24 July 2019

An Extraordinary Meeting of Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30am at the Merrylands Administration Building, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands on Wednesday, 24 July 2019.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.         Receipt of Apologies

2.         Declaration of Interest

3.         Address by invited speakers

4.         Reports

          -        Development Applications

          -        Planning Proposals

5.      Closed Session Reports

 

 24 July 2019

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

ELPP049/19 Development Application for 7 Linden Street Toongabbie........................... 5

ELPP050/19 Development Application for 2 Kingsland Road, Berala.......................... 131

ELPP051/19 Development Application for 9-19 Mary Street, Auburn........................... 257

ELPP052/19 Development Application for 14, 16 & 18 Good Street, Westmead......... 479

 

   

24 July 2019

 

 

Item No: ELPP049/19

Development Application for 7 Linden Street Toongabbie

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    2019/52  

 

 

Application lodged	4 March 2019
Applicant	Designcorp Architects Pty Ltd
Owner	Sarakis Holdings Pty Ltd
Application No.	2019/52
Description of Land	7 Linden Street Toongabbie
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5 storey boarding house with 24 boarding rooms and 1 manager's room, part undercroft, part basement parking for 13 cars and 5 motorcycle spaces pursuant to SEPP ARH 2009
Site Area	580.9 m2
Zoning	R4 – High Density
Principal development standards	Height of Buildings – 15 m Floor Space Ratio – 1.2:1 (1.7:1 with SEPP ARH bonus)
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	Subject site is not within the vicinity of any heritage item or heritage conservation area
Issues	Public submissions (19)

1.      The subject application was lodged on 4 March 2019 and notified to surrounding properties from 3 April to 17 April 2019.

2.      Nineteen submissions were received during the notification period.

3.      The application was deferred on 1 May 2019 and amended plans were submitted on 22 May 2019. The amended plans did not require re-notification.

4.      The submissions raised concerns regarding building height, suitability of the site for the proposed development, insufficient parking, crime and antisocial behaviour.

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

6.      The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 and Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013.

7.      The application involves the following numerical non-compliances with the relevant planning controls which are considered supportable as discussed elsewhere in the report.

 

8.      The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions provided in the draft determination.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 7 Linden Street, Toongabbie and is legally described as Lot 5 in DP 28978. The site is located on the western side of Linden Street and is approximately 500 metres south west of Toongabbie Town Centre. The site is zoned R4 – High Density Residential, as are the surrounding sites. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of approximately 14 m to the curved section of Linden Street, and a site area of 580.9m². The site currently contains a single storey dwelling house and associated outbuildings. 

There are existing flat building developments to the north, the west, and on the opposite side of Linden Street to the east. A new laneway has recently been constructed linking Linden Street with Harvey Place. Beyond the laneway, to the south is ‘Keene Park’ - a Council reserve.

The subject site is isolated in that it does not meet the minimum frontage requirement for a residential flat building development, and there are no opportunities for amalgamation with neighbouring properties.

Consent was granted on 15 February 2016 (subject to deferred commencement conditions) for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5 storey residential flat building with 8 units at the subject site. The deferred commencement conditions were satisfied and the consent became operational on 2 March 2016. However, a construction certificate has not been issued for the approved development and the consent has now lapsed.

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

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

Subject site – view from Linden Street.  Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Description of the Proposed Development

DA 2019/52 proposes demolition of existing structures, construction of a 5 storey boarding house with 24 boarding rooms and 1 manager’s room, part undercroft, part basement parking for 13 cars, and 5 motorcycles pursuant to SEPP ARH.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

 

Basement	Seven car spaces and five motorcycle spaces
Ground level	Six car spaces, lobby, and waste storage room. Vehicular and pedestrian access is provided via the laneway.
First Floor	Six boarding rooms including one adaptable room, and manager’s accommodation. All boarding rooms contain ensuite bathrooms and kitchenette facilities.
Second Floor	Seven boarding rooms including one adaptable room.  All boarding rooms contain ensuite bathrooms and kitchenette facilities.
Third Floor	Seven boarding rooms, all including ensuite bathroom and kitchenette facilities.
Fourth Floor	Four boarding rooms, a communal room, communal laundry facilities and a terrace area including BBQ facilities.

The proposed development is serviced by lift and stair access to each level.

History

 

Date	Action
15 February 2016	DA 2015/561 approved for construction of a 5 storey residential flat building with 8 units on the subject site
14 September 2017	DA 2017/385 was lodged with Council seeking consent for construction of a boarding house with 29 rooms plus manager’s room, with at grade parking for 7 cars on the subject site.
26 January 2018	DA 2017/385 deferred due to non-compliances with SEPP ARH, HLEP 2013 and HDCP 2013 planning controls and standards.
1 June 2018	SEPP ARH was amended to require a minimum of 0.5 car spaces per boarding room in the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider
3 July 2018	DA 2017/385 deferred due to non-compliance with the new parking rate in the SEPP ARH
31 July 2018	Amended plans submitted by the applicant providing for an additional level of car parking, to be accessed by car lift
24 October 2018	DA 2017/385 refused by CLPP
15 February 2019	Development consent 2015/561 lapsed
4 March 2019	DA 2019/52 (subject application) lodged with Council
27 March 2019	DA 2019/52 referred to the following internal sections for comment: ·    Engineering ·    Waste Management ·    Environmental Health Unit ·    Landscaping
3 to 17 April 2019	DA 2019/52 was placed on public notification for 14 days. Council received 19 submissions in respect of the proposal during the notification period.
1 May 2019	The application was deferred seeking additional information and amended plans.
22 May 2019	Amended plans and additional information submitted to Council. The amended plans were not required to be renotified.
24 July 2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) prepared by Think Planners dated 27 February 2019 was submitted with the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineering

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment. The response received 16 April 2019 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory, subject to a number of deferred commencement conditions. The amended plans submitted by the applicant satisfactorily addressed the issues raised by the Engineer and confirmation was provided on 31 May 2019 that the application can be approved, subject to standard conditions.

Traffic Engineering

The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment. The response received 12 April 2019 recommends deferral of the application. The issues raised by the Traffic Engineer were satisfactorily addressed in the applicant’s response to the deferral letter

Environmental Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment. The response received on 4 April 2019 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory, subject to conditions requiring compliance with the recommendations of the acoustic report, and legislation relating to boarding houses.

Landscape and Tree Management

The application was referred to Council’s Landscape and Tree Management Officer for comment. Concerns were raised regarding impact on the tree located on the adjacent property. The amended arborist report satisfactorily addressed these concerns.

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment. The response received 9 April 2019 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory. No conditions were recommended.

External Referrals

NSW Police – referral pending

The application was referred to NSW Police for comment. No response was received.

Planning Comments

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

The proposal does not involve the clearing of any native vegetation. As such, the SEPP does not apply.

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

The subject site is not identified as a coastal wetland and is not or land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands”.

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

BASIX certificate 1017407M dated 22 May 2019 was submitted with the amended application. The proposal achieves the target scores for energy, water and thermal comfort and relevant commitments are shown on the architectural plans.

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

The proposed development is defined as a ‘boarding house’ under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.  The proposal complies with the relevant provisions of the SEPP, as detailed in the compliance table provided at attachment 1.

Character of the Local Area

A consent authority must not consent to development for the purpose of a boarding house unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

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

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

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

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

·    Step 1 – Identify the ‘local area’.

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

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

An assessment against each step is provided below:

Step 1 – Identify the ‘local area’

The local area is identified in the map below as the area within the yellow lines.

Step 2 – Identify the character of the ‘local area’.

All sites within the local area are zoned R4 – High Density Residential under HLEP 2013. 

Whilst there are a number of one and two storey dwellings within the locality, the area is transitioning to higher density developments in accordance with the planning controls that currently apply. The area is subject to a maximum height limit of 15 m and maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.2:1. The emerging character of the area is generally that of small to medium sized (4 storey) residential flat buildings.

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

The following questions assist in determining whether a building is compatible with its surroundings:

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

The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites. 

