urban form

D3 Development shall provide direct access between the footpath and the shop.

N

Ground floor shops are raised due to overland flow and flooding on the subject site preventing direct access between the shop and the footpath.

4.3 Awnings

D1 minimum soffit height of 3.2m and maximum of 4m

 

 

 

 

 

 

D2 Awning design must match building facades, be complementary to those of adjoining buildings and maintain continuity

N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

Soffit height of awning = 4.3m which exceeds the maximum. However this can be supported as the awning matches the slab level between the ground and first floor with the exceedance due to raised ground floor being in response to the flood affectation of the site.

The awning is higher than the awning to the southern adjoining neighbour, however this can be acceptable as the southern adjoining building is likely to be redeveloped in the future.

15.3 Active Frontage

D1 As a minimum, buildings shall provide active street frontages consistent with Figure 8.

N

Bridge Street has been provided as the active frontage as required, however New Street is not activated as space is required for basement and loading access as well as booster and these are considered appropriately located on New Street given that it is a cul-de-sac.

15.10          Site 5 - Bridge Street

D6 Outdoor dining shall be encouraged along Joseph Street and Bridge Street.

N

Outdoor dining cannot be accommodated due to the raised nature of the ground floor retail due to the flood affectation of the site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Advertised (newspaper)

Mail

Sign

Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Auburn DCP 2010, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 11 September 2018 and 25 September 2018 and renotified 8 and 22 January 2019. The original notification generated one submission from RMS who made a submission as an adjoining landowner, which is addressed below. Further letters from RMS in relation to the amended plans stated that they did not raise any issues with the modified proposal.

Figure 5 – Submissions summary table

 

Issue

Planners Comment

The layout of the proposed car parking areas associated with the subject development (including driveways, grades, turn paths, sight distance requirements, aisle widths, aisle lengths and, parking bay dimensions) should be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004.

Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the proposed parking, loading and access arrangements and have not raised any issues in relation to compliance with the Australian Standards.

All vehicles are to enter and exit the site in a forward direction

This has been achieved for the development and will be reinforced via conditions of consent.

A Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control should be submitted to Council for determination prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

This will be addressed via conditions of consent.

All works/regulatory signposting associated with the proposed development are to be at no cost to Roads and Maritime.

This will be addressed via conditions of consent.

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

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development, if carried out subject to the conditions set out in the recommendation below, will have no significant adverse impacts on the public interest.

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

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

Comments:

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

The calculation is based on:

·    60 x 2 bed

·    $845,480.90 employment generating development (commercial cost of works)

As at 17 May 2019, the fee payable is $383,274.02. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The draft determination attached includes a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

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

The proposed development is appropriately located within a B4 Mixed Use zone under the provisions of the Auburn LEP, however variations in relation to the height under the LEP is sought. Other minor non-compliances with the ADG and Council’s controls have been discussed in the body of this report.

Having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, Council may be satisfied that the development has been responsibly designed and provides for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents and satisfactorily incorporates ground floor commercial to activate the town centre location. It is considered that the proposal successfully minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Hence the development, irrespective of the departures noted in the report, is consistent with the intentions of Council’s planning controls and represents a form of development contemplated by the relevant statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the land.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the development may be approved subject to conditions.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

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

Communication / Publications:

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

 

Report Recommendation:

1.    That Development Application No. DA-263/2018 for demolition of existing structures and the construction of an 11 storey shop top housing development, comprising of 3 commercial tenancies and 60 residential units over 4 levels of basement parking and lot consolidation on land at 20-24 Bridge Street, Lidcombe be approved subject to attached conditions.

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

 

 

Attachments

1.      Draft Notice of Determination

2.      Architectural, Landscape and Survey Plans

3.      Stormwater/Engineering Plans

4.      Clause 4.6 – Exception to the Development Standards

5.      SEPP65 and Apartment Design Guide Assessment

6.      Development Control Plan Assessment

7.      Submissions Received  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP039/19

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP039/19

Attachment 2

Architectural, Landscape and Survey Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP039/19

Attachment 3

Stormwater/Engineering Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP039/19

Attachment 4

Clause 4.6 – Exception to the Development Standards


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP039/19

Attachment 5

SEPP65 and Apartment Design Guide Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP039/19

Attachment 6

Development Control Plan Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP039/19

Attachment 7

Submissions Received


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

12 June 2019

 

Item No: LPP040/19

Development Application for 9 McCredie Road, Guildford West

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                                    DA 2018/481/1  

 

 

Application lodged

17 December 2018

Applicant

Nabih Mannah

Owner

Danny Bourchdan & Raymond Bourchdan

Application No.

DA-2018/481/1

Description of Land

9 McCredie Road, Guildford West (Lots 59, 60 & 61, all Section 1, all DP 1210)

Proposed Development

Demolition of existing structures and construction of 3 x 2 storey attached dwellings

Site Area

Lot 59 – 199.4m2

Lot 60 – 197.5m2

Lot 61 -  195.6m2

(All by calculation)

Zoning

R3 Medium Density Residential Zone

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

No

Issues

Nil

Summary:

1.      Development Application No. DA-2018/481/1 was received on 17 December 2018 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of 3 x 2 storey attached dwellings.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining and opposite properties for a period of 21 days from 6 February 2019 to 27 February 2019. The development application was also advertised in the local newspaper with a site notice erected at the front of the site. In response, the application received 3 submissions.

3.      The variations sought for the proposal includes:

 

Control

Required

Provided

Variation

1.9 Maximum depth of cut outside the building envelope

 

 

 

C7. Cut is to be limited to 450mm where it is within 900mm of the rear or side boundaries.

 

 

 

 

A maximum cut depth of 750mm is proposed near the eastern rear side boundary.

 

 

 

 

66.6% Variation

 

The maximum depth of cut for the development which is approximately 750mm along the eastern rear boundary of the site (Lot 61) is considered acceptable. Having considered topographic conditions of the subject site, privacy of adjoining developments and soil management, the cut is considered appropriate in this instance. Following review of the proposal, Council’s Development Engineer raised no objections to the depth of cut in terms of stormwater runoff. Accordingly, there are no expected adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of soil loss, privacy, solar access or stormwater runoff.

4.3 Maximum external side wall height.

C2. The external side wall height shall be a maximum of 7 metres.

The proposal achieves a maximum external side wall height of 7.8m on the eastern elevation of the dwelling on Lot 61.

Variation – 11.43%

 

The proposed development achieves a maximum external side wall height of 7.8m on the eastern elevation. It is also noted that a maximum external side wall height of 7.6m representing a variation of 8.57% is proposed for the western elevation. The non-compliance is located in the front third of the development, the material impacts will be limited to minor overshadowing and visual impacts at the front sections of adjoining developments. Notwithstanding this, the development ensures compliant solar access and privacy for existing and future residents and the public domain. It also responds to the desired scale and character of the street and local area. Noting the impacts are minimal and the variation relatively minor, the non-compliance is considered reasonable in this instance.

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

5.      The application is referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel as one of the two owners of the subject site is a Council staff member.

Report:

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 9 McCredie Road, Guildford West. The site comprises of 3 lots and is legally described as Lot: 59 Section: 1 DP: 1210, Lot: 60 Section: 1 DP: 1210 and Lot: 61 Section: 1 DP: 1210.

The site is located on the northern side of McCredie Road within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The site comprises of 3 slightly irregular shaped allotments each with 6.745m frontages to McCredie Road and the following lot sizes:

·        Lot 59 - 199.4m2

·        Lot 60 – 197.5m2

·        Lot 61 - 195.6m2

The site currently contains a single storey dwelling house, a detached secondary dwelling and a detached garage. The site exhibits a cross fall of approximately 2metres from the north-western to the south-western corner of the site.

Adjoining developments to the subject site include a single storey dwelling house of brick finish to the east at No. 7A McCredie Road and a semi-detached dwelling to the west at Nos. 11 and 11A McCredie Road. Detached single storey and two storey dwellings also adjoin the site to the north and north-west off Guildford Road.


 

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site


 

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

Description of The Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for the Demolition of existing structures and construction of 3 x 2 storey attached dwellings.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

·        Demolition of existing structures on site including a single storey dwelling house, a detached secondary dwelling and a detached garage; and

·        Construction of 3 x 2 storey attached dwellings incorporating:

Ground Floor

·        Entry patio;

·        A single garage;

·        Toilet;

·        Laundry;

·        Walk in pantry (wip), storage;

·        Dining room/kitchen/living room; and

·        Outdoor alfresco/bbq area.

First Floor

·        A total of 4 bedrooms (including 1 bedroom with an ensuite and walk in robe);

·        Bathroom with toilet;

·        Rear balconies; and

·        Front balconies facing McCredie Road.

History

Date

Action

17 December 2018

The Development Application was lodged for the demolition of existing structures and construction of 3 x 2 storey attached dwellings.

30 January 2019

The Development Application was referred to Council’s internal Development Engineering, Environmental Health, Landscape and Rates departments for review.

6 February 2019 to 27 February 2019

Application was placed on public notification for 21 days. 3 submissions were received.

23 March 2019

Council issued a letter to the applicant, requesting design changes to the proposal.

12 June 2019

Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Nabih Mannah dated December 2018 and was received by Council on 17 December 2018 in support of the application.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to deferred commencement conditions.

Environmental Health Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.


 

Landscape

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

 

Rates – House Numbers

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

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

The site is not identified in Council’s records as being contaminated. A site inspection reveals the site does not have any obvious history of a previous land use that may have caused contamination and there is no specific evidence that indicates the site is contaminated. The subject site is currently used for residential purposes and contamination is not expected.

(b)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

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

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

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

The application is not subject to clause 85 of the ISEPP as the site is not in or adjacent to a rail corridor.

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

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

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

The application is not subject to clause 87 of the ISEPP as the site is not in or adjacent to a rail corridor nor is likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration:

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

The application is not subject to clause 101 of the ISEPP as the site does not have frontage to a classified road.

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

The application is not subject to clause 102 of the ISEPP as the average daily traffic volume is less than 20,000 vehicles on McCredie Road.

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

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

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

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

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

Yes – The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable. Please refer to the DCP compliance table for further discussion.

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

The subject site is not identified as a coastal wetland or land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands” or land identified as such by the Coastal Vulnerability Area Map.

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

BASIX Certificate Nos. 973962S, 974393S and 974502S all issued on 12 December 2018 have been submitted with Council. The BASIX Certificates have been reviewed and are considered to be satisfactory.


 

Local Environmental Plans

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013

The provisions of the HLEP 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the HLEP 2013 and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone.

·        Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a “attached dwelling” and is permissible in the R3 zone with consent.

attached dwelling means a building containing 3 or more dwellings, where:

(a)each dwelling is attached to another dwelling by a common wall, and

(b) each of the dwellings is on its own lot of land, and

(c) none of the dwellings is located above any part of another dwelling

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

Figure 4 – Holroyd LEP 2013 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

COMPLIANCE

DISCUSSION

4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

 

Min. 900sqm

N/A

The proposal does not propose subdivision of land.

4.3 Height of Buildings

 

Max. 9m

Yes

The maximum height is 8.1 metres

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

 

Max. 0.7:1 for each lot

Yes

Lot 59 – With a site area of 199.4m² the floor area is 139.3m2 which equates to an FSR of 0.70:1

 

Lot 60 – With a site area of 197.5m2, the floor area is 136.8m2 which equates to an FSR of 0.69:1

 

Lot 61 – With a site area of 195.6m2, the floor area is 136.9m2, which equates to an FSR of 0.7:1

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

N/A

N/A

5.10 Heritage conservation

N/A

The site is not heritage listed, does not adjoin a heritage item nor is it located in the vicinity of a heritage conservation area.

6.1 Acid sulfate soils

N/A

The site is not affected by Acid Sulfate Soils

6.2 Earthworks

Yes

Minor earthworks with no detrimental impacts

6.4 Flood planning

N/A

The site is not identified as being flood prone.

6.5 Terrestrial Biodiversity

N/A

There is no evidence of any terrestrial biodiversity on the site

6.6 Riparian land and watercourses

N/A

The site is not identified as riparian land or in vicinity of a watercourse.

6.7 Stormwater management

Yes

The Application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has recommended deferred commencement conditions of consent.

6.8 Salinity

Yes

The site is located on land identified as being affected by moderate salinity. Appropriate conditions of consent have been included within the draft conditions of consent, relating to salinity.

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

·        Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

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

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

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

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

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

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

-        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

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

Changes are also proposed to the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan. Some provisions of the existing policies will be transferred to new Section 9.1 Directions by the Minister where appropriate.

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

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

Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013

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

·        Part A - General Controls

·        Part B - Residential Controls

·            

·           Figure 5 – Holroyd DCP 2013 Compliance Table

Clause

Control

Proposed

Complies

Part A – General Controls

1

Subdivision

 

 

The proposal does not involve subdivision of land.

N/A

2

Roads and Access

 

Proposed vehicular crossings (VC) and driveways are along the southern front boundary of the site. The driveway and vehicular crossing will provide access to the single garages.

 

New VC’s and driveways are considered satisfactory.

Yes

3

Car Parking

3.1

Minimum Parking Spaces

 

1 car parking space per dwelling (1 undercover)

The development proposes a single garage for each dwelling and sufficient stacked parking on the driveway.

Yes

4

Tree and Landscape Works

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer who has provided comments and conditions. Accordingly, deferred commencement conditions have been imposed to provide protection for the existing Jacaranda mimosifolia located on the adjoining property at no. 7A McCredie Road. Other tree and landscaping conditions have also been provided.

Yes

5

Biodiversity

 

There is no evidence of any terrestrial biodiversity on the site.

Therefore, these provisions are not applicable.

 

As shown on Council’s Biodiversity Map, the site is not affected by ‘biodiversity’.

N/A

6

Soil Management

6.2

Site Contamination and Land Filling

The site is not identified in Council’s records as being contaminated.

 

A site inspection reveals that the site does not have any obvious history of a previous land use that may have caused contamination and there is no specific evidence that indicates the site is contaminated.

 

The subject site is currently used for residential purposes and contamination is not expected.

N/A

6.4

 

 

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

 

Submitted Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is considered to be satisfactory.

Yes

6.5

Salinity Management

The site is located on land identified as being affected by moderate salinity.

 

Appropriate conditions of consent have been included within the draft conditions of consent, relating to salinity.

Yes

7

Stormwater Management

 

The submitted stormwater plan has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineering department and is subject to deferred commencement conditions.

Yes

8.

Flood Prone Land

 

As shown on Council’s Flood Map, the site is not identified as flood prone land.

N/A

9.

Managing external road noise and vibration

 

The site is located off McCredie Road which is nominated as a classified road under the HDCP 2013 which is affected by road noise. Noting that the development application is accompanied by an acoustic report, Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the report and recommended appropriate noise/acoustic conditions.

Yes

10.

Safety and Security

 

The front entry, windows to habitable rooms and balconies address the street frontage to provide a high level of surveillance. Therefore, safety and security is considered to be satisfactory.

Yes

11.

Waste Management

 

The submitted Waste Management Plan is considered to be satisfactory.

Yes

12.

Services

 

Water, sewer, overhead electricity and telephone facilities are available to the proposed units.

Yes

Part B- Residential Controls

1.1

Building Materials

 

Building materials for new residential development and for additions to existing residential development must be compatible with the streetscape and character of its locality.

Facades are well articulated with appropriate materials for the character of the streetscape.

Yes

1.2

Fences

 

Front fence- maximum height of 1.5m, maximum 1m solid.

A front fence height of 1m is proposed.

Yes

1.3

Views

 

Where significant and/or district views are currently enjoyed, or where views may be reasonably created, the design of development shall be designed to minimise the obstruction of such views.

The subject proposal does not obstruct the currently enjoyed views of adjoining properties.

Yes

1.4

Privacy

 

The windows of dwellings are to be located so they do not provide direct and close views into the windows of habitable rooms and private open spaces of adjoining dwellings.

North Elevation:

 

The rear ground floor level of the proposal is sufficiently setback.

 

Subject to conditions, 3x 1.5m high fixed privacy screens shall be attached to the northern elevation of the 3 rear facing first floor balconies for Lots 59, 60 and 61.

 

The north facing first floor level windows belong to bedrooms which are considered as low use rooms and will not have any significant privacy impacts.

 

Western Elevation

With exception of the garage, a minimum 1.19m side setback is provided between the ground living room windows and the western side boundary. The window sill heights of the laundry (W2) -1.6m kitchen (W3)-1.5m and living room (W4)-2.1m are also considered acceptable in terms of protecting visual privacy. Further, conditions of consent are recommended to provide a 1.8m high boundary fence along the western boundary to protect privacy.

 

Western Elevation of dwelling on Lot  61

 

The development proposes no openings at this elevation, both on the ground floor and first floor. As such, there are no privacy concerns from the elevation.

 

Eastern Elevation of the dwelling on Lot 61

The 1m side building setback provided is considered acceptable. Further, the finished floor level of the development on the ground floor is such that the imposition of a condition in the consent for a 1.8m high boundary fence to be erected in consultation with the neighbour will ameliorate any immediate privacy impacts from the ground floor living area on the eastern adjoining property.

 

In regards to the first floor, the windows on this elevation belong to bedrooms and bathrooms which are low use rooms as such will not have any significant privacy impacts. As such the privacy impacts of the eastern elevation of the dwelling on Lot 61 is considered acceptable.

 

Eastern elevation of dwelling on Lot 60

 

The development proposes a 1.07m side setback at this elevation. Noting that the elevation will have an interface with no openings on the ground floor or first floor to the dwelling on Lot 61, there are no immediate privacy concerns. A condition of consent requiring that a 1.8m high side fence be installed in consultation with the owners of the immediate adjoining property on the boundary is also recommended.

Yes – Subject to conditions

 

Balconies shall not extend beyond the required setback.

The setbacks which are measured between the outer edge of the balconies and the front and rear boundary line all exceed the minimum setback required for an attached dwelling development. 

Yes

Balconies to the rear facades of attached dwellings may be permitted, where they are a maximum of 2 metres wide, 10m2 in area.

Design change conditions are to be imposed for reduction of the rear first floor balcony size of the dwelling on Lot 60 to comply.

 

The rear first floor balcony sizes for the dwellings on Lots 59 and 61 are both less than 10m2and less than 2m wide.

Yes

 

All balconies and decks higher than 800mm above existing ground level shall incorporate

privacy measures to ensure that the privacy of surrounding residents is not unduly reduced,

Design change conditions are imposed on the development requiring that fixed 1.5m high privacy screens above finished floor level are attached to each of the 3 rear facing first floor balconies. This is considered appropriate to protect privacy of adjoining developments given the setbacks provided for the development.

Yes

 

Window sills shall have a maximum height of 1500mm are required in ground floor living areas located higher than 1 metre above existing ground level and within 6 metres of the property boundary.

Note:

• The placing of windows shall be based on the detailed site analysis prepared for the development proposal.

• The use of windows which are narrow, translucent or obscured for upper floors and bathrooms is recommended.

• Further design controls for screening residential flat buildings are contained in section 6 of this Part.

The development is not located higher than 1m above ground level.

Yes

 

Where a proposed deck overlooks outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings, suitable screening is to be provided, at a minimum height of 1500mm.

Given the finished floor level heights of the alfresco areas along the side and rear setbacks provided, a 1.8m side and rear fence is considered appropriate to protect the privacy and reduce overlooking impacts on adjoining properties.

Yes

 

Landscaping shall be designed to provide screening and filtering for control of privacy and to reduce overlooking of dwellings.

The landscaping design proposed for the development incorporates trees and shrubs along the side and rear boundaries to reduce the privacy impacts.

Yes

 

Developments shall utilise the site and building layout to maximise the potential for acoustic privacy by providing adequate building separation within the development and from neighbouring buildings.

The internal layouts of the development is considered appropriate for acoustic privacy. The building separation also provided considers the acoustic privacy of neighbouring properties which is acceptable.

Yes

 

Air conditioners, swimming pool pumps and the like are not to exceed 5dba above background noise levels and should not be audible from habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings.

Note: Air conditioners, swimming pool pumps and the like shall comply with the protection of the environment operations act and noise regulation.

The development consent will include relevant conditions to ensure the air conditioners do not exceed 5dba above background noise levels.

Yes

1.5

Landscaping and open space

 

Landscaped area shall be a minimum of 2 metres wide and is to be, where possible, at ground level.

The landscaped area for the proposed development has a minimum width of 2 metres.

Yes

 

No more than 50% of the provided landscaped area shall be forward of the front building line.

The landscaped area for the proposal is predominantly in the rear yard of the proposed development.

Yes

 

Only hard paved areas for the purposes of driveways and pathways will be permitted within the front setback area, and shall be kept to a minimum. Hard paved areas shall not cover the entire front setback area.

The hard paved areas for the front setbacks of the proposed dwellings only constitute driveways and pathways as hard paved areas. All other areas in the front yard are covered with deep soil landscaping.

Yes

 

Where an access driveway is located on the side boundary or where an internal roadway is to be provided, a landscape strip of 1 metre shall be provided.

The access driveway for each dwelling has a landscape strip of 1 metre along the western and eastern side boundaries.

Yes

 

The % of the total site area to be provided as landscape area for each residential development

type shall be as follows:

20%- Dwelling house, dual occupancy and attached housing development on lots less than 600m2.

The subject application proposes the following landscape areas for the development:

 

Lot 59 – 21.36% (42.6m2) of landscaped area for the subject site at a minimum width of 2 metres.

 

Lot 60 – 21.6% (42.7m2) of landscaped area for the subject site at a minimum width of 2 metres.

 

Lot 61 – 21.7% (42.5m2) of landscaped area for the subject site at a minimum width of 2 metres.

Yes

 

• Only be located at the rear or side of the dwelling

• Be at located ground level. Structures such as decks proposed to be included as private open spaces, which are equal to or less than 500mm above ground level dwelling, and complies with all other criteria, may be considered by Council based upon their merits.

• Minimise overlooking opportunities and shall not decrease the visual privacy of neighbouring development.

• Accommodate both passive and active recreation uses.

• Must be directly accessible from a main living area of the dwelling (i.e. lounge/dining/rumpus room).

• Provided for the exclusive use of the occupant(s) of the dwelling house;

• Include an area for external clothes drying with good solar access where possible, which is not visible from a public area.

• Shall not be steeper than a 1:8 gradient. For steeply sloping sites, Council may consider terrace type stepping, which must have a length to width ratio no greater than 3:1.

The proposed private open space area for each dwelling:

-     Is located at the rear of the subject site;

-     Is located at ground level;

-     Does not impact on the privacy of adjoining properties, subject to conditions of consent;

-     Is directly accessible from the main living room;

-     Is for the use of the occupants of the attached dwellings;

-     Has sufficient area for clothes drying not visible from the street with adequate solar access; and

Is not steeper than a 1:8 gradient.

Yes

 

Rear private open space areas are to have external access either through an associated garage or directly from a common area in order to facilitate maintenance of the private open space and storage of garbage bins.

-     The private open space area for Lots 59 and 60 can be accessed from the side boundaries through the respective garages for maintenance. The private open space of Lot 61 can also be accessed directly from the eastern side boundary which can be utilised to maintain the area and for the storage of garbage bins.

Yes

 

Private open space shall be provided at ground level in a single tract with a minimum dimension of not less than 3.0 metres.

The proposed private open space area for each unit is at ground level with a minimum width greater than 3m.

Yes

 

Principal private open space shall have a minimum dimension of 4 metres, have direct access from a major living area of the dwelling and be clear of all structures, including posts.

The principal private open space for each dwelling has a minimum dimension greater than 4 metres, is directly accessible from the main living room and is clear of all structures.

Yes

 

15% of the total site area is to be provided as private open space for dwelling house, dual occupancy and attached housing developments and this shall include a principal area of 25m2.

The proposed private open spaces for the Lots area as below:

 

Lot 59- 25.9%- 51.7m2

 

Lot 60- 25.7% - 50.7m2

 

Lot 61- 22.3% - 43.6m2

 

The principal private open spaces proposed are as below:

 

Lot 59-  33m2 with 4m width

 

Lot 60- 31m2 with 4m width

 

Lot 61- 31m2 with 4m width

 

Accordingly, the proposal provides adequate private open space and principal private open spaces for all the units.

Yes

1.6

Safety and security

 

The front door of a development should either be visible from the street or internal roadway, or overlooked by a window, and should be clearly visible from the driveway.

The front door and first floor balconies of all the units are visible from the street and the driveways which helps maintain safety and security. The study window for Lot 60 is also visible from the street. The design is considered to be consistent with the CPTED principles and therefore considered acceptable.

Yes

 

Blank walls along street frontages are prohibited.

No blank walls are proposed along the street frontage.

Yes

 

Landscaping that may allow would-be intruders to hide shall be avoided.

The landscaping within the front will not allow intruders the opportunity to hide.

Yes

1.7

Building and site sustainability

 

Residential building designs should incorporate the following design principles for achieving a

more sustainable home:

• Effective building Orientation- attempt to take advantage of northerly aspects, where possible.

• Energy efficient building materials should be used

• Design to allow for cross ventilation- through window size, placement and ventilation.

• Create sustainable landscaping - deciduous trees on north side of dwelling and the planting of vegetable gardens.

• Window Protection- through external shading devices.

• Draughtproofing and weathersealing- to prevent potential air leaks.

• Effective use of natural light- dwellings should be designed so that artificial lighting is not needed during the day.

The subject development is designed to achieve a sustainable home through:

-     The placement of windows to improve natural lighting;

-     The window placements to maximise natural ventilation;

-     Adequate landscaping; and

-     The rainwater tanks to satisfy water sustainability.

3 BASIX Certificates for the development accompany the application detailing the compliance with the sustainable building design requirements under the BASIX Scheme.

Yes

 

The design and location of stormwater drainage structures, such as detention and rainwater tanks, is to be integrated with the landscape design and fencing for the site. Above ground structures should not be visually intrusive.

The proposed above ground rainwater tanks which are located in the rear yard are integrated with the landscape design and are not visually intrusive.

Yes

 

All roofing shall be provided with adequate gutter and downpipes connected to roof water drainage systems.

The proposed development is provided with adequate gutter and downpipes connected to drainage systems as assessed by Council’s Development Engineer.

Yes

 

Full details of proposed rainwater tanks shall be submitted with a Development Application for approval. Details are to include (as a minimum):

• Rainwater tanks shown on all plans, including floor plans and elevations,

• the configuration of inlet/outlet pipe and overflow pipe,

• the storage capacity, dimensions, structural details and proposed materials, and

• the purposes for which the tank is intended to be used, that is for washing machine use, toilet use and outdoor watering use.

The details outlined in this provision have been met and detailed on the plans accompanying the application.

Yes

 

Rainwater tanks that are to be connected to toilets and washing machines and for outdoor water use are required (minimum 1 per dwelling) and must be located to the side or rear of the dwelling for single dwelling houses.

The BASIX commitments as stipulated in the BASIX certificates for the proposed development requires that at least an 800L rainwater tank is provided for each unit. The proposed rainwater tanks are situated in their respective rear yards of the lots.

Yes

1.8

Sunlight access

 

Residential development shall be designed to have as minimal impact as possible on the sunlight access and amenity obtained by existing adjacent properties and their dwellings.

The proposed development has been designed to have minimal impact on the sunlight access and amenity of the adjoining properties. 

Yes

 

Applications for proposed dwellings shall demonstrate design mechanisms provided to ensure sunlight access to the proposed dwellings.

The proposed dwellings ensure sunlight access to the main living areas of the dwellings are achieved through the placement of east, west and north facing openings.

 

The private open space of each dwelling has a direct north facing aspect which will receive adequate solar access.

Yes

 

New dwellings shall be designed to ensure direct sunlight access for a minimum of 3 hours between 9.00am and 4.00pm at the winter solstice (22 June) is provided to at least one main

living area of the proposed dwelling/s.

Lot 59

The north and west facing living area openings will receive 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 4pm during the winter solstice.

 

Lot 60

The north facing living area openings will receive 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 4pm at winter solstice.

 

Lot 61

The north and east facing living area openings will receive 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 4pm during the winter solstice.

 

Yes

 

The shadow effect from a proposed development on existing adjacent dwellings must be such that a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9.00am and 4.00pm at the winter solstice (22 June) is to be provided to at least one main living area of existing dwellings.

Given the north-south site orientation of the subject site, the massing of the development will still enable the dining/living area of the eastern adjoining property at No. 7A McCredie Road at the rear will receive the required solar access in mid-winter.

 

The dining/living area of the western adjoining property at No. 11 McCredie Road at the rear will continue to receive the required solar access in mid-winter.

Yes

 

A minimum of 50% of the required private open space areas of the proposed dwellings and any adjacent dwellings shall have access to 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9.00am and 4.00pm at the winter solstice (22 June).

Lot 59- 50% of required POS = 15m2 receives at least 3 hours solar access from 9am to 4pm.

 

Lot 60 - 50% of required POS = 14.8m2 receives 3 hours solar access from 9am to 4pm.

 

Lot 61 - 50% of required POS = 14.7m2 receives 3 hours solar access from 9am to 4pm.

 

The eastern adjoining property at No. 7A McCredie Road will continue to receive the required solar access to 50% of its required POS in mid-winter.

 

The western adjoining property at No. 11 McCredie Road will continue to receive the required solar access to 50% of its required POS in mid-winter.

Yes

 

Where sunlight is achieved through east and west facing windows, shading devices should be provided on those elevations for protection from the summer sun.

Solar access will be mainly achieved through the north, facing openings of the proposed dwellings which will be shaded by the roof of the terrace area during summer.

Yes

 

Proposed development should endeavour not to overshadow any existing solar panels on adjacent properties.

The immediate adjoining properties at Nos 7A & 11 McCredie Road do not have any solar panels installed.

N/A

1.9

Cut and fill

 

Development is should be designed and constructed to integrate with the natural topography of the site.

The proposed attached dwelling development is integrated with the natural topography of the site with moderate cut proposed.