In terms of the physical impacts of the development:

o The proposal does not restrict the development potential of any adjoining site as they have all been developed already for residential flat buildings.

o The shadows cast by the proposed development will fall mainly to the new laneway which is located directly adjacent to the southern boundary.

o There will be some overshadowing impact on the communal open space area of the newly constructed residential flat building at 3-4 Harvey Place. However, it is considered that this area is vulnerable to overshadowing due to the limited setback of the new flat building and orientation of the site. Given that the proposal complies with the applicable height and FSR standards, limited overshadowing of the adjacent site is considered acceptable.

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

The scale of the proposed building is consistent with the anticipated character of residential buildings in the area. The building has been designed to fit within the approved building footprint of the residential flat building approved pursuant to DA 2015/561. The proposal also complies with the 15 m height of buildings standard which applies to the site.

The setback to Linden Street is compliant with the 6 m control, and the relationship of the building to the site is consistent with that of the surrounding developments. Whilst the proposal is one storey higher than surrounding developments, it is compliant with the height of buildings standard, and the location of the site at the bottom of the street ensures that overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised.

The proposal provides for horizontal and vertical articulation to both façades, with window shades, small balconies, and the level 4 terrace adding visual interest and depth to the building.

In summary, the design and presentation of the proposed development is considered to be in harmony with the character of the local area.

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

The proposed development is defined as a ‘boarding house’ under the provisions of HLEP 2013. Boarding houses are permitted with consent in the R4 – High Density Residential zone which applies to the land.

The proposal complies with all applicable HLEP development standards. A detailed compliance table is provided at attachment 2.

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

The proposed 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))

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

HDCP 2013 contains general controls which relate to all developments under Part A. Whilst there are no specific DCP controls for boarding houses in HDCP 2013, the controls for residential flat buildings in Part B and the Town Centre Controls in Part L are relevant to the assessment of the subject application in that they establish the desired character of the area with regard to building form and the relationship of buildings to the site.

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

 

No.		Clause	Comment		Yes	No	N/A
PART B – RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS
1	GENERAL RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS
1.5	Landscape Area
	Max. 50% of provided landscaped area shall be forward of the front building line.			74 % of the landscaping proposed is within the front setback. Compliance with this control would be difficult in the circumstances as the site has dual frontages. Amended plans provide for additional landscaping above the car park level which limits the extent of the non-compliance and serves to soften the appearance of the development from the neighbouring properties. In the circumstances, this is considered acceptable despite the numerical non-compliance.
6.0	Residential Flat Buildings Whilst there are no specific DCP controls for boarding houses in HDCP 2013, the controls for residential flat buildings in Part B and Town Centre Controls in Part L are relevant to the assessment in that they establish the desired character of the area with regard to building form and the relationship of buildings to the site.
6.1	Lot Size and Frontage
	Minimum lot frontage for residential flat buildings is 24 m or 28 m			The Linden Street frontage is approximately 14 m which is less than the minimum stipulated for residential flat development. The site is isolated and there are no opportunities for amalgamation with adjacent properties.
	Maximum site coverage of any residential flat development shall not exceed 30%			The proposal has a site coverage of 50.4 % (292.8 m2). Given that the proposal provides adequate space for vehicular access and on-site detention, compliance with this control is considered to be unnecessary.
6.3	Setbacks and Separation
	Front setback from secondary street minimum 4 m			3.7 m proposed to the secondary frontage. Most elements of the building comply with the 4 m control. The minor non-compliance is confined to a small section of the building and would be visually imperceptible.
	Minimum rear setback required: Up to four storeys – 20% Five storeys or more – 30%			Ground floor to level 3 Required  = 5.38 m Proposed = 3 m   Level 4 Required = 8.01 m Proposed = 3 m   The proposed setbacks at levels 1-3 are comparable to the setbacks of the existing flat buildings at 3-4 Harvey Place, and 3 Linden Street.   The additional setback at the upper level is not considered necessary in this instance due to the lack of adverse overshadowing impacts on adjacent dwellings from the current design.   The proposal satisfies the objectives of the setback controls by responding appropriately to the location and dimensions of the site, managing visual and acoustic privacy impacts, and minimising overshadowing of adjacent properties.
	Side setback minimum 3 m			Nil setback to undercroft car park from northern side boundary.   The non-compliance is limited to the undercroft car park area adjoining the northern boundary. The impacts of the non-compliance are minimised, with on-structure planting above the car parking area.    Remainder of the building complies with the 3 m control.
6.4	Building separation
	Minimum building separation For residential up to 4 storeys ·    12m between habitable rooms and balconies ·    9m between habitable rooms and balconies and non-habitable rooms ·    6m between non-habitable rooms   For residential between 5-8 storeys ·    18 m between habitable rooms and balconies ·    13 m between habitable rooms and balconies and non-habitable rooms ·    9 m between non-habitable rooms.			Existing 4 storey RFB at 3-4 Linden St has 4.5 m setback to the boundary with no habitable rooms or balconies on the southern elevation.   As such, minimum separation required is 9 m which is not achieved with this proposal (7.5m provided).   Given the constraints of the isolated site and the lack of visual or acoustic privacy impacts, the proposed building separation is considered acceptable.
	One side setback may be used for access and parking if required, provided that a landscape buffer with a minimum width of 1m is provided to the side boundary			Nil setback provided to undercroft parking area on the northern side.   Considered satisfactory as discussed above.
	The minimum setback for basement and semi-basement levels to side and rear boundaries of an allotment is 3 m			Nil setback provided between undercroft parking level and northern boundary.   Considered satisfactory as discussed above.
	A minimum upper storey setback of 3 m is required for all floors above 4 storeys.			No additional setback provided to level 4 (5th storey). This is considered acceptable as there are no adverse overshadowing impacts associated with the non-compliance. And given the location of the site at the end of the street, where all neighbouring sites have already been developed, there is no precedent value in accepting the non-compliance in this instance.
	Minimum floor to ceiling heights of 2.7 m required for habitable rooms			2.9 m slab to slab will not achieve 2.7 m ceiling heights. See comment below.
	Building height
	Maximum building height in storeys shall be provided in accordance with the table below:   Permitted Height (storeys) Height Storeys 9m 1 11m 2 12.5m 3 15m 4 18m 5 21m 6 24 m 7			5 storey building proposed.   The proposal complies with the 15 m height standard that applies pursuant to HLEP 2013.   Surrounding properties have already been developed for residential flat buildings and as such, there is no precedent value in approving a non-compliance in this instance.
	The minimum floor to ceiling heights shall be: ·     2.7 metres for habitable rooms. ·     2.4 metres for non-habitable rooms. 2.4 metres for the second storey section of two storey units if 50% or more of the apartment has a 2.7 metre minimum ceiling height.			The proposal will not achieve 2.7 m ceiling heights as the allowance between floors is only 2.9 m.   The proposal will comply with minimum floor to ceiling heights required under the National Construction Code (NCC) and will allow for adequate internal amenity.
PART L – TOWN CENTRE CONTROLS
	The maximum building storey limit of 4 storeys applies to the subject site.			See discussion above regarding non-compliance with maximum number of storeys.
	Minimum floor to ceiling heights apply as per Part B			See discussion above regarding non-compliance with the minimum floor to ceiling heights.
	Rear and side setbacks are to be in accordance with Part B			See discussion above regarding non-compliance with side and rear setbacks.

 

Council’s Social Impact Assessment Policy

Under Council’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Policy, a Social Impact Comment is required to be submitted for this type of development. The proposal is, however, exempt from the requirement to provide a Comprehensive Social Impact Assessment as there are fewer than 50 dwellings proposed. 

A Social Impact Comment was submitted with the application and concludes that the proposed development will not have unreasonable/ negative social impacts in the locality. A Plan of Management (POM) was submitted with the application and includes measures to mitigate impacts in the locality. The POM is included as an endorsed document in the consent and additional conditions are included to require compliance with, and periodic review of the POM.

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

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

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

Pursuant to clause 92 of the regulation, the provisions of AS2601 – Demolition of structures must be considered in the case of a development application involving the demolition of a building. Standard conditions are included in the draft determination to require that demolition be carried out in accordance with AS 2601. 