Yes

 

Fill, up to 300mm, is permitted within 900mm of side or rear boundaries.

No fill is proposed within 900mm of the side or rear boundary.

Yes

 

Fill, 600mm or greater is to be contained within the building envelope.

All fill proposed is contained within the building envelope.

Yes

 

Cut is permitted to a maximum of 1 metre.

The proposal involves a maximum cut of 750mm which is to be contained along the eastern boundary of the site (Lot 61). The cut proposed is considered acceptable given the topographic condition of the site.

Yes

 

Cut is to be limited to 450mm where it is within 900mm of the rear or side boundaries.

The maximum depth of cut for the development is approximately 750mm along the rear eastern boundary of the site (Lot 61) which is considered acceptable. Accordingly, there are no expected adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of soil loss, privacy, solar access or stormwater runoff.

No but acceptable

 

1.10

Demolition

 

Approval for the demolition of a dwelling, addition or outbuilding to a dwelling is required from Council.

Approval for the demolition of the existing structures is being sought under the subject application.

Yes

 

If the demolition involves removing asbestos, compliance with Council’s Asbestos Cement

Policy for the safe removal and disposal is required.

The proposed demolition works will be managed and will be conditioned to be in compliance with Workcover’s Asbestos Cement Policy.

Yes

1.11

Car parking and roads

 

Garages are to be a maximum of 6 metres clear width or 50% of the width of the buildings street elevation whichever is the lesser.

The proposal provides the following garage widths:

 

Lot 59 – 2.5m

 

Lot 60 – 2.5m

 

Lot 61 – 2.5m

 

Accordingly, the respective widths of the garage are all less than 6m and measure at the following percentages comparative to the street elevation of the proposal:

 

Lot 59 – 37.3%

 

Lot 60 – 37.3%

 

Lot 61 – 37.3%

 

The garage widths proposed are considered appropriate.

Yes

 

Garages and carports at grade are to be located a minimum of 1000mm behind the front wall of the building or 5.5 metres from the street boundary, whichever is greater.

The proposed garages are all setback 5.5 metres from the street boundary and 1.07 metre behind their front wall of the building.

Yes

 

Where the width of the proposed dwelling house or detached dual occupancy is greater than 12 metres, garages and carports may extend 1.5m from the building façade.

The proposed garages are proposed behind the building line of the dwellings.

Yes

 

The size of any garage shall be no more than a maximum of 40m2. If the proposed garage is to be greater than 40m2, any area in excess of this will be considered to be floor space.

The garages proposed for Lots 59, 60 and 61 do not exceed 20m2in size. Accordingly, the areas of the garages were excluded in the calculation of Floor Space Ratio as required by the HLEP 2013.

Yes

 

A lockable storage closet for each dwelling should be provided within the garage.

Lockable storage areas are provided within the proposed garages. This is considered acceptable.

Yes

 

For dwelling houses, dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing, parking in the case of each dwelling shall be separately accessible.

Separate access is provided to the garages of each dwelling.

Yes

 

Vehicular access points are to be minimised and should not break the continuity of the streetscape.

The vehicular access point proposed as part of the application is along McCredie Road which will not break the continuity of the streetscape.

Yes

 

Vehicle crossing/s shall be a minimum width of 3 metres (5 metres for single dwellings and dual occupancies that propose double or adjacent garages) and a maximum width of 5 metres at the boundary line. A width up to 6 metres can be considered for multi-unit complexes. Generally only one vehicular crossing will be permitted per site.

The proposal involves provision of 3x 3m vehicular crossings for each unit. Accordingly, Council’s Development Engineer raised no objections. Noting that the proposed vehicular access will not break the continuity of the streetscape, it is considered acceptable.

Yes

 

All new driveways should be located at least 1 metre away from the side property boundaries.

All 3 driveways are setback greater than 1 metre from sitde property boundaries.

Yes

 

The maximum gradient for a driveway should be 20%, or 1:5.

The proposed driveway gradients are less than 20% or 1:5.

Yes

1.12

Universal Housing and Accessibility

 

Each unit provides for facilities on ground floor for people with a disability.

Yes

1.13

Subdivision

 

Allotment orientation should ensure that living and private open space areas of any dwelling can be orientated to the north and that dwellings can be positioned so that the possible overshadowing impact on existing or future adjoining buildings can be minimised.

N/A – The proposal does not involve subdivision. The subject allotments have been historically subdivided.

N/A

 

Council will allow the Torrens subdivision of dual occupancies and the strata subdivision of multi dwelling development subject to compliance with all other related controls contained in this DCP.

N/A

N/A

4.1

Attached and Small Lot Housing

 

The minimum lot size for each dwelling is 200m2.

The subject lots are of the following sizes by calculation:

 

Lot 59- 199.4m2

 

Lot 60 – 197.5m2

 

Lot 61 – 195.6m2

 

Given that the development application is made on existing allotments and does not involve subdivision or resubdivision, the lot size areas are considered acceptable. Further, the lot sizes represent very minor non-compliances with the development control and will not adversely impact on the streetscape, amenity and safe access to the development.

Yes

 

Attached and Small lot housing are not permitted on battleaxe allotments.

The subject lots do not constitute battleaxe allotments.

Yes

 

Attached housing is not permitted on the ‘bulb’ section of a cul-de-sac.

The subject lots are not located in a cul-de-sac nor on the bulb section of a cul-de-sac.

Yes

 

Existing allotments shall have a minimum frontage of 6 metres at the building line.

The 3 existing subject lots all have widths of 6.745m by calculation in the submitted Survey Plan

Yes

 

A minimum lot frontage of 6.5 metres at the building line is required after subdivision.

The proposal does not involve any form of subdivision. Notwithstanding this, the subject site achieves a 6.5m frontage width at the building line on all 3 allotments.

Yes

4.2

Setbacks

 

The minimum setback from the principal street frontage shall be 4 metres. The maximum front setback is 5.5m.

The proposal provides the following front setbacks between the southern front boundary and the front building alignments of the dwellings:

 

Lot 59 – 5.5m

 

Lot 60 – 5.5m

 

Lot 61 – 5.5m

Yes

 

Garages shall be setback 1m behind the main façade, or 5.5m from the front boundary, whichever is greater, of each dwelling.

The proposal provides 1.07m setbacks for all 3 garages.

Yes

 

For a corner allotment, the minimum setback from the secondary street frontage shall be 4 metres, except where adjacent residential development is close to the boundary, in which case the setback may be similar to that which exists.

The subject allotments do not constitute corner allotments.

N/A

 

Basement car parks are not to extend beyond the building envelope into the front setback, and are not permitted for lots less than 8 metres in length.

The proposal does not involve provision of basement car parking.

N/A

 

The minimum side setback for remaining external side elevations shall be 900mm.

The proposal provides nil setbacks for all the garages with the exception of Lot 61 where a 1m side setback is provided. The remaining external side elevations achieve the following minimum side setbacks:

 

Lot 59 – Ranging from nil to 1.19m (West)

 

Lot 60 – Ranging from nil to 1.07m (East)

 

Lot 61 – 1m (East)

Yes

 

Dwellings shall be built to at least one boundary (within 150mm of the boundary).

Lot 59 – Eastern boundary & western boundary for the garage are built to one side boundary.

 

Lot 60 – Eastern Boundary, though the single garage is built to the boundary.

 

Lot 61 – Western boundary.

 

The proposed massing of the building to the boundaries are considered acceptable as they are consistent with the desired character of the street.

Yes

 

The minimum rear setback is 3 metres for each dwelling.

The proposal provides the following rear setbacks for the dwellings:

 

Lot 59 – 4.9m

 

Lot 60 – 4.6m

 

Lot 61 – 4.67m

Yes

 

Any elevation that is within 900mm of a boundary shall not contain any openings associated with the main living area.

The proposal does not provide any elevations that is within 900mm of a boundary associated with a main living area. To protect privacy, the proposal is subject to conditions requiring a 1.8m high side/rear fences.

Yes

4.3

Height

 

The minimum floor to ceiling height for all development shall be 2.4 metres.

The proposal provides minimum floor to ceiling heights of 2.7m for all 3 dwellings.

Yes

 

The external side wall height shall be a maximum of 7 metres.

The proposal achieves a maximum external side wall height of 7.8m on the eastern elevation of the dwelling on Lot 61.

No – However considered acceptable on merit. (See Summary)

 

Attics are permitted in attached housing only where they comply with all other height and floor to ceiling height requirements.

N/A- The design of the proposal does not incorporate any attics

N/A

4.4

Building Appearance and Facilities

 

The design of a attached housing shall have regard to the size, shape and orientation of the

allotment the dwelling is to be located on in relation to:

• the position of the dwelling on the allotment,

• opportunities for solar access,

• the maximisation of private open space, and

• minimising the potential for overlooking.

The proposed development is considered acceptable having regard to size, shape and orientation of the subject allotments. The bulk and scale of the development is proportionate to the subject allotments. The streetscape is appropriately considered in the design of the building and fits into the theme of the desired character of the vicinity. A good level of amenity in terms of sunlight access, private open spaces and privacy is also provided for the development and does not inhibit the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Yes

 

Dwelling design and its architectural style is to interpret and respond and not be in strong

visual contrast to the positive character of the locality, including setbacks, height, and dominant

patterns, textures and compositions of buildings and their elements such as roof shape, pitch

and overhangs, entry porches, verandas, balconies and terraces, materials, finishes, fixtures, patterns, fenestrations, colours and detailing and the location and proportion of windows and doors.

The contemporary architectural design is not out of character with that of the streetscape. The immediate vicinity is characterised by varying architectural styles and various building typologies ranging from dwelling houses, dual occupancies and multi dwelling developments.

 

The proposed dwellings will be consistent with the siting of developments on allotments within the immediate visual catchment and wider locality. The built form, setbacks and architectural elements will not detract from the existing street character given the variance in building stock and architectural style along McCredie Road. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with the desired character of the vicinity.

Yes

 

Building articulation on side facades built to the boundary is not required.

The building articulation on side facades built to the boundaries are considered acceptable.

Yes

 

Whilst Council encourages innovative design, it is important that key character defining design elements such as setbacks, height, roof form, detailing and materials visible from public areas and adjoining properties, are not in strong visual contrast with buildings in the vicinity.

The contemporary building design is considered acceptable as key character elements of the development such as setbacks, height, form, detailing and materials are in keeping with the existing theme of the street. Noting that architectural styles and building typologies within the vicinity vary, the proposed design is considered acceptable.

Yes

 

Building design is to enhance the existing built character by translating into contemporary design solutions the themes found in the neighbourhood.

The design of the building is will positively contribute to the streetscape given the architectural design which provides an acceptable level of amenities. The landscape quality also appropriately complements the development.

Yes

 

Dwellings shall orientate the dwelling entry and at least one window to a habitable room overlooking all public domain areas on the ground floor.

The design considers street surveillance by providing street facing entries and balconies. This enables overlooking of the public domain on the ground floor and first floor of the development.

Yes

 

Complex roof forms shall be avoided.

The contemporary flat roof form provided for the development is considered acceptable as varying roof forms exist along McCredie Road. As such, the proposed roof form is acceptable and will not detract from streetscape quality.

Yes

 

Housing on steep or sloping blocks shall be built as a split level construction.

Given the topographic conditions of the site, which exhibits a fall from rear to front, the proposal incorporates a step architectural design which corresponds to the fall of the land.

Yes

 

The internal layout of the dwelling shall incorporate cross ventilation.

The internal layouts and placement of openings for the proposed development incorporate cross ventilation.

Yes

 

Bathrooms, ensuites, laundries and walk in wardrobes shall be located to the side and rear of the dwelling.

The internal layout of the dwellings place bathrooms, ensuites, laundries and walk in robes to the side and rear portions of the development.

Yes

 

Bin Storage areas shall be provided in a convenient location at the front of the dwelling, behind the building line, suitably screened from the street or any public place.

The proposed development provides suitable space for the storage of bins behind the building line inside the garages of Lots 59 and 60. Ample bin storage space suitably screened from the street is also available for Lot 61 along the eastern boundary.

Yes

 

The location of bin storage shall not impact upon the amenity of adjoining dwellings.

The proposed location of bin storage is considered acceptable and not expected to have any adverse impact on neighbourhood amenity.

Yes

 

A storage facility shall be provided in a location accessible from the front setback area, with minimum dimensions of 2 x 3 metres.

The development provides storage spaces in the garage, which is directly accessed from the front setback area. Whilst the storage spaces in the garage do not measure at 2x3m, other storage spaces are available in the development in the form of walk in pantries and walk in robes

Yes

 

The maximum width of a garage door for small lot dwellings is 2.5 metres.

All the 3 proposed garage doors achieve a maximum width of 2.5m

Yes

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development generally complies with the provisions of Council’s DCP subject to conditions of consent with the exception of the maximum height of external side wall and maximum depth of cut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The subject site and locality is not known to be affected by any natural hazards or other site constraints likely to have a significant adverse impact on the proposed development.  Accordingly, the site can be said to be suitable to accommodate the proposal. The proposed development has been assessed in regard it its environmental consequences and having regard to this assessment, it is considered that the development is suitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality.

 

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

Advertised (newspaper)               Mail              Sign                 Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly exhibited for a period of 21 days from 6 February 2019 and 27 February 2019. 3 submissions were received.

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

Submission 1

Concern 1: Non-conforming lot size for Attached & Small Lot Housing.

Comment: The subject lot sizes as indicated on the submitted Survey Plan prepared by Frankham Engineering Surveys, dated 31 January 2018 are outlined as below:

LOT NUMBER

LOT SIZE BY DP

LOT SIZE BY CALCULATION

VARIATION (%)

(Lot size by calculation)

Lot 59

196m2

199.4m2

0.3%

Lot 60

196m2

197.5m2

1.25%

Lot 61

189.7m2

195.6m2

2.2%

Recognising that the site has been pegged and dimensions checked by a registered surveyor as of 31 January 2018, Council relies on the newly calculated lot sizes for the assessment of the proposal.

Notwithstanding this, each of the 3 existing allotment sizes by calculation do not comply with the minimum 200m2 stipulated by the HDCP 2013 for Attached & Small Lot Housing development. The lot sizes as shown in the table above are however considered acceptable for the following reasons:

·        The development application proposes construction of attached housing on 3 existing lots and does not involve subdivision or resubdivision of any of the 3 lots.

·            

·        The extent of the variations are considered to range from negligible to minor as indicated in the table above. Also, notwithstanding the lot sizes, the width of all the allotments comply with the minimum 6m required under the HDCP 2013. Accordingly, the existing lots will permit a development afforded with an appropriate level of urban design consistent with the desired character of the neighbourhood whilst also allowing for a good level of amenity for future occupants and adjoining residences.

It is also noted that the R3 Medium Density Residential zone of the subject sites permit attached dwelling developments. Further, the design, form and scale of the development will fit into the theme of the streetscape of the vicinity. The immediate visual catchment along McCredie Road consists of varying building typologies (i.e. dwelling houses, dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing development) with a good level of landscape quality in front yards. Accordingly, the proposed development is in keeping with this character.