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

The likely environmental, social and economic impacts of the development have been considered in the assessment of the application. As discussed in detail elsewhere in the report, the impacts in the locality are considered acceptable. 

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

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)              Mail            Sign            Not Required        

In accordance with Part E Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days from 3 April to 17 April 2019. As a result of the notification, Council received 19 public submissions.

The issues raised in the public submissions are addressed in the following table.

 

 

Issue	Response
Parking ·    Insufficient parking provided on site ·    Non-compliance with Council parking requirements	The proposal complies with the minimum number of parking spaces required for this type of development under SEPP ARH as detailed elsewhere in this report. A consent authority cannot refuse an application for reasons relating to parking if it complies with the minimum number of spaces required under the SEPP.
Safety ·    Heightened crime risk associated with transient population ·    Anti-social activity ·    Risk to safety of young children ·    Pedestrian safety	There is no information available to suggest that boarding houses cause risks to public safety or are associated with criminal or anti-social activity.   A Plan of Management (POM) was submitted with the application. This document deals with matters such as maintenance and use of common areas, waste management, emergency procedures and resolution of complaints. The POM is included as an endorsed document at condition 2 of the draft determination. Subject to compliance with the POM and the recommended conditions of consent, there would be no unreasonable impacts on the local community arising from the construction and occupation of a boarding house as proposed.   The application was referred to NSW Police for review, and no concerns were raised regarding the design of the development, or the nature of the proposed use.   The proposed building addresses both street frontages, providing appropriate passive surveillance of the public domain. The design also provides for appropriate access control and territorial reinforcement.
Devaluation of properties	This is not a matter for consideration in the evaluation of a development application pursuant to section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
·    5 storey out of character with locality (max.4) ·    (Excessive) height ·    Proposed building is out of proportion to the site ·    Overshadowing (from 5th storey) ·    Streetscape impact of a 5 storey building	Whilst the proposal does not comply with the maximum number of storeys control permitted under HDCP 2013, it does comply with the HLEP 2013 height of buildings standard, which allows a maximum height of 15 m. The design of the building is considered to be compatible with the emerging character of the area, having regard to the setbacks, façade treatment, and landscaping of the site.   The proposal will not affect solar access to the living areas or private open spaces of existing dwellings.
Privacy impacts from additional storey.	The top level of the development accommodates four west facing boarding rooms, and east facing communal laundry and living areas. The four boarding rooms will have full height privacy screens, and the physical separation from the east facing communal areas to the existing flat building at 8-12 Linden Street is 20-30 m. This exceeds the ADG building separation requirements and is considered adequate to maintain visual privacy for all properties.
·    Impact on waste collection and efficient operation of the local road network from additional cars parking in the street ·    Pedestrian safety	The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineering and Waste Management section and is considered satisfactory subject to conditions.   The proposal complies with relevant Australian Standards, and will not have any adverse impact on pedestrian safety.
·    Uncertainty around future occupants (target market?) ·    People with criminal history and financial or social instability may reside in the boarding house	The proposal is for a boarding house with 24 rooms and manager’s accommodation. The facility is not being proposed by a social housing provider, and the operator will be free to select tenants in accordance with their commercial interests.
Noise from additional vehicle movements	Subject to compliance with the provisions of the POM and Council’s standard consent conditions, there would be no unreasonable impacts in the locality in terms of noise resulting from the proposed development.
BASIX certificate is incorrect (all dwellings have the same thermal load)	The applicant’s Accredited Assessor advised that a default average thermal load was used for the original BASIX assessment, as Section J of the BCA applies to energy provisions. The applicant provided a new BASIX certificate and assessor certificate with the amended application. The amended certificate is consistent with the architectural plans and heating and cooling loads have been provided for each room.
Suitability of the site for the proposed use ·    Proximity to children’s play area ·    Proximity to existing schools	The subject site is located a short distance from the shops, services and public transport available in Toongabbie Town Centre and as such is well located to accommodate this type of development.   The subject site is zoned R4 – High Density Residential and boarding houses are permitted with consent on the land pursuant to HLEP 2013 and SEPP ARH.   There are no controls in either the SEPP ARH or HDCP 2013 that would restrict the location of boarding houses due to proximity to existing schools or children’s play areas.
Social impacts ·    Existing residents are mainly families with small children ·    Boarding house attracts short term residents who may not be held responsible for misbehaviour ·    No guarantee that target market as identified in the documentation submitted with the application will be the people who end up living in the boarding house ·    Potential for drug addicts and alcoholics to reside in the boarding house ·    impacts on community	Provision of affordable rental housing is not incompatible with other residential uses. There is no evidence available to suggest that boarding houses pose safety risks for young families or small children.   Existing problems with criminal or anti-social behaviour in Toongabbie are matters for the Police and are not relevant to the assessment of the subject application.   Subject to compliance with the applicant’s POM (as described above), there would be no unreasonable impacts on the local community arising from the construction and occupation of a boarding house as proposed.

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

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

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

The subject development attracts contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013. In accordance with the currently indexed rates for the Toongabbie Centre contribution area, the following contributions apply:

·        25 rooms at $6,621 per person (room) = $172,146

·        credit for the existing 3 bedroom dwelling = $20,000

The current rate of the contribution is $145,525. A condition is included in the draft determination requiring payment of development contributions prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory.

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

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

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

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

 

Report Recommendation:   That DA 2019/52 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5 storey boarding house with 24 boarding rooms and 1 manager's room, part undercroft, part basement parking for 13 cars and 5 motorcycle spaces pursuant to SEPP ARH 2009 be approved subject to the conditions provided in the draft notice of determination.

 

1.      SEPP ARH Compliance Table ⇩

2.      HLEP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

3.      HDCP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

4.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

5.      Architectural Plans ⇩

6.      Redacted Public Submissions ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

SEPP ARH Compliance Table

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

HLEP 2013 Compliance Table

 24 July 2019

 

 

Attachment 3

HDCP 2013 Compliance Table

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Draft Notice of Determination

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Architectural Plans

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Redacted Public Submissions

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 July 2019

 

Item No: ELPP050/19

Development Application for 2 Kingsland Road, Berala

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA-103/2019  

 

 

1.      Development Application No.103/2019 was received on 20-Jun-2019 for the ‘Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a 2 storey boarding house development comprising 12 boarding rooms and on site car parking for 6 vehicles’.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of fourteen (14) days between 16 April 2019 and 30 April 2019. In response, three (3) petitions specifying a total of 16, 43 and 66 signatures respectively and two (2) individual submissions were received objecting to the development.

3.      Council issued a deferral letter to the applicant on 8 May 2019 identifying issues with the development and to request additional information.

4.      On 24 May 2019, additional information in response to the deferral letter was submitted to Council.

5.      On 30 May 2019, the applicant was advised of concerns raised in the petitions and individual submissions and that design amendments should be undertaken to address these concerns. The applicant provided a response indicating their wish for the development application to be determined in its current form.

6.      The development as proposed is deemed to be inconsistent with the requirement at clause 30A ‘Character of local area’ of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental housing) 2009 with regard to the Kingsland Road frontage. Private open space is defined by solid 1.8m high perimeter fencing is located within the setback to Kingsland Road and is considered to disrupt the visual continuity of the street. In order to address this inconsistency, it is considered appropriate to impose a deferred commencement condition to reduce the visual bulk of the fence and provide perimeter plantings of sufficient height to provide screening of the private open space. 

7.      The application has been referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination due to the submissions received.

8.      The application is recommended for Deferred Commencement approval.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is located on the corner of Kingsland Road and Campbell Street. The site is triangular in shape and enjoys unimpeded access to northern sunlight.

Surrounding development consists of predominantly single and two storey dwelling houses and contemporary two storey dual occupancy development. A rail corridor is located on the other side of Campbell Street and the entrance to Berala train station is located approximately 360m to the north and as such is identified as being located in an ‘accessible area’.

Berala train station is identified as an archaeological site (Item A53) under Schedule 5 of Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and is located within the Berala Town Centre. The town centre is located within walking distance from the site and possesses a range of retail and commercial uses including a Woolworths supermarket and a hotel/pub (Berala Hotel).