Given the reasons above, it is considered that the existing lot sizes are acceptable and will help provide an appropriate development in the locality.

Concern 2: Inappropriate finished floor levels for the dwellings on Lots 59 and 60.

Comment: The development proposes minimum finished floor level of 33.330m AHD for all the 3 units at the rear. Noting that a stepping design is implemented in the development, a slightly higher finished floor level is achieved at the rear portion of the development to complement the slope of the site to the street. The finished floor levels present limited material impacts on neighbouring developments in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, visual privacy and soil composition. As discussed above, the finished floor level of the proposed development is considered acceptable.

Concern 3: Visual Privacy

Comment: With exception of the garage, a minimum 1.19m side setback is provided between the ground living room windows and the western side boundary which adjoins the semi-detached dwelling at 11 McCredie Road. The western elevation windows which interface the eastern side of 11 McCredie Road consists of windows and their corresponding sill heights:

·        Laundry (W2) -1.6m

·        Kitchen (W3)-1.5m

·        Living room (W4) -2.1m

Given the above sill heights and that a condition is imposed to install a 1.8m high boundary fence in consultation with the adjoining neighbour and the first floor windows belong to low activity rooms, the immediate privacy issues are ameliorated. Accordingly, the visual privacy impact from the proposed development is considered acceptable.

Concern 4: Maximum height of external side wall

Comment: The proposed development achieves a maximum external side wall height of 7.6m on the western elevation of the dwelling on Lot 59 and not 8.2m as suggested. Recognising that the extent of the variation is located in the front third of the development, the material impacts on neighbouring properties is expected to be minor and limited to overshadowing and visual impacts at the front sections of adjoining developments. Notwithstanding this, the development ensures compliant solar access and privacy for existing and future residents and the public domain. It also responds to the desired scale and character of the street and local area. Noting the impacts are minimal and the variation relatively minor, the non-compliance is considered reasonable in this instance.

 

Concern 5: Inappropriate front & side setbacks for dwelling on Lot 59 and structural soundness of the western elevation of the development.

Comment: The HDCP 2013 sets maximum front setbacks for attached dwelling developments at 5.5m and also requires a minimum side setback of 900mm. However, to better establish street character, the HDCP requires that dwellings be built to at least one boundary (within 150mm of the boundary). The development proposes to build the garage to the western side boundary whilst providing a 900mm setback for the remaining elongation of the ground floor. The first floor west elevation is also setback 1.19m from the western boundary. In regards to the front setback, the development complies with the HDCP 2013. The front setback is considered compatible with the established streetscape. The finished floor level of the development is considered acceptable and not expected to adversely impact the structural soundness of the development and neighbouring developments. The proposed development complies with the solar access requirements contained in the HDCP 2013 as such is considered acceptable. Conditions are imposed in the consent for the development to comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) to ensure the structural integrity of the dwellings.

Concern 6: Overshadowing impacts on 11 McCredie Road

Comment: The proposed development complies with the HDCP 2013 in terms of minimum solar access requirements into the private open spaces and main living areas of adjoining developments. The overshadowing impacts of the development is considered minor given the north-south orientation of the site. Whilst it is acknowledged that the eastern elevation rooms of the immediate western adjoining development will be impacted by shadows in the early hours of the winter solstice, it will receive sunlight from midday through to the end of the day. This exceeds the minimum 3 hours required by the HDCP 2013.

Concern 7: Side wall length exceeding 10m

Comment: The control for first floor side walls not to exceed 10m without articulation under the HDCP 2013, only applies to dwelling house and dual occupancy developments and not for attached dwelling developments on small lots. Notwithstanding this, the proposed design is acceptable, having considered, character of the street, bulk, scale and form. The development is also well articulated and complemented with a good mix of colours and finishes and window openings to enhance the appearance.

Concern 8: Excessive floor space ratio (FSR)

Comment: The first submission package for the development application consisted of architectural plans that exceeded the maximum gross floor area. Following initial assessment and deferral of the development application, the applicant submitted a set of revised plans that comply with the development standard. Accordingly, the gross floor area of the proposal is satisfactory having been revised to comply with the FSR.


 

Concern 9: Common wall between dwellings on Lot 59 and 60.

Comment: The common wall between Lot 59 and 60 does not encroach into the front setback as suggested. Rather, a common feature wall is provided between Lots 59 and 60 which presents as an articulation feature in the street. As such, it enhances the architectural presentation of the development along McCredie Road.

Concern 10: Stormwater/rainwater runoff/no stormwater plans on Council’s website

Comment: The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for review who has noted that the stormwater concept plan is deemed satisfactory. Notwithstanding this, deferred commencement conditions have been recommended in terms of On-site Detention. Following a conversation with the objector, the proposed stormwater concept plan which was erroneously omitted for display on DA tracker was published for public viewing.

Concern 11: Adverse impacts of the proposal on on-street parking and streetscape

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer raised no objections to the impacts of the development application on street parking following review. In regards to streetscape, the proposal is considered consistent with the exiting street character and provides a design that will be consistent with the desired character of the vicinity.

Submission 2

Concern 1: Non-conforming lot size for Attached & Small Lot Housing.

Comment: The subject lot sizes as indicated on the submitted Survey Plan prepared by Frankham Engineering Surveys, dated 31 January 2018 are outlined as below:

LOT NUMBER

LOT SIZE BY DP

LOT SIZE BY CALCULATION

VARIATION (%)

(Lot size by calculation)

Lot 59

196m2

199.4m2

0.3%

Lot 60

196m2

197.5m2

1.25%

Lot 61

189.7m2

195.6m2

2.2%

Recognising that the site has been pegged and dimensions checked by a registered surveyor as of 31 January 2018, Council relies on the newly calculated lot sizes for the assessment of the proposal.

Notwithstanding this, each of the 3 existing allotment sizes by calculation do not comply with the minimum 200m2 stipulated by the HDCP 2013 for Attached & Small Lot Housing development. The lot sizes as shown in the table above are however considered acceptable for the following reasons:

·        The development application proposes construction of attached housing on 3 existing lots and does not involve subdivision or resubdivision of any of the 3 lots.

 

·        The extent of the variations are considered to range from negligible to minor as indicated in the table above. Also, notwithstanding the lot sizes, the width of all the allotments comply with the minimum 6m required under the HDCP 2013. Accordingly, the existing lots will permit a development afforded with an appropriate level of urban design consistent with the desired character of the neighbourhood whilst also allowing for a good level of amenity for future occupants and adjoining residences.

It is also noted that the R3 Medium density Residential zone of the subject sites permit attached dwelling developments. Further, the design, form and scale of the development will fit into the theme of the streetscape of the vicinity. The immediate visual catchment along McCredie Road consists of varying building typologies (i.e. dwelling houses, dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing development) with a good level of landscape quality in front yards. Accordingly, the proposed development is in keeping with this character.

Given the reasons above, it is considered that the existing lot sizes are acceptable and will help provide an appropriate development in the locality.

Concern 2: Inappropriate finished floor levels for the proposed dwellings.

Comment: The development proposes minimum finished floor level of 33.330m AHD for all the 3 units at the rear. Noting that a stepping design is implemented in the development, a slightly higher finished floor level is achieved at the rear portion of the development to complement the slope of the site to the street. The finished floor levels present limited material impacts on neighbouring developments in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, visual privacy and soil composition. As discussed above, the finished floor level of the proposed development is considered acceptable.

Concern 3: Maximum height of external side wall

Comment: The proposed development achieves a maximum external side wall height of 7.8m on the eastern elevation of the dwelling on Lot 61. Recognising that the extent of the variation is located in the front third of the development, the material impacts on neighbouring properties is expected to be minor and limited to overshadowing and visual impacts at the front sections of adjoining developments. Notwithstanding this, the development ensures compliant solar access and privacy for existing and future residents and the public domain. It also responds to the desired scale and character of the street and local area. Noting the impacts are minimal and the variation relatively minor, the non-compliance is considered reasonable in this instance.

Concern 4: Visual Privacy and Safety

Comment: The development provides a minimum 1m side setback along the eastern elevation which complies with the minimum requirements under the HDCP 2013. The eastern elevation windows which interface with the western side of the adjoining eastern property consists of windows and their corresponding sill heights and doors:

 

·        Garage window – 1.1m (Low activity room)

·        Laundry (W2) -1.2m (Low activity room)

·        Kitchen (W4)- 1m - Subject to 1.8m high boundary fence

·        Living room (W5&6) – Subject to 1.8m high boundary fence

·        Garage door for side access

·        Laundry door for side access

Given the above sill heights and the imposition of a condition requiring a 1.8m high boundary fence, the immediate privacy issues are considered to be ameliorated. Accordingly, the visual privacy impact from the development is considered acceptable. In regards to safety and security, the proposed development is considered acceptable as it generally complies with CPTED principles contained in the HDCP 2013. Also, the proposal is not expected to inhibit the safety and security of adjoining developments.

Concern 5: Side wall length exceeding 10m

Comment: The control for first floor side walls not to exceed 10m without articulation under the HDCP 2013, only applies to dwelling house and dual occupancy developments and not for small lot housing developments. Notwithstanding this, the proposed design is acceptable, having considered, character of the street, bulk, scale and form. The development is also well articulated and complemented with a good mix of colours and finishes and window openings to enhance the appearance.

Concern 6: Allotment size of Lot 61

Comment: As discussed in Concern 1, Council relies on the surveyors calculated lot sizes for the assessment of the proposal. Notwithstanding the minor non-conformity with 200m2 required of involving subdivision or resubdivision, Lot 61 is an existing Torrens title lot which will provide the development adequate site opportunities for an appropriate level of urban design consistent with the desired character of the neighbourhood which also allows for a good level of amenity for future occupants and adjoining residences. 

Concern 7: Excessive floor space ratio (FSR)

Comment: The first submission package for the development application consisted of architectural plans that exceeded the maximum gross floor area. Following initial assessment and deferral of the development application, the applicant submitted a set of revised plans that comply with the development standard. Accordingly, the gross floor area of the proposal is satisfactory having been revised to comply with the FSR.

Concern 8: Common wall between dwellings on Lot 59 and 60

Comment: The common wall between Lots 59 and 60 does not encroach into the front setback as suggested. Rather, a common feature wall is provided between Lots 59 and 60 which presents as an articulation feature in the street. As such, it enhances the architectural presentation of the development along McCredie Road.

Submission 3

Concern 1: Non-conforming lot size for Attached & Small Lot Housing.

Comment: The subject lot sizes as indicated on the submitted Survey Plan prepared by Frankham Engineering Surveys, dated 31 January 2018 are outlined as below:

LOT NUMBER

LOT SIZE BY DP

LOT SIZE BY CALCULATION

VARIATION (%)

(Lot size by calculation)

Lot 59

196m2

199.4m2

0.3%

Lot 60

196m2

197.5m2

1.25%

Lot 61

189.7m2

195.6m2

2.2%

Recognising that the site has been pegged and dimensions checked by a registered surveyor as of 31 January 2018, Council relies on the newly calculated lot sizes for the assessment of the proposal.

Notwithstanding this, each of the 3 existing allotment sizes by calculation do not comply with the minimum 200m2 stipulated by the HDCP 2013 for Attached & Small Lot Housing developments. The lot sizes as shown in the table above are however considered acceptable for the following reasons:

·        The development application proposes construction of attached housing on 3 existing lots and does not involve subdivision or resubdivision of any of the 3 lots.

·        The extent of the variations are considered to range from negligible to minor as indicated in the table above. Also, notwithstanding the lot sizes, the width of all the allotments comply with the minimum 6m required under the HDCP 2013. Accordingly, the existing lots will permit a development afforded with an appropriate level of urban design consistent with the desired character of the neighbourhood whilst also allowing for a good level of amenity for future occupants and adjoining residences.

It is also noted that the R3 Medium density Residential zone of the subject sites permit attached dwelling developments. Further, the design, form and scale of the development will fit into the theme of the streetscape of the vicinity. The immediate visual catchment along McCredie Road consists of varying building typologies (i.e. dwelling houses, dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing development) with a good level of landscape quality in front yards. Accordingly, the proposed development is in keeping with this character.

Given the reasons above, it is considered that the existing lot sizes are acceptable and will help provide an appropriate development in the locality.

Concern 2: Maximum height of external side wall

Comment: The proposed development achieves a maximum external side wall height of 7.6m on the western elevation of the dwelling on Lot 59 and not 8.2m as suggested. Recognising that the extent of the variation is located in the front third of the development, the material impacts on neighbouring properties is expected to be minor and limited to overshadowing and visual impacts at the front sections of adjoining developments. Notwithstanding this, the development ensures compliant solar access and privacy for existing and future residents and the public domain. It also responds to the desired scale and character of the street and local area. Noting the impacts are minimal and the variation relatively minor, the non-compliance is considered reasonable in this instance.

Concern 3: Overshadowing impacts on western adjoining development

Comment: The proposed development complies with the HDCP 2013 in terms of minimum solar access requirements into the private open spaces and main living areas of adjoining developments. It is noted that there are no overshadowing impacts on the development at 11A McCredie Road given the distance from the proposed development.

Concern 4: Side wall length exceeding 10m

Comment: The control for first floor side walls not to exceed 10m without articulation under the HDCP 2013, only applies to dwelling house and dual occupancy developments and not small lot housing developments. Notwithstanding this, the proposed design is acceptable, having considered, character of the street, bulk, scale and form. The development is also well articulated and complemented with a good mix of colours and finishes and window openings to enhance the appearance.

Concern 5: Excessive floor space ratio (FSR)

Comment: The first submission package for the development application consisted of architectural plans that exceeded the maximum gross floor area. Following initial assessment and deferral of the development application, the applicant submitted a set of revised plans that comply with the development standard. Accordingly, the gross floor area of the proposal is satisfactory having been revised to comply with the FSR.

Concern 6: Common wall between dwellings on Lot 59 and 60

Comment: The common wall between Lots 59 and 60 does not encroach into the front setback as suggested. Rather, a common feature wall is provided between Lots 59 and 60 which presents as an articulation feature in the street. As such, it enhances the architectural presentation of the development along McCredie Road.

Concern 7: Adverse impacts of the proposal on on-street parking and streetscape

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer raised no objections to the impacts of the development application on street parking following review. In regards to streetscape, the proposal is considered consistent with the existing street character and provides a design that will be consistent with the desired character of the vicinity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The calculation is based on 3 x 4 bedroom dwellings. As of 12 June 2019, the fee payable is $24,360.00 with a credit for one existing dwelling. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

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

Conclusion:

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Holroyd LEP 2013 and Holroyd DCP 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R3 medium density residential zone under the relevant provisions of Holroyd LEP 2013. The proposal is consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. Minor non-compliances with Council controls has been discussed in the body of this report. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the development may be approved by deferred commencement subject to conditions.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

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

Communication / Publications:

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

 

Report Recommendation:

1.      That Development Application No. 2018/481/1 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of 3 x 2 storey attached dwellings on land at 9 McCredie Road, Guildford West be granted deferred commencement approval subject to attached conditions in the attached schedule.