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – View of the subject site looking southwest from the corner of Kingsland Road and Campbell Street

Figure 4 – View of the Kingsland Road frontage

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for ‘Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a 2 storey boarding house development comprising 12 boarding rooms and on site car parking for 6 vehicles.

 

Demolition

An older style single storey dwelling of modest proportions, two small onsite trees and a single detached garage is proposed to be removed from the site.

Construction

The boarding house proposes three (3) double rooms and nine (9) single rooms to accommodate a maximum of fifteen (15) lodgers. The ground floor contains a common room which provides direct access to private open space situated within the front setback of the building to Kingsland Road.

An open at grade parking area accessed from Campbell Street is situated adjacent to the building and accommodates parking for six (6) vehicles (including two (2) disabled spaces). Designated parking areas are also provided for motorcycles and bicycles. A standalone waste storage facility is situated adjacent to the Campbell Street boundary and is obscured in part by landscaping.

New trees and landscaping is proposed throughout the setback areas, the perimeter of the parking area and the northern tip of the site.

History

PL-56/2018 - Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising 13 boarding rooms.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 15 March 2019 and was received by Council on 27 March 2019 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to conditions of consent. It is recommended that a deferred commencement condition be imposed to require amended plans to be submitted to Council in order to address On-Site Detention (OSD) and flood affectation of the site.

 

Building Surveyor

The development application was referred to Council’s Building Surveyor for comment who has advised that the development is satisfactory and therefore can be supported.

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 and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported.

External Referrals

NSW Police

The development application was referred to NSW Police for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to a number of recommendations which are included in the attached Draft Conditions.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

 

(b)     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

The application is subject to clause 87 of the ISEPP as the site is located approximately 19m away from a rail corridor and is therefore likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration.

As the development is for the purpose of residential accommodation, an Acoustic Report (prepared by Envirotech Environmental and Engineering Consultancy Services and dated 8 May 2019) was submitted. The report was reviewed by Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer who considers the development to be satisfactory subject to the recommendations contained in the Acoustic Report.

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

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

(d)     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.

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

BASIX Certificate 1014336M issued on 22 May 2019 prepared by Taylor Smith Consulting has been submitted with Council and is considered to be satisfactory.

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

Clause 30A Character of the local area

Division 3 of the SEPP contains provisions and development standards that apply to development for the purpose of a boarding house. The development as proposed is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant provisions and development standards of the instrument at clause ‘30A Character of the local area’. This clause specifies that ‘a consent authority must take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area’.

In order to determine the compatibility of the proposal, an assessment of the character of the area and application of the ‘character test’ for development derived from the planning principle 11209 of 2005 Project Venture Development’s Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council has been undertaken.

Part A – Identify the local area

The extent of land use surrounding the subject site is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 – Land use zone map

Part B – Determine the character of the local area

The subject site is situated on a corner and has two street frontages (Campbell Street to the west and Kingsland Road to the east).

Campbell Street is characterised by low density housing ranging from single and two storey detached dwellings and dual occupancy developments, the footprints of which are staggered along the eastern side of the street. A rail corridor is located along the western side of the street. Development on Kingsland Road consists of a mix of old and new detached dwelling houses both sides of the road. In comparison to Campbell Street the pattern of development is uniform with regard to street setbacks and appearance due to the rectangular shape of the lots.

The site is located in close proximity to the interface with R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land to the north (as shown in Figure 6). It is envisaged that this area will undergo transition through the establishment of multi-dwelling housing.

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

In order to determine the compatibility of the development with the established character of a local area, the ‘character test’ derived from the Planning Principle, 11209 of 2005 Project Venture Development’s Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council can be applied. The character test determines the compatibility of a development by asking whether the physical impacts of the proposal on surrounding development is acceptable and secondly, whether or not the appearance of the development is in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the area. These questions are discussed in detail below.

·        Are the physical impacts of the proposal on surrounding development acceptable?

The physical impacts of the proposal are assessed with regard to the impact of the development on the amenity of surrounding properties. Amenity in this instance is defined as solar access and privacy. With regard to solar access, it is acknowledged that the development will shadow the property to the south. However the scale of the impact is considered reasonable based on the orientation of the block (the impacted property possesses a northern side boundary). Furthermore, the submitted sun shadow diagrams indicate that the dwellings on the neighbouring property will receive sufficient sunlight at varying times throughout the day.

In terms of privacy, it is noted that the finished floor level of the ground floor is raised significantly above existing ground level and will pose direct views into the private open spaces of the neighbouring property to the south. This impact can be addressed by imposing a condition of consent to require privacy measures to be incorporated in the development. These privacy measures include the installation of 1.5m high obscure glazing to all windows on the south elevation of the development.

The physical impact of the proposal on surrounding development is therefore considered reasonable subject to the imposition of the recommended condition of consent.

·        Is the appearance of the proposal in harmony with surrounding development and the character of the area?

The development proposes to locate private open space defined by 1.8m high boundary fencing within the front setback area to Kingsland Road. The siting of this space is considered to be visually inconsistent with the streetscape of Kingsland Road which is characterised by a relatively uniform pattern of development.

In order the improve the visual harmony of the development within the streetscape of Kingsland Road to a satisfactory level, it is recommended that a number of design changes to the perimeter fencing and landscaping be undertaken as part of the deferred commencement conditions. In this regard, the perimeter fencing surrounding the private open space shall be reduced in height from 1.8m to 1.5m and shall be a semi-transparent palisade design. In addition, in order to maintain privacy for residents of the development, landscaping (as recommended by Council’s Tree Officer) that is 1.8m high at the time of planting shall be provided along the perimeter of the private open space.

Subject to the abovementioned design changes, the development is considered to be in harmony with the surrounding development and the character of the area.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

The provision of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the ALEP 2010 and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a “boarding house” and is permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone with consent.

”boarding house” means a building that:

(a)     is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and

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

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

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

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

The relevant matters to be considered under ALEP 2010 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix B.

Figure 7 – Auburn LEP 2010 Compliance Table

Clause/Development Standard	Comment	Compliance
4.3 Height of Buildings Maximum permitted building height is 9m	The subject site is limited to a maximum building height of 9m as per ALEP 2010.   The development is compliant with a maximum building height of 7.7m.	Yes

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

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

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

The Auburn DCP 2010 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Auburn LEP 2010.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Attachment 7.

The following table highlights non-compliances with the DCP, which relate to setback of upper levels of a development which face a southern side boundary. The variations sought are considered satisfactory on merit in this instance:

Figure 8 – Auburn DCP 2010 Compliance Table

Clause	Control	Proposed	Complies
6.2 Solar amenity	D3 The upper level of new two storey dwellings shall be setback 3m from the southern boundary where the development has overshadowing impacts on the north-facing roof of the adjoining property.	A 900mm setback to the southern side boundary is proposed to the upper level of the development.	No but acceptable on merit as:- -     the development is generally compliant with the objectives and requirements specified under clause ‘6.2 Solar amenity’ of Council’s Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy DCP; and -     the neighbouring property is located on a northern side boundary to the subject site and in this regard, extending the setback to comply will not decrease the impact of overshadowing to significant degree.

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from the control at D3 of clause 6.2 which relates to the solar amenity provisions of Council’s Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy Development Control Plan.

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

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 16 April 2019 and 30 April 2019. In response, three (3) petitions specifying a total of 16, 43 and 66 signatures respectively and two (2) individual submissions were received objecting to the development.

A discussion of the matters raised in the petitions and individual submissions are discussed in the below table.

 

Issue	Planners Comment
The development fails to meet the R2 zone objectives	The development proposes a ‘boarding house’ which is a permissible form of development in the R2 Low Density Residential zone as prescribed in Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. The development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the land use zone as it provides for additional housing in the area.
The development will exacerbate the lack of on-street parking and increase traffic in the area which will compromise safety.	The development provides onsite parking which complies with the parking requirement under clause 29 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Council’s Senior Development Engineer has assessed the traffic and parking implications of the development and has raised no issue. On this basis, the impact of the development on traffic and the availability of on-street parking is not considered to be unreasonable in this instance.
The development is incompatible with the design of homes in the street.	The bulk and scale and siting of the development is generally compliant with Council’s development controls, with the exception of the private open space private which is situated within the front setback to Kingsland Road.   In order to improve the visual compatibility of the development within the Kingsland Road streetscape, the private open space is recommended to be relocated to the setback area facing Campbell Street. Preference is given to this relocation given the comparatively irregular building pattern that exists within Campbell Street.
There is no onsite supervisor or manager.	Clause 30 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 specifies that the provision of accommodation for an onsite manager is not required unless the capacity of a boarding house exceeds 20 lodgers. As the development provides for a maximum capacity of 15 lodgers, this requirement does not apply.
There is inadequate public transport available to the site as the train service terminates at Lidcombe.	The entrance to Berala train station is located in close walking distance to the subject site (approximately 360m) and provides access to four lines operating within the Sydney metropolitan area and beyond. The development site is considered to be adequately serviced by public transport.
There are no floor plans identifying that 12 units can be accommodated on the site.	The internal layout of residential proposals cannot be placed on public exhibition in accordance with ‘Schedule 1- Section 3’ of the Government Information (Public Access) Regulation 2009.
Based on the floor plans it is not possible to determine if there is an alternative fire escape from the first floor.	Council’s Building Surveyor has assessed the development and has raised no issue with regard to fire egress.
1.8m high fencing is proposed by the development which will obscure vision for drivers and increase the risk of vehicle accidents.	The proposed boundary fencing does not extend to the corner of the site and the proposed driveway accessed from Campbell Street is offset a significant distance from this corner. For these reasons, the fencing would not significantly obscure sightlines of motorists driving through the area.
Both buildings to the left of the proposed development will be significantly overshadowed by the development.	It is acknowledged that shadow will be cast over the neighbouring property to the south by the development. However, the extent of the shadowing is not considered to be unreasonable particular given the orientation of the block. It is further noted that the building envelope of the development is generally compliant with the standards relating to the massing and siting of the development prescribed by Council’s LEP and DCP.
There are inconsistencies in the exhibited documentation of the development. The Plan of Management specifies a capacity of 90 lodgers and parking for 20 vehicles.	A revised Plan of Management has been submitted by the applicant which has addressed this inconsistency.
Will the tenants have disabilities, mental health issues or addictions?	The anticipated tenants of the boarding house typically include singles, retirees, students and young couples who cannot afford the cost of renting standard residential properties.

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:

·    12 boarding rooms.

As at 1 July 2019, the fee payable is $38,976.82. 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.

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 the R2 Low Density Residential zone under the relevant provisions of the Auburn LEP. 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.

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

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

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

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

 

 

Report Recommendation: 1.    That Development Application No. DA-103/2019 for Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a 2 storey boarding house development comprising 12 boarding rooms and on site car parking for 6 vehicles on land at 2 Kingsland Road, Berala be granted deferred commencement approval subject to attached conditions. 2.    Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

2.      Architectural Plans ⇩

3.      Landscape Plans ⇩

4.      Stormwater/Engineering Plans ⇩

5.      Plan of Management ⇩

6.      State Environmental Planning Policy Assessment ⇩

7.      Development Control Plan Assessment ⇩

8.      Submissions Received ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Landscape Plans

 24 July 2019

Attachment 4

Stormwater/Engineering Plans

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Plan of Management

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

State Environmental Planning Policy Assessment

 24 July 2019

 

Attachment 7

Development Control Plan Assessment

 24 July 2019

 

 

Attachment 8

Submissions Received

 24 July 2019

 

 

 24 July 2019

 

 24 July 2019

 

 

 24 July 2019

 

24 July 2019

 

Item No: ELPP051/19

Development Application for 9-19 Mary Street, Auburn

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA-92/2019  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. 92/2019 was received on 25 March 2019 for the construction of an additional 12 storey mixed use building component at 9-11 Mary Street, Auburn.  The DA also proposes a number of alterations and additions to a 12 storey mixed use building which was approved by DA-52/2017 at 13-19 Mary Street, Auburn.  The works at 9-11 Mary Street will result in an expansion of the approved development at 13-19 Mary Street.

2.      In total, the proposed development will provide 157 residential units (41 x 1 bedroom, 90 x 2 bedroom and 26 x 3 bedroom units), 5 x commercial suites and 1 x office suite over a part 4 and part 5 level basement for 288 vehicles.

3.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 16 April 2019 and 30 April 2019. In response, 3 submissions were received.

4.      The subject site is situated across the road from a dwelling at 8 Mary Street which is a heritage item in the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 as Heritage Item I10.

5.      The proposed development involves a number of variations to relevant planning controls as follows:

 

Control	Required	Provided	% variation
Deep soil areas (ADG)	190.95m2	Nil	100%
Visual Privacy (ADG)	6m to 4th floor 9m to 5th floor 12m to 9th floor and above	Nil Nil 9m	100% 100% 25%
Solar access (ADG)	No more than 15% of apartments to receive no solar access	17.8%	2.8%
Building height (LEP)	38m	41m	8%

6.      The application is recommended for Approval subject to the conditions as provided in the attached schedule. 

7.      The application is referred to the Panel as State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies to the development.  The building is more than 4 storeys in height.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as Lot 1319, DP 1241830 and Lots 25 and 26, DP 982836, No. 9-19 Mary Street Auburn.  The subject site is located on the northwest corner of Mary Street and Harrow Road.

The location of the site is shown at Figure 1.  An aerial image of the site and surrounding area is at Figure 2.

The site is situated within a mixed use zone within the Auburn town centre and is approximately 400m walking distance to Auburn railway station.

The site has a frontage to Mary Street of 74.63m to the south and a frontage to Harrow Road of 36.56m to the east.  The site is generally rectangular in shape and has a total area of 2,727.86m².

Part of the site comprising 11-19 Mary Street has been cleared under DA-52/2017.  No.9 Mary Street contains an existing single storey brick dwelling and a detached brick garage.

The site is adjoined by a single dwelling and a townhouse building to the north.  Land to the west is developed with single storey cottages.  A place of worship and commercial buildings exist across Harrow Road to the east.  Land across Mary Street to the south is comprised of professional consulting rooms.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site showing No.9 Mary Street in foreground

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for the construction of an additional 12 storey mixed use building component at 9-11 Mary Street, Auburn.  The DA also proposes a number of alterations and additions to a 12 storey mixed use building which was approved by DA-52/2017 at 13-19 Mary Street, Auburn.  The works at 9-11 Mary Street will result in an expansion of the approved development at 13-19 Mary Street.

In total, the proposed development will provide 157 residential apartments as follows:

 

	1 bedroom	2 bedroom	3 bedroom	TOTAL
13 - 19 Mary Street	41	42	22	105
9 - 11 Mary Street	-	48	4	52
TOTAL	41	90	26	157

A total of 16 accessible apartments are provided.

The proposed extension carries through the 5 storey podium and proposes an additional tower on the corner of Mary Street and Harrow Road.  The proposed extension carries through the colours, materials and form of the approved component.

The total residential GFA across all sites is 12,756.72m².

The proposed development will provide 5 commercial tenancies with a combined GFA of 716.1m² at ground level fronting Mary Street and Harrow Road and 1 office suite of 80.5m² fronting Mary Street at ground level.

The total GFA of the development is 13,553.32m² which results in an FSR of 4.97:1.

A basement car park is provided over 5 levels and the ground floor which will provide for 274 residential car parking spaces, 14 commercial car parking spaces, bicycle parking, residential storage, waste rooms and loading facilities.

Approval for the internal fit-out and use of the commercial tenancies and associated signage will be sought under separate applications.

The demolition of existing structures situated on 9 and 11 Mary Street was approved as complying development under separate applications and as such demolition does not form part of this DA.

History

DA-52/2017 was lodged with Council on 10 February 2017 for the demolition of existing dwelling houses and the construction of a 12 storey mixed use development comprising 105 residential units and 2 commercial tenancies over 4 levels of basement parking at 13-19 Mary Street, Auburn.

DA-52/2017 was granted deferred commencement consent on 21 December 2017.

The deferred commencement matters were completed and the consent became operative on 13 April 2018.