 

Attachments

1.      Draft Notice of Determination

2.      Architectural Plans

3.      Redacted Submission 1

4.      Redacted Submission 2

5.      Redacted Submission 3

6.      Landscape Plan

7.      Stormwater Plan

8.      Shadow Diagram

9.      Acoustic Report  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP040/19

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP040/19

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP040/19

Attachment 3

Redacted Submission 1


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP040/19

Attachment 4

Redacted Submission 2


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP040/19

Attachment 5

Redacted Submission 3


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP040/19

Attachment 6

Landscape Plan


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP040/19

Attachment 7

Stormwater Plan


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP040/19

Attachment 8

Shadow Diagram


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP040/19

Attachment 9

Acoustic Report


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

12 June 2019

 

Item No: LPP041/19

Development Application for Adjacent to 28A Campbell Street, Berala

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                                    DA-63/2019  

 

 

Application lodged

20 March 2019.

Applicant

Jcdecaux Australia P/L.

Owner

Cumberland Council.

Application No.

DA-63/2019.

Description of Land

Adjacent to 28A Campbell Street Berala.

Proposed Development

Use of a digital display sign affixed to a Telstra payphone for third party advertising.

Site Area

N/A.

Zoning

B2 Local Centre Zone.

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure.

Heritage

No.

Principal Development Standards

Floor space ratio

 

Permissible floor space ratio:- 2:0.

Proposed:- Nil.

 

And:

 

Height of Building

 

Permissible:- 14 metres

Proposed: Not applicable. No building is proposed.

Issues

Submissions.

Summary:

1.      Development Application No.DA-63/2019 was received by Council on the 20 March 2019 for use of a digital display sign affixed to a Telstra payphone for third party advertising.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of fourteen (14) days between Tuesday 30 April and Tuesday 14 May 2019. In response, twenty (20) submissions were received.

3.      There are no variations to the planning controls.

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

 

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

Report:

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The site is situated close to the intersection of Campbell Street with Burke Avenue. The locality is situated south of a railway line and railway station but within the southern portion of the Berala Town Centre. There is a group of shops situated at 19 to 37 Burke Avenue and 28 and 28A Campbell Street that defines the southern portion of the Berala Town Centre.

The remainder of the locality on the southern side of the railway line is residential in nature.

The Berala Railway Station is situated along the northern side of Campbell Street to the north. A Woolworths Supermarket and a small number of specialty shops is situated on a site to the immediate north of the railway station being Lot 100 in DP 1177777 which is known as 157 Woodburn Road Berala.

A pedestrian tunnel and pathway links the southern portion of the Berala Town Centre with the remainder of the town centre to the north.

The Berala Railway Station is identified as an archaeological feature (Item Number A53) within the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

There is presently one Telstra payphone situated at the front of 28A Campbell Street that will be replaced with a new payphone. The replacement payphone to the site does not require development consent.

The site and immediate locality is also subject to flooding during a 1 in 100 year flood event; however, flooding is not an issue for a public payphone or an advertising panel attached to such a structure.

There is also a foreshore building line applying to land situated along the northern side of Campbell Street and this occurs because there is a stormwater channel situated between the roadway that forms Campbell Street and the Berala Railway Station. The site is not within the foreshore building line.

The location of the site is shown below.

The aerial photo of the site is shown below.


 

A photo of the site is provided below.

DSCN5456

Description of The Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for consent to install third party advertising arising from the upgrade to Telstra’s payphone infrastructure and technology. The third party advertising will be integrated into an upgraded public payphone to be installed under Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. A new replacement payphone will be established at the front of the site known as 28A Campbell Street Berala which does not require consent.

The Smart City payphone including electronic display screen will be initially installed under Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.

The subject development application is limited to the third party advertising content change only. The applicant is requesting that a 15 year consent be issued for the third party advertising on a static electronic display screen within the exempt payphone structure.

The third party advertising will be displayed on a screen that has an area of 2.36 square metres and with dimensions of 1.973 metres x 1.2 metres. The proposed sign will display six (6) advertisements per minute.

There will also be a screen within the payphone that will display Telstra advertising. The advertising content for this screen will not require development consent. 

The luminance of the main advertising screen will not exceed a maximum of 0.25 cd/per square metre.

 

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Urbis and dated March 2019. The report was submitted with the development application on March 20 2019.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Council’s Properties Department

The development application was referred to Council’s Properties Department for land owners consent. Council’s Properties Department has authorised the development application to permit third party advertising on Council land being the pedestrian footpath.

External Referrals

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

Planning Comments

Permissibility

The site is within zone B2 “Local Centre” which permits signage with consent.

The payphone structure has been defined by the applicant as a low impact facility pursuant to Clause 3.1 of the Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 2018. As per Clause 3.1, the installation of the payphone structure would not require consent from Council if all relevant provisions of the determination were satisfied.

In consideration of this, the Panel would only be approving of the signage under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. Furthermore:-

·        No consent is required for the public payphone.

·        Council’s consent is required for the use of signage for third party advertising.

·        Council’s Properties Department has given owners consent for the lodgement of the development application.


 

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

Matter for Consideration

Yes/No

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

 Yes

 No

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

 Yes

 No

Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site?

acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation

 

 Yes

 No

 

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

 Yes

 No

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

 Yes

 No

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

 Yes

 No

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

 Yes

 No

Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:

 

The site is identified as a public footpath and the development application is for content signage within an electronic signage panel attached to a telephone booth. No excavation work is required. Given the nature of the development application, it is considered that the development sought is acceptable for the purpose of the State Policy.

Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?

 Yes

 No

(b)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

A public payphone is exempt development for the purpose of Schedule 3A of State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007 (Item 15) if it meets certain criteria. In this situation, the payphone is meeting the criteria of Item 15 and as such development consent for the payphone is not required. No further assessment using the State Policy is required.

(c)     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 - Advertising and Signage

The provisions of SEPP 64 have been considered in the following compliance table:-

Requirement

 

Yes

No

N/A

Comment

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 3(1)(a)(i) Aims, objectives

Signage is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is considered that the signage (Content) is satisfactory.

Clause 3(1)(a)(ii), Aims, objectives

Signage provides effective communication in suitable locations.

 

 

 

 

Third party advertising as well as content change is proposed.

 

An internal screen will display Telstra advertising but the content does not require Council consent.

 

An advertising panel will be installed to the rear of the payphone for third party advertising. The content displayed will be non Telstra advertising (third party) advertising.

 

The panel will display a maximum of six (6) advertisements per minute with an instantaneous transition time. The content will be illuminated with images being no greater than 2,500 cd/ square metres. Content will vary depending on what is advertised.

 

The type of advertising proposed is considered as being acceptable.

Clause 3(1)(a)(iii), Aims objectives

Signage is high quality design and finish.

 

 

 

Old technology is being replaced with new advertising technology. It is considered that signage is of high quality design and finish.

Clause 3(1)

 

(b) to regulate signage (but not content) under Part 4 of the Act, and

 

(c)  to provide time-limited consents for the display of certain advertisements, and

(d)  to regulate the display of advertisements in transport corridors, and

(e)  to ensure that public benefits may be derived from advertising in and adjacent to transport corridors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The applicant has requested a time limited consent of fifteen (15) years for the development application which should be supported.

 

Council’s Property Department has raised no objection to the time limitation consent that is sought.

Clause 4 - Definitions

 

 

 

 

Definition:- The SEPP defined the proposal as “Advertisement” which means “Signage to which Part 3 applies”.

 

Given that the LED screen is not a business identification or a building identification sign an assessment is required using Part 3 where applicable.

Part 2 - Signage Generally

Clause 8 Granting of consent to signage

A consent authority must not grant consent to an application to display signage unless:

(a) that signage is consistent with the objectives of the Policy at clause 3(1)(a)

(b) (b) that the signage satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance is achieved.

Part 3 - Advertisements (this part does not apply to business identification signs, building identification signs, signage that, or the display of which, is exempt development under an EPI, signage on vehicles)

Clause 10 - Prohibited advertisements

(1) Despite the provisions of any other environmental planning instrument, the display of an advertisement is prohibited on land that is an environmentally sensitive area, heritage area (excluding railway stations), natural or other conservation area, open space, waterway, residential (but not a mixed residential and business zone or similar zone), scenic protection area, national park, nature reserve

 

(2) This clause does not apply to the following:

 

(a) The Mount Panorama Precinct.

(b) The display of an advertisement at a public sporting facility situated on land zoned public recreation under an EPI being an advertisement that provides information about the sponsors of the teams or organisations using the sporting facility or about the products of those sponsors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The site is not situated within an environmentally sensitive area of Berala.

 

The Berala Railway Station situated along the northern side of Campbell Road is identified as an archaeological feature (Item Number A53) within the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

The screen will not impact onto the nearby archaeological heritage listed item.

 

It is considered that an archaeological impact statement is not required.

12. Consent authority

For the purposes of this Policy, the consent authority is:

 

(a)  the council of a local government area in the case of an advertisement displayed in the local government area (unless paragraph (c), (d) or (e) applies), or

(b)  the Maritime Authority of NSW in the case of an advertisement displayed on a vessel, or

(c)  the Minister for Planning in the case of an advertisement displayed by or on behalf of RailCorp, NSW Trains, Sydney Trains, Sydney Metro or Transport NSW on a railway corridor, or

(d)  the Minister for Planning in the case of an advertisement displayed by or on behalf of the RMS on:

(i)  a road that is a freeway or tollway (under the Roads Act 1993 or associated road use land that is adjacent to such a road, or

(ii)  a bridge constructed by or on behalf of the RMS on any road corridor, or

(iii)  land that is owned, occupied or managed by the RMS, or

(e)  the Minister for Planning in the case of an advertisement displayed on transport corridor land comprising a road known as the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, the Eastern Distributor, the M2 Motorway, the M4 Motorway, the M5 Motorway, the M7 Motorway, the Cross City Tunnel or the Lane Cove Tunnel, or associated road use land that is adjacent to such a road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council is the consent authority for advertising content for third party advertising in this situation.

 

 

Clause 13

1. A consent authority must not grant consent to an application to display an advertisement unless the advertisement or advertising structure as the case requires:

(a) is consistent with the objectives of the Policy at clause 3(1)(a)

(b) has been assessed by the consent authority in accordance with the assessment criteria in Schedule 1 and the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts and

(c)  satisfies any other relevant requirements of this Policy.

 

2. If the Minister for Planning is the consent authority or clause 18 or 24 applies to the case, the consent authority must not grant consent to an application to display an advertisement to which this Policy applies unless the advertisement or the advertising structure, as the case requires:

 

(a)  is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and

(b)  has been assessed by the consent authority in accordance with the assessment criteria in Schedule 1 and in the Guidelines and the consent authority is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of:

(i)  design, and

(ii)  road safety, and

(iii)  the public benefits to be provided in connection with the display of the advertisement, and

 

(c)  satisfies any other relevant requirements of this Policy.

(3) In addition, if clause 18 or 24 applies to the case, the consent authority must not grant consent unless arrangements that are consistent with the Guidelines have been entered into for the provision of the public benefits to be provided in connection with the display of the advertisement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The sign panel is determined as being acceptable to the location.

 

The development application is limited to the third party advertising content change only. The third party advertising will be displayed on a screen that is 1.973 metres tall, and 1.2 metres wide (Area 2.367 square metres).

 

The sign panel is within or forms part of a payphone operated by Telstra. The site is within a pedestrian thoroughfare of Campbell Road and there will be minimal impact or disruption to traffic flows within Campbell Road or nearby Burke Avenue.

 

Subclause 2 will not apply to the development application because Clause 18 or 24 does not apply to the development application.

 

The screen within the payphone will display Telstra advertising content and such advertising does not require Council consent.

 

Note:- The Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines do not require consideration because the telephone booth is not situated within a transport corridor and the panel the subject of this application is not affected by Clause 18 or 24 of the State Policy.

Clause 14 Duration of Consents

(1) A consent granted under this part ceases to be in force:

(a) on the expiration of 15 years after the date on which the consent becomes effective and operates

(b) if a lesser period is specified by the consent authority, that lesser period

(2) The consent authority may specify a period less than 15 years only if:

(a) before the commencement of this Part, the consent authority had adopted a policy of granting consents in relation to applications to display advertisements for a lesser period and the duration of the consent authority is consistent with that policy

(b) the area in which the advertisement is undergoing change in accordance with an EPI that aims to change the nature and character of development and where the proposed advertisement would be inconsistent with that change

(c)  (c) the specification of a lesser period if required by another provision of this Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No objection is raised to the fifteen (15) year consent that is sought by the applicant.

Clause 16 Transport corridor land

 (1)   Despite the provisions of any other environmental planning instrument, the display of an advertisement on transport corridor land is permissible with development consent in the following cases:

(a)  the display of an advertisement by or on behalf of RailCorp, NSW Trains, Sydney Trains, Sydney Metro or Transport NSW on a railway corridor,

(b)  the display of an advertisement by or on behalf of the RMS on:

(i)  a road that is a freeway or tollway (under the Roads Act 1993 or associated road use land that is adjacent to such a road, or

(ii)  a bridge constructed by or on behalf of the RMS on any road corridor, or

(iii)  land that is owned, occupied or managed by the RMS and that is within 250 metres of a classified road,

(c)  the display of an advertisement on transport corridor land comprising a road known as the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, the Eastern Distributor, the M2 Motorway, the M4 Motorway, the M5 Motorway, the M7 Motorway, the Cross City Tunnel or the Lane Cove Tunnel, or associated road use land that is adjacent to such a road.

(2)    Before determining an application for consent to the display of an advertisement in such a case, the Minister for Planning may appoint a design review panel to provide advice to the Minister concerning the design quality of the proposed advertisement.

(3)    The Minister must not grant consent to the display of an advertisement in such a case unless:

(a)  the relevant local council has been notified of the development application in writing and any comments received by the Minister from the local council within 28 days have been considered by the Minister, and

(b)  the advice of any design review panel appointed by the Minister has been considered by the Minister, and

(c)  the Minister is satisfied that the advertisement is consistent with the Guidelines.

(4)    This clause does not apply to the display of an advertisement if the Minister determines that display of the advertisement is not compatible with surrounding land use, taking into consideration any relevant provisions of the Guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 16 will not apply to the development application because the advertising panel and payphone is not situated within land designated as a transport corridor.

Clause 17 Advertisements with display area greater than 20m2 or higher than 8m above ground

(2) The display of an advertisement to which this clause applies is advertised development for the purposes of the Act

(3) The consent authority must not grant consent to an application under this clause unless:

(a) the applicant has provided an impact statement that addressed the assessment criteria in Schedule 1 and the consent authority is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts and

(b) the application has been advertised in accordance with s79A of the Act

(c)  At the same time as advertisement, a copy of application was given to the RMS (if it is an advertisement to which clause 18 applies)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 17 will not apply to the development application. In particular:-

 

·    The screen within the telephone booth has dimensions of 900 mm x 225 mm and occupying an area of 0.202 square metre. The screen does not require Council consent as third party advertising is not proposed.

 

·    The larger panel has dimensions of 1,973 mm x 1,200 mm and occupying an area of 2.36 square metres.