Demolition and excavation commenced after that.

The subject DA-92/2019 was lodged on 25 March 2019.

An initial assessment identified a number of matters that required amended plans and additional information, particularly:

·        Building separation and visual privacy under the ADG;

·        Design changes to emphasise the corner of the building;

·        Provision of a car wash bay;

·        Management of residential waste; and

·        Stormwater and flooding matters.

Those matters were communicated to the Applicant on 29 April 2019.

The Applicant met with Council and its consulting town planner on 8 May 2019 to discuss the above matters.

Amended plans were received on 16 May 2019.

Further amendments were requested on 11 June 2019 with regard to residential waste management.

Final amended plans were received on 12 June 2019 which satisfactorily addressed those outstanding matters.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by The Planning Hub dated 25 March 2019 and was received by Council on 25 March 2019 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

The consulting planner carrying out the assessment has undertaken a site inspection of the subject site and surrounding properties.  Council’s officer with carriage of the DA has been in regular contact with the applicant throughout the assessment process.

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

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 and can be supported, subject to recommended conditions of consent.

In particular, conditions of consent are to be imposed regarding acoustic certification, mechanical ventilation of commercial tenancies and the basement car park, demolition and pollution control.

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory.  A concern was raised that the approved component of the development and the component proposed by the subject DA had different waste management systems.  The most recent plans ensure consistency throughout the entire development.  The waste management system involves a “walk down” system as opposed to waste rooms on each floor which has implications for amenity and ongoing cleaning.  Waste chutes on larger buildings are not preferred due to maintenance needs as well as the need to educate residents as to the proper use of the chutes to ensure blockages do not occur. The development can be supported, subject to recommended conditions of consent.

External Referrals

Ausgrid

The development application was referred to Ausgrid for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory, subject to conditions being imposed about the proximity of works to overhead powerlines and underground cables.

NSW Police

The development application was referred to the Flemington Local Area Command who have advised that the proposed development is satisfactory, subject to conditions of consent to ensure adequate security, safety and reduced opportunities for criminal activity.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

 

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

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

Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, it is considered the proposal is generally compliant with the exception of the provision of deep soil areas, building separation and solar access.  These variations are discussed below:

·        3E-1 – Deep Soil

The ADG requires 7% of a site area be provided as deep soil.  The proposed development does not propose any deep soil areas due to the provision of the basement carpark.

The approved component of the development did not propose deep soil areas.  This was supported on the basis that deep soil zones are difficult to provide in mixed use developments town centre situations.  The proposed development provides generous common open space areas at ground and rooftop levels which incorporate tree planting for amenity.

·        3F-1 – Visual Privacy

The ADG requires minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

 

Building height	Habitable rooms & balconies	Non habitable rooms
Up to 12m (4 storeys)	6m	3m
Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)	9m	4.5m
Over 25m (9 + storeys)	12m	6m

 

The proposal provides setbacks to the northern boundary as follows:

The nil setback up to the 5th floor is considered appropriate in the town centre location, where it can be expected that future development to the north would similarly develop to that boundary up to a height of five floors.

Above the 5th floor, a 9m setback is provided.  The Design Guidance provided in the ADG notes that generally one step in the built form as the height increases due to building separations is desirable.  The separation proposed avoids additional steps so as not to cause a 'ziggurat' appearance.

The reduced setback does not result in overshadowing of adjoining properties.

Privacy has been maintained by fronting living rooms towards Harrow Road and providing bedrooms on the western elevation.  Those bedrooms are provided with fixed louvers to maintain privacy between those rooms and the adjoining land.

·        4A-1 – Solar Access

The ADG provides that no more than 15% of apartments should receive no solar access.  The proposed development provides 28 apartments that receive no solar access which equates to 17.8%.

It should be noted that those apartments that receive nil solar access are all located in the building that has already been approved.  All apartments within the component proposed by the subject DA receive compliant solar access.  In other words, the subject proposal does not increase the number of apartments that receive no solar access and reduces the proportion of apartments that receive no solar access.

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

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

The provisions of the 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 occurs within 5 metres of an overhead electricity power line. As such, the consent authority is required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority.

The DA was referred to Ausgrid who have responded with conditions of consent.

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

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

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

BASIX Certificate 1003324M dated issued on 22 March 2019 prepared by Building Sustainability Assessments has been submitted with Council and is considered to be satisfactory.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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 LEP 2010

The provision of the Auburn LEP 2010 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Auburn LEP 2010 and the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone.

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as “shop top housing” and is permissible in the B4 Mixed Use zone with consent.

“Shop top housing” is defined by the Auburn LEP 2010 as:

one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises

All proposed apartments are above ground floor retail or business premises and, as such, the development meets that definition.  In any event, residential flat buildings are also permitted with consent on land zoned B4 Mixed Use by the Auburn LEP 2010.

The relevant matters to be considered under Auburn LEP 2010 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.  A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix B.

Figure 4 – Auburn 2010 Compliance Table

 

(b)     Clause 4.6 – Variation to Building Height

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

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standards for building height under Clause 4.3.  Based on various case laws established by the Land and Environment Court of NSW such as Four2five P/L v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 9, Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings P/L [2016] NSW LEC7 and Zhang and anor v Council of the City of Ryde [2016] NSWLEC 1179, a 3 part assessment framework for a variation request proposed under clause 4.6 has been considered and an assessment of the proposed variance, following the 3 part test is discussed in detail below.

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

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

 

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

 

Objective	Applicant’s justification	Planner’s comment
To establish a maximum height of buildings to enable appropriate development density to be achieved	The proposal consists of a high-density mixed-use development that meets the desired future character of the area. The height exceedance is due to the built form response to the flood planning level on the site and the provision of a high amenity communal open space that allows the development to provide a high-density development whilst providing appropriate amenity to residents. The area of exceedance does not contain any habitable residential space and the area of exceedance will not be visually prominent.	Agreed.   The breach of the height control is not the result of the exceedance of the FSR and as such the density is appropriate.
To ensure that the height of buildings is compatible with the character of the locality	The height of the proposed development is consistent with the changing character and desired future character of the Auburn Town Centre. The proposed development is consistent with the built form approved under DA-52/2017 and will provide an integrated and consistent streetscape.	Agreed.   The proposal is consistent with the built form approved under DA-52/2017.

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

 

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

 

The environmental planning grounds are considered to be sufficient to justify the breach, noting that the minor nature of the breach.

Conclusion:

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

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

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))

The Auburn DCP 2010 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Auburn LEP 2010

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

The proposed development has been assessed against the Residential Flat Buildings provisions and the Local Centres provisions of the Auburn DCP. 

The proposed development complies with the provisions of those parts of the Auburn DCP 2010 and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning viewpoint.

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 16 April 2019 and 30 April 2019. The notification generated three submissions in respect of the proposal with no disclosing a political donation or gift. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

 

Figure 5 – Submissions summary table

Issue	Planner’s comment
The house at No.9 Mary Street should be retained.  While it is not listed as a heritage item, it has features that are uncommon in Auburn and is the last Federation style house on the block.  No heritage assessment of No.9 Mary Street has been carried out.	No.9 Mary Street is not listed as an item of environmental heritage in the Auburn LEP.  As a result of not being listed as a heritage item, the Applicant was not required to carry out a heritage assessment.   It should also be noted that the subject DA does not seek consent for the demolition of that dwelling, rather, the demolition of existing structures on No.9 and No.11 Mary Street was approved as complying development under CDC/D9K003B1 and CDC/D7K019D1.
The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.	The proposal is permissible within the zone.   Although the proposed development involves a minor breach of the maximum building height, the development is within the maximum FSR established for the land and is generally compliant with the relevant controls of the ADG, LEP and DCP.
The development will dominate the streetscape.	The proposed development is in keeping with the emerging character that is anticipated by the zoning, FSR and height controls for the site.    The additional component is a logical approach to developing the two remaining lots at 9-11 Mary Street to ensure that the development that wraps around the corner has some uniformity with the approved development in Mary Street.   Further, the development is provided in two towers above a podium which provides modulation to the built form.
Cumulative impact of residential flat development in Auburn.	The Auburn town centre is well located with regard to road and rail networks and is well served with a range of retail opportunities and commercial services.  The development is permissible and is in keeping with the density controls in place for the town centre.