 

The screen to which third party advertising is proposed is less than 20 square metres in area and less than 8 metres in height.

Clause 18 Advertisements greater than 20m2 and within 250m of, and visible from, a classified road

(2) Consent must not be granted without the concurrence of the RMS

(3) In deciding whether or not concurrence should be granted, RMS must take into consideration:

(a)  the impact of the display of the advertisement on traffic safety, and

(b)  the Guidelines.

(c)  (Repealed)

 

(4) If RMS has not informed the consent authority within 21 days after the copy of the application is given to it under clause 17 (3) (c) (ii) that it has granted, or has declined to grant, its concurrence, RMS is taken to have granted its concurrence.

 

(5) Nothing in this clause affects clause 16.

 

(6) This clause does not apply when the Minister for Planning is the consent authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 18 will not apply to the development application.

 

Clause 19 Advertising display area greater than 45m2

(a) No consent must be granted to the display of an advertisement with an advertising display area greater than 45m2 unless a DCP is in force that has been prepared on the basis of an advertising display analysis for the relevant area or precinct

(b) In the case of the display of an advertisement on transport corridor land, the consent authority is satisfied that the advertisement is consistent with the Guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 19 is not relevant to the development application.

Clause 20 Location of certain names and logos

(1) The name or logo of the person who owns or leases an advertisement or advertising structure may appear only within the advertising display area

(2) If the advertising display area has no border or surrounds, any such name or logo is to be located:

(a) within the advertisement, or

(b) within a strip below the advertisement that extends for the full width of the advertisement

(3) The area of any such name or logo must not exceed 0.25m2

(4) The area of any such strip is to be included in calculating the size of the advertising display area

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All technology and logos associated with the electronic screen and third party advertising is integrated within the exempt structure. There are no logos within the frames or devices to be erected.

Clause 23 Freestanding advertisements

(1) Consent may only be granted of the advertising structure on which the advertisement is displayed does not protrude above the dominant skyline, including any buildings, structures or tree canopies when viewed from ground level when viewed from ground level within a visual catchment of 1km.

 

(2) This clause does not prevent the consent authority, in the case of a freestanding advertisement on land within a rural or non-urban zone, from granting consent to the display of the advertisement under clause 15.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A free standing structure is not proposed.

Schedule 1 Assessment Criteria

Character of the area

Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

The character and nature of the locality will not be changing. The immediate locality is characterised by commercial and retail land uses and high levels of pedestrian movement. The signage content is compatible with the locality.

Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

There is no advertising theme for the locality.

Special areas

Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

The Berala Railway Station situated along the northern side of Campbell Road is identified as an archaeological feature (Item Number A53) within the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

The screen will not impact onto the nearby archaeological heritage listed item.

 

The site is not within an environmental sensitive area, heritage area, natural or other conservation area.

Views and vistas

Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

The proposal will not impact onto any existing views or vistas.

Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

The panel will not dominate the skyline or reduce the quality of vistas.

Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

There are no other advertisers on site affected by the change to the panel.

Streetscape, setting or landscape

Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

The advertising content will be integrated within an exempt payphone within a commercial location being a footpath adjacent to shops and associated businesses. The advertising content will have no additional impacts in terms of scale, proportion and form.

Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

 

Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

There is no clutter of signage proposed.

Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

There is no unsightliness to screen.

Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

The panel or content of advertising will not impact on the built form of the exempt payphone or surrounding buildings.

Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

No ongoing management of vegetation is required.

Site and building

Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which proposed signage is to be located?

The proposed signage is compatible with the subject site’s character, and surrounding area.

Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

This is achieved.

Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building or both?

 

Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures

Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is displayed?

All logos associated with the electronic displays screen and third party advertising are already integrated within the exempt structure.

Illumination

Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

The new panel will be illuminated but illumination is not considered excessive.

Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

 

Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

 

Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

The electronic display screen have inbuilt light sensors that measure the ambient light around the structure that gradually adjusts the screen brightness based on the need for light. The adjustments occur within small increments to avoid dramatic change in illuminance levels.

 

The luminance will never exceed 0.25 cd/ square metre.

 

Additionally, the screens will not contain flourescent bulbs or spotlights.

 

An appropriate condition is provided within the recommendation addressing illuminance levels.

Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

 

Safety

Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

The sign and content will not interfere with traffic or pedestrian flows.

Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

 

Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sight lines from public areas?

 

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

 

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

Local Environmental Plans

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010

The provisions of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 are applicable to the development application.

The land is within zone B2 Local Centre which permits signage with consent. In this regard, the development sought is best considered as being signage. Signage is defined as:-

“Signage means any sign, notice, device, representation or advertisement that advertises or promotes any goods, services or events and any structure or vessel that is principally designed for, or that is used for, the display of signage, and includes any of the following:-

(a)  an advertising structure,

(b)  a building identification sign,

(c)  a business identification sign,

but does not include a traffic sign or traffic control facilities”.

Signage is not identified as being prohibited within the zone. It is identified that the proposal achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone.

The relevant matters to be considered under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix A.

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

COMPLIANCE

DISCUSSION

4.3 Height of Buildings

14 metres.

Yes

A building is not proposed and building height is generally not relevant in this instance.

 

However, the advertising panel will have dimensions of 1.973 metres x 1.2 metres and will be positioned 754 mm above the footpath level.

 

The top of the sign panel screen will be no higher than approximately 2.47 metres above the footpath level.

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

2:0

N/A

Not applicable for signage.

5.10 Heritage conservation

Yes

The Berala Railway Station situated along the northern side of Campbell Road is identified as an archaeological feature (Item Number A53) within the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

The advertising content earmarked for the signage panel will have no known impact towards the heritage archaeological item. It is considered that the signage panel is acceptable when taking into account the proximity of the heritage item to the payphone and subsequent advertising content.

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

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

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

The Auburn Development Control Plan provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. It is identified that the provisions will have limited applicability to the development as follows.

Advertising and Signage

The only provision relevant to the development application is the “Advertising and Signage” chapter of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010. In this regard:-

·        Part 2.0 (Subpart D1) - Advertising and Signage shall be consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy 64 “Advertising and Signage”.

·        Part 3.0 (Subpart D1) - Advertising shall be displayed in English but may include a translation in another language.

The evidence provided by Telstra in this application would indicate that compliance would be achieved for the advertising content that would be displayed. Furthermore, it is also identified that the advertising content would be compliant with State Environmental Planning Policy 64 “Advertising and Signage”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)                Mail                Sign          Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 the proposal was publicly notified for a period of fourteen (14) days between Tuesday 30 April and Tuesday 14 May 2019. The notification generated twenty (20) form submissions in respect of the proposal. The issues raised are the same as follows:

1-      Digital signage is a road hazard to cars and pedestrians and will create a distraction to both pedestrians and drivers and add to excessive clutter of the streetscape.

Comments

The development application is seeking third party advertising within a payphone that is being replaced at the same location.

There is already an electronic advertising panel situated at the site close to the pedestrian crossing. The new replacement sign panel and signage would not be excessive in size (2.36 square metres). The proposed sign:-

·        Is not expected to change traffic conditions in the locality.

·        Create adverse traffic conditions.

·        Impair traffic flows within the locality.

·        Will not impair pedestrian movements or worsen the operations of the adjoining street corner.

·        Will not add to clutter that will contribute to a deterioration of the immediate road network.

·        Will have an acceptable level of illumination in which light levels would be controlled based on the need for light.

Proposed condition 3 addresses the operation of the signage including lighting and display of messages.

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

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development, if carried out subject to the conditions set out in the recommendation below, will have no significant adverse impacts on the public interest.

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

The development does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plans.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy 64 “Advertising and Signage”, the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010. The development sought is considered as being satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the B2 Local Centres Zone under the relevant provisions of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. The proposal is consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the development may be approved subject to conditions.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

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

Communication / Publications:

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

 

Report Recommendation:

1.      That Development Application Number 63/2019 for use of a digital display sign affixed to a Telstra payphone for third party advertising on land adjacent to 28A Campbell Street Berala be approved subject to attached conditions.

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

 

Attachments

1.      Draft Notice of Determinaiton

2.      Architectural Plans

3.      Submission received

4.      Appendix A  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP041/19

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determinaiton


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP041/19

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP041/19

Attachment 3

Submission received


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP041/19

Attachment 4

Appendix A


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

12 June 2019

 

Item No: LPP042/19

Development Application for Adjacent to 174 Woodburn Road, Berala

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                                    DA-83/2019  

 

 

Application lodged

22 March 2019.

Applicant

Jcdecaux Australia P/L.

Owner

Cumberland Council.

Application No.

DA-83/2019.

Description of Land

Adjacent to 174 Woodburn Road Berala.

Proposed Development

Use of a digital display sign affixed to a Telstra payphone for third party advertising.

Site Area

N/A.

Zoning

B2 Local Centre Zone.

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure.

Heritage

No.

Principal Development Standards

Floor space ratio

 

Permissible floor space ratio:- 2:0.

Proposed:- Nil.

 

And:

 

Height of Building

 

Permissible:- 14 metres

Proposed: Not applicable. No building is proposed.

Issues

Submissions.

Summary:

1.      Development Application No.DA-83/2019 was received by Council on the 22 March 2019 for use of a digital display sign affixed to a Telstra payphone for third party advertising.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of fourteen (14) days between Tuesday 30 April and Tuesday 14 May 2019. In response, thirteen (13) submissions were received.

3.      There are no variations to the planning controls.

4.      The development application is recommended for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions as provided within the attached schedule.

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

Report:

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The site is situated on the northern side of Woodburn Road adjacent to shops and adjacent to the intersection of Crawford Street with Woodburn Road.

There are shops and small businesses situated at street addresses 174 to 188 Woodburn Road that forms part of the Berala Town Centre. There are residential apartment buildings to the north of the shops but separated from the shops by Nicol Lane that connects Crawford Street with Elizabeth Street.

The Berala Woolworths Supermarket and the Berala Hotel and an associated car park is situated on land to the south of Woodburn Road.

There is presently one Telstra payphone situated on the footpath of Crawford Street adjacent to the shops at 170 - 172 Woodburn Road but this payphone will be relocated to the new site.

The site and immediate locality is not subject to flooding and there are no heritage listed items within the immediate vicinity of the site.

The location of the site is shown below.


 

The aerial photo of the site is shown below.

A photo of the site is provided below.

Description of The Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for consent to install third party advertising arising from the upgrade to Telstra’s payphone infrastructure and technology. The third party advertising will be integrated into a public payphone which will be installed subject to the provision of the Telecommunication (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 2018.

A new payphone will be established at the front of the site known as 174 Woodburn Road Berala. This will be achieved by relocating the existing phone from outside 172 Woodburn Road to the new location and upgrading the device. 

 

The subject development application is limited to the third party advertising content change only. The applicant is requesting that a 15 year consent be issued for the third party advertising on a static electronic display screen within the payphone structure at the site.

The third party advertising will be displayed on a screen that has an area of 2.36 square metres and with dimensions of 1.973 metres x 1.2 metres. The proposed sign will display six (6) advertisements per minute.

There will also be a screen within the telephone booth that will display Telstra advertising. The advertising content for this screen will not require development consent.

The luminance of the main advertising screen will not exceed a maximum of 0.25 cd/per square metre.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Urbis and dated March 2019. The report was submitted with the development application on March 22 2019.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Council’s Properties Department

The development application was referred to Council’s Properties Department for land owners consent. Council’s Properties Department has authorised the development application to permit third party advertising on Council land being the pedestrian footpath.

External Referrals

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

Planning Comments

Permissibility

The site is within zone B2 “Local Centre” which permits signage with consent.

 

The payphone structure has been defined by the applicant as a low impact facility pursuant to Clause 3.1 of the Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 2018. As per Clause 3.1, the installation of the payphone structure would not require consent from Council if all relevant provisions of the determination were satisfied.

In consideration of this, the Panel would only be approving of the signage under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. Furthermore:-

·        No consent is required for a low impact facility.

·        Council’s consent is required for the use of signage for third party advertising.

·        Council’s Properties Department has given owners consent for the lodgement of the development application.

The applicant will be required to demonstrate to Council that a payphone structure has been erected prior to the operation of any consent issued and an appropriate deferred commencement consent condition is provided addressing the matter.

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

 

Matter for Consideration

Yes/No

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

 Yes

 No

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

 Yes

 No

Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site?

acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation

 

 Yes

 No

 

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

 Yes

 No

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

 Yes

 No

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

 Yes

 No

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

 Yes

 No

Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:

 

The site is identified as a public footpath and the development application is for content signage within an electronic signage panel attached to a telephone booth. No excavation work is required. Given the nature of the development application, it is considered that the development sought is acceptable for the purpose of the State Policy.

Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?

 Yes

 No

(b)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

A public payphone is exempt development for the purpose of Schedule 3A of State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007 (Item 15) if it meets certain criteria. In this situation, the applicant will be required to demonstrate to Council that a payphone structure has been erected prior to the operation of any consent issued and an appropriate deferred commencement consent condition is provided addressing the matter.


 

(c)     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 - Advertising and Signage

The provisions of SEPP 64 have been considered in the following compliance table:

Requirement

 

Yes

No

N/A

Comment

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 3(1)(a)(i) Aims, objectives

Signage is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is considered that the signage (Content) is satisfactory.

Clause 3(1)(a)(ii), Aims, objectives

Signage provides effective communication in suitable locations.

 

 

 

 

Third party advertising as well as content change is proposed.

 

An internal screen will display Telstra advertising but the content does not require Council consent.

 

An advertising panel will be installed to the rear of the telephone phone booth for third party advertising. The content displayed will be non Telstra advertising (third party) advertising.

 

The panel will display a maximum of six (6) advertisements per minute with an instantaneous transition time. The content will be illuminated with images being no greater than 2,500 cd/ square metres. Content will vary depending on what is advertised.

 

The type of advertising proposed is considered as being acceptable.

Clause 3(1)(a)(iii), Aims objectives

Signage is high quality design and finish.

 

 

 

Old technology is being replaced with new advertising technology. It is considered that signage is of high quality design and finish.

Clause 3(1)

 

(b) to regulate signage (but not content) under Part 4 of the Act, and

 

(c)  to provide time-limited consents for the display of certain advertisements, and

(d)  to regulate the display of advertisements in transport corridors, and

(e)  to ensure that public benefits may be derived from advertising in and adjacent to transport corridors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The applicant has requested a time limited consent of fifteen (15) years for the development application.

 

Council’s Property Section has raised no objection to the time limitation consent that is sought.

Clause 4 - Definitions

 

 

 

 

Definition:- The SEPP defined the proposal as “Advertisement” which means “Signage to which Part 3 applies”.

 

Given that the LED screen is not a business identification or a building identification sign an assessment is required using Part 3 where applicable.

Part 2 - Signage Generally

Clause 8 Granting of consent to signage

A consent authority must not grant consent to an application to display signage unless:

(a) that signage is consistent with the objectives of the Policy at clause 3(1)(a)

(b) (b) that the signage satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance is achieved.