The matters raised within the submissions do not warrant refusal of the proposed development.

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:

As at 30 June 2019, the fee payable is $299,855.39. 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.

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Auburn LEP 2010 and Auburn DCP 2010 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the B4 Mixed Use zone under the relevant provisions of the Auburn LEP 2010; however, variations in relation to the separation of buildings to the northern boundary under the ADG and the maximum height of buildings under the Auburn LEP 2010 are sought.

Having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, the Panel may be satisfied that the development has been responsibly designed and provides for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents. It is considered that the proposal successfully minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Hence the development, irrespective of the departures noted above, 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.

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

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

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

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

 

Report Recommendation: 1.   That Development Application No. DA-92/2019 for Alterations and additions to approved 12 storey mixed use building (DA-52/2017) at 13-19 Mary Street, Auburn including the construction of an additional 12 storey mixed use building component at 9-11 Mary Street, Auburn which will accommodate a total of 157 residential units (41 x 1 bedroom, 90 x 2 bedroom and 26 x 3 bedroom units), 5 x commercial suites, 1 x office suite over part 4 part 5 level basement for 288 vehicles on land at 9-19 Mary Street, AUBURN NSW 2144 be granted Approval subject to attached conditions. 2.  Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

2.      Architectural Plans ⇩

3.      Stormwater/Engineering Plans ⇩

4.      Submissions Received ⇩

5.      Locality Map ⇩

6.      Appendix A, B, C ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Stormwater/Engineering Plans

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Submissions Received

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Locality Map

 24 July 2019

Attachment 6

Appendix A, B, C

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 July 2019

 

Item No: ELPP052/19

Development Application for 14, 16 & 18 Good Street, Westmead

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA 2019/3  

 

 

Application lodged	8 January 2019
Applicant	Zhinar Architects
Owner	Good 888 Pty Ltd
Application No.	2019/3
Description of Land	14, 16 & 18 Good Street, Westmead
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building, comprising 38 residential units, over two (2) levels of basement containing 39 car parking spaces and 1 car wash bay pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 – ARH SEPP
Site Area	1,812.10m2
Zoning	R4 – High Density Residential
Principal Development Standards	Floor Space Ratio: Max. 1.5:1 Proposed 1.806:1 (this includes a bonus ARH FSR of 30.6%)   Height of Buildings: Max. 21m  ·    Proposed: 22.2m (5.7% variation sought) ·    Clause 4.6 Written Variation Request submitted for the departure sought to building height
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	The subject site is not a heritage item but is located within the vicinity of a local heritage item.
Issues	·    Variation to maximum 21m building height (HLEP 2013) ·    Solar Access (ARH SEPP and HDCP 2013) ·    Building separation (ADG) ·    Site coverage (HDCP 2013) ·   Upper storey setback (HDCP 2013)

1.      On 8 January 2019, development application (DA 2019/3) for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building, comprising 38 residential units, over two (2) levels of basement containing 39 car parking spaces and 1 car wash bay pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 was lodged with Council.

2.      The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 21 days from 13 February 2019 to 6 March 2019. In response, the application received one submission, objecting to the proposed development.

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

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

 

Control	Required	Proposed	% Variation
Building Height	Max. 21m (HLEP 2013)	22.2m to top of lift core	(5.7%)
Building Separation (Between habitable rooms and balconies)	6m (4 storeys)   9m (5 storeys) (ADG)	Min 5.5m for the balconies  (4 storeys) Min. 6m for the balconies (5 & 6 storeys)	10%   33.3%
Solar Access - Min. 3 hours (9am to 3pm) mid-winter	70% of units (ARH SEPP)	66% (25 units)	6%
Site coverage	30% (543.63m²) (HDCP 2013)	35.8% (648.73m²)	19.3%
Rear setback 30% of site length - 5 storey	12m (HDCP 2013)	Varying setback of 12m to 9.5m(min)	20.8%
Street wall height requiring an upper storey setback > 4 storeys	Additional 3m  upper storey front setback along Good Street (i.e. 9m to Good Street)	Min 8.3m for levels 4 and 5.	7.8%
Sunlight access to the adjoining future proposed development	Min. 3 hours (9am to 4pm) 22 June	Min.1 hour to units 2 and 5 (out of 33 units) for future proposed RFB at 8-12 Good Street, Westmead	66.6% for 2 units out of 33 units.

 

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

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

Introduction

The subject site is known as 14 - 18 Good Street, Westmead, and is legally described as Lot 10, 11 and 12 in Deposited Plan 9675. The site is located on the western side of Good Street within the R4 High Density Residential zone. The site forms a regular midblock with a total area of 1812.10m2 and a combined frontage of 45.11m to Good Street. The site has a fall of approximately 2.3m from the front to rear. The site is currently occupied by detached dwelling houses, ancillary structures and vegetation.

The subject site and neighbouring allotments are zoned R4 – High Density Residential. The site is bounded by a recently constructed 6 storey residential flat building to its northern boundary and a vacant land parcel with an approved DA consent for a multi storeyed flat building to its southern boundary and a low density housing to the west. The eastern side of Good Street falls under City of Parramatta Local Government Area (LGA) and comprises of higher density residential development including older style residential flats.  There is a transition occurring currently with higher density zoned sites being developed into residential flat buildings.

Figure 1 Aerial view of the locality with subject site (14 -18 Good Street, Westmead)

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

Figure 3 – No.16 Good Street. Source: Council 2019

Figure 4:14 -18 Good Street. Source: Council 2019

Description of the proposed development

DA 2019/3 proposes for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building, comprising 38 residential units, over two (2) levels of basement containing 40 parking spaces pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

 

Level	Details
Basements B1 & B2	40 residential car spaces (including 6 accessible parking spaces and 1 car wash bay) 21 bicycle spaces 3 motorcycle parking spaces Storage, plant room, lift and fire stairs
Ground floor level	7 residential units Communal Open Space
Level 1	7 residential units
Level 2	7 residential units
Level 3	7 residential units
Level 4	5 residential units
Level 5	5 residential units

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

The dwelling mix of the proposal is as follows:

·        1 x 1 bedroom units (2.6%);

·        34 x 2 bedroom units (89.5%); and

·        3 x 3 bedroom units (7.9%).

Figure 5 – Perspective of proposed development –Good Street frontage

Applicant History

 

Date	Action
8 January 2019	The subject development application (DA 2019/3) was lodged with Council.
5 February 2019	The application was referred to the following internal and external sections: ·    Development Engineering ·    Traffic Engineering ·    Landscape and Tree Management ·    Environmental Health Unit ·    Rates & Street Numbering ·    Waste Management ·    Transgrid ·    Endeavour Energy ·    Cumberland Police Area Command
13 February 2019 to 6 March 2019	Application placed on public notification. In response, one submission was received.
31 May 2019	The application was deferred for the following reasons: ·    Apartment size and layout ·    Sunlight access ·    Floor space ratio ·    Building separation ·    Traffic engineering
13 June 2019	Amended plans and additional information submitted to Council, addressing the deferral letter dated 31 May 2019. The application did not warrant re-notification as the amendments made did not result in a greater environmental impact.
24 July 2019	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicant’s supporting statement

Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd, dated 20 December 2018 was submitted in support of the application.

Contact with relevant parties

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

Internal referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable with regards to the proposed new vehicular crossing and stormwater management, subject to deferred commencement conditions.

Traffic Engineer

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

Tree Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the impact of the development on the trees on the adjoining properties requires further detail and this is managed by way of deferred commencement conditions.

 

Waste Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the proposed waste management is supportable subject to conditions.

Environmental Health Unit

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Unit for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions of consent which have been imposed within the draft conditions of consent.

External Referrals

Transgrid

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

Endeavour Energy

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

NSW Police

The application was referred to NSW Police for comment regarding CPTED. Response dated 12 June 2019 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

Planning Assessment

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

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

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

The application has been submitted under Part 2 New affordable rental housing – Division 1 In-fill affordable housing of the ARH SEPP. It should be noted that the proposal fully complies with the key planning controls contained within the ARH SEPP including site area, landscaped area, parking, accommodation size and prescribed standards for in-fill affordable housing. A comprehensive assessment against ARH SEPP is attached to this report – Attachment 1.

14 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1)     (e) solar access

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

A consent authority must not refuse consent to development if the solar access to the proposed development satisfies the above requirements. The development however will receive 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter only to 66% of the dwellings, or 25 units. Non-compliance with the solar access provision is supported in this instance, given the proposal continues to satisfy Part 4A-1 of the Apartment Design Guide for solar and daylight access, in which 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter will be provided to 79% or 30 units.

16A Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. The SEPP (ARH) does not contain any guidance for assessing whether a proposal is compatible with the character of the local area. However, a planning principle for assessing compatibility in the urban environment was established by Senior Commissioner Roseth of the Land and Environment Court in the judgement for Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191. This involves asking the following two questions:

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

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

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

·    Step 1 – Identify the ‘local area’.

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

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

An assessment against each step is provided below:

Step 1 – Identify the local area.

The local area is identified in the map below.

Figure 6 – Local Area catchment

The zoning of the broader locality and immediate area comprises R4 High Density Residential, R2 Low Density Residential (further along western side of the site, and B6 Enterprise Corridor under the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013.

Present Character of the area

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

1.      Recently constructed 6 storey residential flat building located on the northern side of the site (20 -22 Good Street);

2.      An approved Development Consent (DC 2015/222) for a 5 storey residential flat buildings located on the southern side of the site  (8 -12 Good Street );

3.      Proposed 5 storey residential flat building currently under assessment at 11 - 17 Joyner Street  (DA 2019/141) located at the rear of the subject site; and

4.      Low density housing development on the western side facing Joyner Street; and

5.      Higher density residential development to the east of Good Street, which falls under Parramatta Local Government Area.

Future Character of the area

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

Step 2 - Determine if the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

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

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

The height, FSR and landscaping of the proposed development are designed to maintain the harmony within the streetscape, whilst contributing to the site context and constraint. The height of building breaches the 21m height limit requirement for part of the roof and the lift core as discussed later in the report.  However, the development does not pose any unreasonable overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties.  The proposal being a permissible land use, meets the FSR requirement (in accordance with ARH SEPP, subject to the imposition of conditions) and contributes to the provision of affordable housing within the close proximity of public transport hub and major commercial centre. Appropriate setbacks and privacy treatments are provided to minimise any adverse impacts to the adjoining properties. The building is appropriately articulated to complement the existing and changing streetscape within the local area. Whilst the development will result in overshadowing to the approved future residential flat development (DC 2015/222) on the southern side (8-12 Good Street), the impacts are not considered unreasonable given this is a function of the allotment orientation and R4 context. The overall design represents the form of development that is envisaged under the planning controls. Refer to further discussion under DCP section of the report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 7 – SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles Table

 

Pursuant to clause 28(2)(c) of SEPP 65, a consent authority must consider the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) in the assessment of a residential flat development. A comprehensive assessment against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls is provided at Attachment 2.

 

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

 

(c)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

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

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

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

 

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

BASIX certificate 985498M dated 20 December 2018 was submitted with the original plans. The submitted BASIX certificate achieves target scores and is consistent with the architectural plans. Conditions of Consent have been applied requiring adherence to the BASIX Certificate requirements.

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings that stipulates that the height of building is not to exceed 21m on the subject site.

The proposed building has an overall height of 22.2m (RL 55.30.) to the top of the lift core and RL 54.70 to the top of the structures associated with the roof top communal open space.  The proposal breaches the overall height by 1.2m representing a maximum variation of 5.7%. The majority of the height breach is associated with the roof of the building and the top of the lift core.

Figure 8 – Elevation Plan showing extent of height variation sought

Clause 4.6 – Variation to Building Height

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

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

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

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

Applicant’s justification:

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

 

Planner’s comment:

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

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

Applicant’s justification:

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

-     Non-compliance is minor in nature with the majority of the building being compliance with the building height control and with the lift and stairwell overrun recessed its impact to the streetscape is negligible as it will be visually unnoticeable when viewed from the street level.

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

o The variation will be visually unnoticeable and will have no adverse impact on the physical bulk, height or scale of the development;

o 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;

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

o 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 ensure that privacy impacts are mitigated that the proposal will not obstruct existing view corridors.

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

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

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

Planner’s comment:

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

The departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. The additional height does not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape and would not impinge on the changing streetscape that is anticipated for the immediate area. Given that the proposed development responds to the site and does so without compromising relationships with adjoining development, overshadowing to the property at the southern side (8-12 Good Street) is acceptable and does not unduly compromise other relevant controls, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of height requirements and development within the R4 zone.

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

Applicant’s justification:

In accordance with the provision s of this clause it is considered that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as the underlying objectives of the control are achieved.

Planner’s comment:

Council Officers are satisfied that the proposed variation has been appropriately justified and can be supported in this instance. The height breach is limited to an overall building height of RL 54.70 for the rooftop communal open space, and height of RL 55.30 for the top of the lift core. The additional height of the lift core will not be visible from the adjacent streets and properties. The proposed variation to the development standard is necessary for the structure containing the lift core and in order to achieve required FFLs, and is consistent with the scale of the development within the R4 zone located in the immediate vicinity of the site. The departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. The additional height does not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape, would not impinge on the changing streetscape that is anticipated for the immediate area and does not result in additional overshadowing to the adjoining properties. It is considered, therefore, that the non-compliance with the Development Standard is not unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

There are no draft SEPPs applicable to the proposed development.

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

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

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

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

 

Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4 (EP&A Act s 4.15(1)(a)(iiia))

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

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

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

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

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

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

Advertised (newspaper)                  Mail            Sign       Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days from 13 February 2019 to 6 March 2019. As a result of the notification, one submission was received. Amended plans submitted did not warrant re-notification of the proposal.

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

i)    Building area to land size is too small and would adversely affect the community visual outlook.

Comment: The proposal is defined as a “Residential Flat Building” which is a permissible land use under the subject site R4- High Density Residential zoning. The proposed development is considered appropriate for the site and commensurate in bulk and scale with the neighbouring developments and the desired future character envisaged for the locality.

Also, the proposal sits comfortably in the streetscape and incorporates architectural features and articulation to minimise any adverse visual intrusiveness of the building. It is considered that no significant views are blocked by the development.

ii)   The development shall have a larger front yard area and shall not be built so close to the street.

Comment: The proposal complies with the front setback requirements in accordance with Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013. There is substantial planting proposed along the street frontage which enhances the streetscape and provides area for passive recreation. 

Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

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

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

·        1 x 1-bedroom dwellings = $8,399.64

·        34 x 2-bedroom dwellings  = $482,978.67

The required Section 7.11 contribution payable for the proposal is $491,378.00

Note: This includes Credit for the existing 3 x 3-bedroom dwellings.

The public interest

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

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Report Recommendation: 1.    That Development Application 2019/3/1 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building, comprising 38 residential units, over two (2) levels of basement containing 39 parking spaces and 1 car wash bay  pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 was lodged with Council, be Approved via Deferred Commencement, subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 5. 2.    That the applicant and those persons who lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      SEPP ARH 2009 Compliance Table ⇩

2.      ADG Compliance Table ⇩

3.      HLEP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

4.      HDCP 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

5.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

6.      Architectural Plans ⇩

7.      Shadow Diagrams ⇩

8.      Accompanying Clause 4.6 Variation Request to Building Height ⇩

9.      Locality Map ⇩

10.    Submission (1) ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

SEPP ARH 2009 Compliance Table

 24 July 2019

 

 

Attachment 2

ADG Compliance Table

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

HLEP 2013 Compliance Table

 24 July 2019

 

 

Attachment 4

HDCP 2013 Compliance Table

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Draft Notice of Determination

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Architectural Plans

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Shadow Diagrams

 24 July 2019

 

Attachment 8

Accompanying Clause 4.6 Variation Request to Building Height

 24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 9

Locality Map

 24 July 2019

Attachment 10

Submission (1)

 24 July 2019