Part 3 - Advertisements (this part does not apply to business identification signs, building identification signs, signage that, or the display of which, is exempt development under an EPI, signage on vehicles)

Clause 10 - Prohibited advertisements

(1) Despite the provisions of any other environmental planning instrument, the display of an advertisement is prohibited on land that is an environmentally sensitive area, heritage area (excluding railway stations), natural or other conservation area, open space, waterway, residential (but not a mixed residential and business zone or similar zone), scenic protection area, national park, nature reserve

 

(2) This clause does not apply to the following:

 

(a) The Mount Panorama Precinct.

(b) The display of an advertisement at a public sporting facility situated on land zoned public recreation under an EPI being an advertisement that provides information about the sponsors of the teams or organisations using the sporting facility or about the products of those sponsors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The site is not situated within an environmentally sensitive area of Berala and there are no heritage listed items close by to the site.

 

It is considered that a heritage report is not required.

12. Consent authority

For the purposes of this Policy, the consent authority is:

 

(a)  the council of a local government area in the case of an advertisement displayed in the local government area (unless paragraph (c), (d) or (e) applies), or

(b)  the Maritime Authority of NSW in the case of an advertisement displayed on a vessel, or

(c)  the Minister for Planning in the case of an advertisement displayed by or on behalf of RailCorp, NSW Trains, Sydney Trains, Sydney Metro or Transport NSW on a railway corridor, or

(d)  the Minister for Planning in the case of an advertisement displayed by or on behalf of the RMS on:

(i)  a road that is a freeway or tollway (under the Roads Act 1993 or associated road use land that is adjacent to such a road, or

(ii)  a bridge constructed by or on behalf of the RMS on any road corridor, or

(iii)  land that is owned, occupied or managed by the RMS, or

(e)  the Minister for Planning in the case of an advertisement displayed on transport corridor land comprising a road known as the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, the Eastern Distributor, the M2 Motorway, the M4 Motorway, the M5 Motorway, the M7 Motorway, the Cross City Tunnel or the Lane Cove Tunnel, or associated road use land that is adjacent to such a road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council is the consent authority for advertising content for third party advertising in this situation.

 

 

Clause 13

1. A consent authority must not grant consent to an application to display an advertisement unless the advertisement or advertising structure as the case requires:

(a) is consistent with the objectives of the Policy at clause 3(1)(a)

(b) has been assessed by the consent authority in accordance with the assessment criteria in Schedule 1 and the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts and

(c)  satisfies any other relevant requirements of this Policy.

 

2. If the Minister for Planning is the consent authority or clause 18 or 24 applies to the case, the consent authority must not grant consent to an application to display an advertisement to which this Policy applies unless the advertisement or the advertising structure, as the case requires:

 

(a)  is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and

(b)  has been assessed by the consent authority in accordance with the assessment criteria in Schedule 1 and in the Guidelines and the consent authority is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of:

(i)  design, and

(ii)  road safety, and

(iii)  the public benefits to be provided in connection with the display of the advertisement, and

 

(c)  satisfies any other relevant requirements of this Policy.

(3) In addition, if clause 18 or 24 applies to the case, the consent authority must not grant consent unless arrangements that are consistent with the Guidelines have been entered into for the provision of the public benefits to be provided in connection with the display of the advertisement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The sign panel is determined as being acceptable to the location.

 

The development application is limited to the third party advertising content change only. The third party advertising will be displayed on a screen that is 1.973 metres tall, and 1.2 metres wide (Area 2.367 square metres).

 

The sign panel is within or forms part of a phone booth operated by Telstra. The site is within a pedestrian thoroughfare of Woodburn Road (The footpath) and there will be minimal impact or disruption to traffic flows within Woodburn Road and adjacent Crawford Street.

 

Subclause 2 will not apply to the development application because Clause 18 or 24 does not apply to the development application.

 

The screen within the telephone booth will display Telstra advertising content and such advertising does not require Council consent.

 

Note:- The Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines do not require consideration because the payphone is not situated within a transport corridor and the panel the subject of this application is not affected by Clause 18 or 24 of the State Policy.

Clause 14 Duration of Consents

(1) A consent granted under this part ceases to be in force:

(a) on the expiration of 15 years after the date on which the consent becomes effective and operates

(b) if a lesser period is specified by the consent authority, that lesser period

(2) The consent authority may specify a period less than 15 years only if:

(a) before the commencement of this Part, the consent authority had adopted a policy of granting consents in relation to applications to display advertisements for a lesser period and the duration of the consent authority is consistent with that policy

(b) the area in which the advertisement is undergoing change in accordance with an EPI that aims to change the nature and character of development and where the proposed advertisement would be inconsistent with that change

(c)  (c) the specification of a lesser period if required by another provision of this Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No objection is raised to the fifteen (15) year consent that is sought by the applicant.

Clause 16 Transport corridor land

 (1)   Despite the provisions of any other environmental planning instrument, the display of an advertisement on transport corridor land is permissible with development consent in the following cases:

(a)  the display of an advertisement by or on behalf of RailCorp, NSW Trains, Sydney Trains, Sydney Metro or Transport NSW on a railway corridor,

(b)  the display of an advertisement by or on behalf of the RMS on:

(i)  a road that is a freeway or tollway (under the Roads Act 1993 or associated road use land that is adjacent to such a road, or

(ii)  a bridge constructed by or on behalf of the RMS on any road corridor, or

(iii)  land that is owned, occupied or managed by the RMS and that is within 250 metres of a classified road,

(c)  the display of an advertisement on transport corridor land comprising a road known as the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, the Eastern Distributor, the M2 Motorway, the M4 Motorway, the M5 Motorway, the M7 Motorway, the Cross City Tunnel or the Lane Cove Tunnel, or associated road use land that is adjacent to such a road.

(2)    Before determining an application for consent to the display of an advertisement in such a case, the Minister for Planning may appoint a design review panel to provide advice to the Minister concerning the design quality of the proposed advertisement.

(3)    The Minister must not grant consent to the display of an advertisement in such a case unless:

(a)  the relevant local council has been notified of the development application in writing and any comments received by the Minister from the local council within 28 days have been considered by the Minister, and

(b)  the advice of any design review panel appointed by the Minister has been considered by the Minister, and

(c)  the Minister is satisfied that the advertisement is consistent with the Guidelines.

(4)    This clause does not apply to the display of an advertisement if the Minister determines that display of the advertisement is not compatible with surrounding land use, taking into consideration any relevant provisions of the Guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 16 will not apply to the development application because the advertising panel and payphone is not situated within land designated as a transport corridor.

Clause 17 Advertisements with display area greater than 20m2 or higher than 8m above ground

(2) The display of an advertisement to which this clause applies is advertised development for the purposes of the Act

(3) The consent authority must not grant consent to an application under this clause unless:

(a) the applicant has provided an impact statement that addressed the assessment criteria in Schedule 1 and the consent authority is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts and

(b) the application has been advertised in accordance with s79A of the Act

(c)  At the same time as advertisement, a copy of application was given to the RMS (if it is an advertisement to which clause 18 applies)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 17 will not apply to the development application. In particular:-

 

·    The screen within the telephone booth has dimensions of 900 mm x 225 mm and occupying an area of 0.202 square metre. The screen does not require Council consent as third party advertising is not proposed.

 

·    The larger panel has dimensions of 1,973 mm x 1,200 mm and occupying an area of 2.36 square metres.

 

The screen to which third party advertising is proposed is less than 20 square metres in area and less than 8 metres in height.

Clause 18 Advertisements greater than 20m2 and within 250m of, and visible from, a classified road

(2) Consent must not be granted without the concurrence of the RMS

(3) In deciding whether or not concurrence should be granted, RMS must take into consideration:

(a)  the impact of the display of the advertisement on traffic safety, and

(b)  the Guidelines.

(c)  (Repealed)

 

(4) If RMS has not informed the consent authority within 21 days after the copy of the application is given to it under clause 17 (3) (c) (ii) that it has granted, or has declined to grant, its concurrence, RMS is taken to have granted its concurrence.

 

(5) Nothing in this clause affects clause 16.

 

(6) This clause does not apply when the Minister for Planning is the consent authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 18 will not apply to the development application.

 

Clause 19 Advertising display area greater than 45m2

(a) No consent must be granted to the display of an advertisement with an advertising display area greater than 45m2 unless a DCP is in force that has been prepared on the basis of an advertising display analysis for the relevant area or precinct

(b) In the case of the display of an advertisement on transport corridor land, the consent authority is satisfied that the advertisement is consistent with the Guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 19 is not relevant to the development application.

Clause 20 Location of certain names and logos

(1) The name or logo of the person who owns or leases an advertisement or advertising structure may appear only within the advertising display area

(2) If the advertising display area has no border or surrounds, any such name or logo is to be located:

(a) within the advertisement, or

(b) within a strip below the advertisement that extends for the full width of the advertisement

(3) The area of any such name or logo must not exceed 0.25m2

(4) The area of any such strip is to be included in calculating the size of the advertising display area

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All technology and logos associated with the electronic screen and third party advertising is integrated within the exempt structure. There are no logos within the frames or devices to be erected.

Clause 23 Freestanding advertisements

(1) Consent may only be granted of the advertising structure on which the advertisement is displayed does not protrude above the dominant skyline, including any buildings, structures or tree canopies when viewed from ground level when viewed from ground level within a visual catchment of 1km.

 

(2) This clause does not prevent the consent authority, in the case of a freestanding advertisement on land within a rural or non-urban zone, from granting consent to the display of the advertisement under clause 15.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A free standing structure is not proposed.

Schedule 1 Assessment Criteria

Character of the area

Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

The character and nature of the locality will not be changing. The immediate locality is characterised by commercial and retail land uses and high levels of pedestrian movement. The signage content is compatible with the locality.

Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

There is no advertising theme for the locality.

Special areas

Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

The site is not within an environmental sensitive area, heritage area, natural or other conservation area.

 

There are no heritage listed items close by to the site.

Views and vistas

Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

The proposal will not impact onto any existing views or vistas.

Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

The panel will not dominate the skyline or reduce the quality of vistas.

Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

There are no other advertisers on site affected by the change to the panel.

Streetscape, setting or landscape

Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

The advertising content will be integrated within an exempt structure within a commercial location being a footpath adjacent to shops and associated businesses. The advertising content will have no additional impacts in terms of scale, proportion and form.

Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

 

Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

There is no clutter of signage proposed.

Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

There is no unsightliness to screen.

Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

The panel or content of advertising will not impact on the built form of the exempt telephone booth or surrounding buildings.

Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

No ongoing management of vegetation is required.

Site and building

Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which proposed signage is to be located?

The proposed signage is compatible with the subject site’s character, and surrounding area.

Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

This is achieved.

Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building or both?

 

Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures

Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is displayed?

All logos associated with the electronic displays screen and third party advertising are already integrated within the exempt structure.

Illumination

Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

The new panel will be illuminated but illumination is considered not excessive.

Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

 

Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

 

Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

The electronic display screen have inbuilt light sensors that measure the ambient light around the structure that gradually adjusts the screen brightness based on the need for light. The adjustments occur within small increments to avoid dramatic change in illuminance levels.

 

The luminance will never exceed 0.25 cd/ square metre.

 

Additionally, the screens will not contain flourescent bulbs or spotlights.

 

An appropriate condition is provided within the recommendation addressing illuminance levels.

Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

 

Safety

Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

The sign and content will not interfere with traffic or pedestrian flows.

Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

 

Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sight lines from public areas?

 

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010

The provisions of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 are applicable to the development application.

The land is within zone B2 Local Centre which permits signage with consent. In this regard, the development sought is best considered as being signage. Signage is defined as:-

“Signage means any sign, notice, device, representation or advertisement that advertises or promotes any goods, services or events and any structure or vessel that is principally designed for, or that is used for, the display of signage, and includes any of the following:-

(a)  an advertising structure,

(b)  a building identification sign,

(c)  a business identification sign,

but does not include a traffic sign or traffic control facilities”.

Signage is not identified as being prohibited within the zone. It is identified that the proposal achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone.

 

The relevant matters to be considered under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix A.

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

COMPLIANCE

DISCUSSION

4.3 Height of Buildings

14 metres.

Yes

A building is not proposed and building height is generally not relevant in this instance.

 

However, the advertising panel will have dimensions of 1.973 metres x 1.2 metres and will be positioned 754 mm above the footpath level.

 

The top of the sign panel screen will be no higher than approximately 2.47 metres above the footpath level.

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

2:0

N/A

Not applicable for signage.

5.10 Heritage conservation

Yes

The site is not within an environmental sensitive area, heritage area, natural or other conservation area.

 

There are no heritage listed items close by to the site.

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

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

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

The Auburn Development Control Plan provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. It is identified that the provisions will have limited applicability to the development as follows.

Advertising and Signage

The only provision relevant to the development application is the “Advertising and Signage” chapter of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010. In this regard:-

·        Part 2.0 (Subpart D1) - Advertising and Signage shall be consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy 64 “Advertising and Signage”.

·        Part 3.0 (Subpart D1) - Advertising shall be displayed in English but may include a translation in another language.

The evidence provided by Telstra in this application would indicate that compliance would be achieved for the advertising content that would be displayed. Furthermore, it is also identified that the advertising content would be compliant with State Environmental Planning Policy 64 “Advertising and Signage”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)               Mail                Sign                Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 the proposal was publicly notified for a period of fourteen (14) days between Tuesday 30 April and Tuesday 14 May 2019. The notification generated thirteen (13) x form submissions in respect of the proposal. The issues raised are the same as follows:

1-      Digital signage is a road hazard to cars and pedestrians and will create a distraction and add to excessive clutter of the streetscape.

Comments

The development application is seeking third party advertising within a payphone that is upgraded and relocated from its present position adjacent to 172 Woodburn Road to a site adjacent to 174 Woodburn Road. Hence there is already an electronic advertising panel situated at this intersection but at a different location.

The new replacement sign panel and signage would not be excessive in size (2.36 square metres).

The proposed sign:-

·        Is not expected to change traffic conditions in the locality.

·        Create adverse traffic conditions.

·        Impair traffic flows within the locality.

·        Will not impair pedestrian movements or worsen the operations of the adjoining street corner.

·        Will not add to clutter that will contribute to a deterioration of the immediate road network.

·        Will have an acceptable level of illumination in which light levels would be controlled based on the need for light.

Proposed condition 3 addresses the operation of the signage including lighting and display of messages.

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

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development, if carried out subject to the conditions set out in the recommendation below, will have no significant adverse impacts on the public interest.

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

The development does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plans.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy 64 “Advertising and Signage”, the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010. The development sought is considered as being satisfactory for deferred commencement consent subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the B2 Local Centres Zone under the relevant provisions of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. The proposal is consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the development may be approved as deferred commencement consent subject to conditions.

Consultation:

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

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

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

Communication / Publications:

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

 

Report Recommendation:

1.      That Development Application Number 83/2019 for use of a digital display sign affixed to a Telstra payphone for third party advertising on land adjacent to 174 Woodburn Road Berala be approved as deferred commencement consent subject to attached conditions.

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

 

Attachments

1.      Draft Notice of Determination

2.      Architectural Plans

3.      Submissions Received

4.      Appendix A  

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP042/19

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP042/19

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP042/19

Attachment 3

Submissions Received


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP042/19

Attachment 4

Appendix A


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 12 June 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

12 June 2019

 

Item No: LPP043/19

Development Application for 14 Hilltop Road, Merrylands

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Manager Development Assessment

File Number:                                    DA 2018/416/1  

 

 

Application lodged

8 November 2018

Applicant

George Andary

Owner

Mr G and Mrs J Andary

Application No.

2018/416/1

Description of Land

14 Hilltop Road, Merrylands (Lot 84 in DP 5296)

Proposed Development

Demolition of existing structures; construction of a 4 storey shop top housing development comprising 50 place child care centre on the ground floor; 1 commercial tenancy, and 14 residential units above 2 levels of basement parking accommodating 41 car parking spaces.

Site Area

1380m².

Zoning

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

Principal Development Standards

·  Floor Space Ratio – 1.2 :1 (HLEP 2013)

·  Height of Buildings – 14m

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

No

Issues

Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space

Car parking ratio

Landscape area

Summary:

1.      Development Application 2016/289 was approved on 14 July 2017 for Demolition of existing structures; construction of a 4 storey shop top housing development comprising 1 commercial tenancy; 16 residential units above basement parking accommodating 26 carparking spaces

2.      A S96(2) modification 2016/289/2 was approved on 23 March 2018 for alterations and additions including 2 additional residential units, conversion of the ground floor commercial tenancy into 2 tenancies and additional parking spaces totalling 18 residential units and 29 parking spaces.

3.      Development Application 2018/416/1 (subject of this report) was received on 8 November 2018 for demolition of existing structures; construction of a 4 storey shop top housing development comprising 60 place child care centre on the ground floor; 1 commercial tenancy, and 14 residential units above 2 levels of basement parking accommodating 41 car parking spaces.

 

4.      The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 14 days from 21 November 2018 to 5 December 2018. In response, one (1) submission was received.

5.      Council through its assessment identified a number of concerns with the proposal, and requested amended plans and additional information on 7 February 2019.

6.      Amended plans and additional information were received on 25 February 2019 addressing some of Council’s concerns.

7.      The proposed development seeks following notable variations:

 

Control

Required

Provided

% variation

Building Separation

Under the Apartment Design Guide, separation between windows and balconies is required to ensure acoustic and visual privacy is achieved. Minimum separation distances for buildings up to four storeys from buildings to the side and rear boundaries shall be 6m.

Minimum separation of 6m is required. All elevations vary from 0m – 6m.

 

Refer to commentary provided under Appendix D, Part C, 1.4 of the Holroyd DCP 2013.

-       

Up to 100% variance

Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space

-       

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

Regulation 108 and part 4.9 the Guideline

 

7m²x 57 = 399m²

404.87m²

(including pedestrian walkway on the eastern elevation)

 

Assessing officer’s calculation = 354.3m²/7(excluding the walkway on the eastern elevation) = 50.6 children

 

Recommendation = reduce number of children to 50

12.3%

Building Height

Under the Holroyd Development Control Plan, the maximum building height in storeys shall be 3 storeys.

 

The development proposes 4 storeys.

Refer to commentary provided under Appendix D, Part C, 1.3 of the Holroyd DCP 2013.

25%

Location

Under the Holroyd Development Control Plan, child care centres should not be located having frontage to an arterial or sub-arterial road (see Appendix 1 to Part I of HDCP 2013).

Hilltop Road is listed within Appendix 2 of Part I of the HDCP 2013 as unsuitable road for Child care centre.

Refer to commentary provided under Appendix D, Part I of the Holroyd DCP 2013.

100%

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

9.      It is recommended that the application be approved for a maximum of 50 children (due to the available unencumbered outdoor space/play area) subject to conditions provided in the Draft Notice of Determination held at Attachment 1.

Report:

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 14 Hilltop Road, Merrylands, and is legally described as Lot 84 in DP 5296. The site is a regular block with a frontage of 25.945m, depth of 67.32m on the eastern boundary and 68.365m on the western boundary and a total site area of 1380m².

The site is located on the southern side of Hilltop Road. The subject site and part of adjoining properties on the eastern side are zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre and part R3 Medium Density Residential. The adjoining properties to the west and south are zoned R3 Medium Density Residential Zones. Properties directly opposite the site to the north are zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

Existing improvements on the site include a single-storey dwelling house and a shed. Adjoining development on the eastern side contains a single storey medical centre and development on the western side contains a single storey place of public worship (church).


Area hatched in red is 14 Hilltop Road, Merrylands (Locality)

14 Hilltop Road, Merrylands (Aerial)


 

Site photo

Description of The Proposed Development

The proposed development, as amended involves demolition of existing structures; construction of a 4 storey shop top housing development comprising 1 commercial tenancy; 14 residential units above 2 levels of basement parking accommodating 41 car parking spaces.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

·        Demolition of the existing dwelling.

Basement Level

·        Car parking in the basement (two levels) as follows:

ii)              

-        21 (3 disabled) space for residential

-        3 Visitor space

-        14 (1 disabled) space for the childcare facility

-        3 commercial space

Total car space = 41 car space

-        1 Carwash space 

-        9 bicycles space

-        Separate commercial and residential lift

-        Fire stairs

-        Storage space for residential units

Ground Floor

·        Waste bins at grade:

-        9 General Bins and 6 recyclable bins, totalling 15 bins for residential

-        5 General bins and 5 recyclable bins, totalling 10 bins for child care facility and commercial premises

·        Childcare facility:

-        The proposed childcare will accommodate 50 children

-        The proposed centre will operate from 7am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday

-        20 Children in the 2-3 year bracket and 30 children in the 3-6 year bracket

-        A total of 8 staff will be employed (this excludes any staff associated with administration and food preparation)

·        Commercial area:

-        One commercial tenancy of 37.91m²

-        Loading bay for commercial tenancy

·        Substation

·        Separate commercial and residential lift

·        Fire stairs

2nd Floor

·        1 (adaptable) x 1 bedroom unit

·        6 (1 adaptable) x 2 bedroom units

·        Residential lift

3rd Floor

·        1 (adaptable) x 1 bedroom unit

·        4 x 2 bedroom units

·        1 x 3 bedroom unit

·        Communal Open space

·        Residential lift

4th Floor

·        1 x 4 bedroom unit (penthouse)

·        Communal Open Space

·        Residential lift

 

History

Date

Action

24 February 2016

Pre Development Advisory PDA/200 was held for construction of a 4 storey mixed use building over basement parking accommodating 19 units and 32 car parking spaces.

14 July 2017

Development Application 2016/289 was approved for Demolition of existing structures; construction of a 4 storey shop top housing development comprising 1 commercial tenancy; 16 residential units above basement parking accommodating 26 carparking spaces

23 March 2018

A S96(2) modification 2016/289/2 was approved for alterations and additions including 2 additional residential units, conversion of the ground floor commercial tenancy into 2 tenancies and additional parking spaces totalling 18 residential units and 29 parking spaces

25 July 2018

Pre Development Advisory Application PDA/777 was held for modification to an approved shop top housing development (DA/2016/289) via the lodgement of an amending Development Application, to incorporate a 58 place child care centre within the ground floor. Also associated changes to the residential units in terms of the common open space area, additional basement level and parking, and the consolidation of a number of units at the top level to form a penthouse

25 October 2018

Development Application 2018/366 was rejected by the Development Application Review Team (DART) due to insufficient information.

08 November 2018

Development Application 2018/416 was lodged for demolition of existing structures; construction of a 4 storey shop top housing development comprising 60 place child care centre on the ground floor; 1 commercial tenancy, and 14 residential units above 2 levels of basement parking accommodating 41 car parking spaces.

14 November 2018

The application was referred to Council’s internal departments for review.

21 November 2018 to 05 December 2018

The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 14 days. In response, 1 submission was received.

7 February 2019

Application was deferred due to non-compliances with SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Child Care Planning Guideline 2017, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013, and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013.

25 February 2019

Amended plans and additional information were received by Council. In response to the issues raised, the primary change being to reduce the number of childcare placements to 57. The amended application was not considered to be notified.

26 February 2019

The application was re-referred to Council’s internal departments for review.

12 June 2019

Application referred to CLPP for determination.

 

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

The applicant provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd dated 1 October 2018 and 25 February 2019 in support of the application.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to stormwater measure, and on-site detention provision, 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 traffic management and median island works, subject to deferred commencement conditions.

Tree Management Officer

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

Waste Management Officer

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

Environmental Health Officer

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

 

Children’s Services

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

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment who has advised that the development is satisfactory. However, a letter from the Applicant states that the proposed distance of the substation from the proposed childcare facility may cause Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) levels generated by the proposed substation. According the letter recommends testing on the location once both facilities are constructed would be required to confirm the levels present. To ensure safety measures are taken into account, a condition prior to the occupation of the childcare centre has been imposed.

Transgrid

The development application was referred to Transgrid for comment who has advised that the development is supportable.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

 

 

Matters for consideration

Yes

No

N/A

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

Is the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g.: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?

Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site?  

 

acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites,  metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation.

Is the site listed on Council's Contaminated Land Database?  

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

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

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

Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?

Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:  

In relation to clause 7(4) of SEPP 55, the land of concerned is not located within an investigation area (clause 7(4)(a)), development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 of the Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines is not known to have been carried out on the land (clause 7(4)(b), and historic zoning controls of the land did not make lawful the carrying out of activities nominated in Table 1. Based on these considerations, clauses 7(2) and 7(3) of SEPP 55 have no application. The site is not identified in Council’s records as being contaminated. A site inspection reveals the site does not have any obvious signs or history of a previous land use that may have caused contamination and there is no specific evidence that indicates the site is contaminated. On this basis, SEPP 55 has no further application. Notwithstanding, a soil assessment report is required in accordance with the Child Care Planning Guideline issued by NSW Department of Planning and Environment. The proposal is considered satisfactory, subject to imposition of condition with regard to submission of a soil assessment report prior to issue of construction certificate.

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

The application is accompanied with BASIX Certificate 738748M_03 prepared by Taylor Smith Consulting issued on 3 October 2018 has been submitted. This certificate is a revision of certificate number 738748M lodged on 15 July 2016 with application 2016/289/1. A deferred commencement condition will be imposed for a new BASIX certificate for DA/2018/416/1.

The BASIX Commitments specified in the BASIX Certificate shall be nominated on the architectural drawings and will need to be incorporated into the construction and fit-out of the development. A condition to require the BASIX commitments to be implemented in the construction of the development has been included in the draft conditions of consent.

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

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

A comprehensive assessment against SEPP 65 and the ADG is contained in Appendix A. The proposal involves the following non-compliances with the ADG controls.

Control

Required

Provided

Visual Privacy/Acoustic/ Separation

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

 

Building Height = 12m / 4 storeys

-    Habitable Rm / Balc. = 6m

-    Non-Habitable Rm = 3m

 

Building Height = 25m / 5-8 storeys

-    Habitable Rm / Balc. = 9m

-    Non-Habitable Rm = 4.5m

 

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room.

 

          Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties.

Northern Elevation (Hilltop Road)

Ground Floor – 0m

2nd Storey –  0m

3rd Storey –  0m

4th Storey – 2.99m

 

Eastern Elevation (Interfaces 12 Hilltop Road, 98 and 100 Burnett Street)

Ground Floor – 3m – 5.8m

2nd Storey –  0m – 6m

3rd Storey – 0m – 6m

4th Storey – 0m – 6m

 

 

Southern elevation (Interfaces 37 Richardson Street)

Ground Floor – 13,675m

2nd Storey –  13,675m

3rd Storey – 13,675m

4th Storey – 13,675m

 

Western elevation (Interfaces  16 Hilltop Road)

Ground Floor – 2 -6m

2nd Storey –  0m – 6.225m

3rd Storey – 0m – 6m

4th Storey – 0m – 6m

 

Refer to commentary provided under Appendix D, Part C, 1.4 of the Holroyd DCP 2013.

 

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

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

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

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

-        Control

-         Required

-        Provided

-        Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space (regulation 108 SEPP 2017 and part 4.9 the Guideline)

7m²x 57 = 399m²

The application indicates that an unencumbered area of 404.87m² is provided (including pedestrian walkway on the eastern elevation).

 

Assessing officer’s calculation = 354.3m² (excluding the walkway on the eastern elevation) = 50.6 children

 

This report recommends a condition to be imposed on any consent granted seeking a reduction in number of children to 50.

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

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

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

No vegetation removal is proposed.

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

(a)     Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013

The proposed development is defined as a ‘shop top housing’ and ‘centre based child care facility’ under the provisions of Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013. Shop top housing and Centre based child care facilities are a permissible land use with consent under the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone applying to the land under Holroyd LEP 2013.

“shop top housing means one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises”

The development proposes a child care facility and 1 commercial tenancy on the ground floor level. The child care facility is not a “retail premises” or “business premises”, however, the centre provides a service directly to members of the public on a regular basis. For most centres, members of the public are unable to walk in off the street and have their child minded. Rather, it is usual that that the child needs to be registered and attendance is subject to availability within the centre.

It is noted the development also has a commercial tenancy on the ground floor which would be capable of being used as such and accordingly, the development satisfies the definition of “shop top housing”. The commercial tenancy is 37.91m² in area. The size of the commercial tenancy may create restrictions on the type of commercial use the tenancy may operate in the future. It is not necessary that the retail or business premises occupy the whole of the ground floor or the entire footprint for the dwellings above.

In Affinity Property Investment Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1756 (albeit by way of a s.34 agreement), the Court approved 1 retail/business premises and a child care centre on the ground floor and 44 apartments above.

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

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

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

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

(b)     Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013

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

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

The assessment provided in Appendix D indicates that there are some minor non-compliances with the HDCP 2013 which are discussed in the following section:

No.

Clause

Comment

Yes

No

N/A

PART C – COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

1.3

Building Height

 

Maximum building height in storeys shall be provided in accordance with the table below:

 

Permitted Height (storeys)

Height

Storeys

10m

1

11m

2

12.5m

2

14m

3

17m

4

20m

5

23m

6

26m

7

29m

8

32m

9

38m

11

41m

12

50m

15

53m

16

65m

20

The Holroyd Development Control Plan states the maximum building height in storeys shall be 3 storeys for the subject site. The development proposes 4 storeys which does not comply with the prescriptive requirement. The 4 storey mixed used development is considered acceptable in this instance because it is located at the western edge of a neighbourhood commercial precinct. The scale and design is sympathetic to the future streetscape of the area. It is noted that DA/2016/289/1 had previously approved a 4 storey building. Therefore the current application is keeping consistent with the approved number of storeys. Furthermore, the overall height of the building complies with Holroyd Local Environmental Plan. Therefore the proposal is considered satisfactory.

PART I – CHILDCARE CENTRES

1

Location

 

 

 

 

 

Child care centres should not be located having frontage to any road, which in the opinion of Council, is unsuitable for the establishment of a child care centre having regard to:-

(a)       prevailing traffic conditions;

(b)       pedestrian and traffic safety; and

(c)        the likely impact of development on the flow of traffic on the surrounding street system.