Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting 

 8 July 2020

 An Electronic meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30a.m. via Zoom on Wednesday, 8 July 2020.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.      Receipt of Apologies

2.      Confirmation of Minutes

3.      Declarations of Interest

4.      Address by invited speakers

5.      Reports:

          -        Development Applications

          -        Planning Proposals

6.      Closed Session Reports

 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting 

 8 July 2020

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

LPP033/20... Development Application for 4-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe............................ 5

LPP034/20... Development Application for 185-187 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill 195

LPP035/20... Development Application for 1-3 Bransgrove Street, Wentworthville..... 263

LPP036/20... Development Application for 122 Robertson Street, Guildford................ 363

LPP037/20... Development Application for 25A Crescent Street, Holroyd.................... 421

LPP038/20... Development Application for 58 & 60 Berwick Street, Guildford............. 479

LPP039/20... Development Application for 81-83 Mountford Avenue, Guildford......... 639

 

 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting 

 8 July 2020

 

 

  


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020

 

Item No: LPP033/20

Development Application for 4-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2019/229  

 

 

Application lodged

25/07/2019

Applicant

Rolz Group Pty Ltd

Owner

Apartments on Mark Pty Ltd

Application No.

DA2019/229

Description of Land

4-18 Mark Street, LIDCOMBE (Lots 1 to 8, Section 3, DP 846)

Proposed Development

Alterations and additions to an approved 10 storey mixed use building at 4-14 Mark Street, Lidcombe (DA2017/363); and demolition of existing structures at 16-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe, and construction of an additional 8 to 11 storey mixed use building component, accommodating a combined total of 15 commercial suites and 213 residential units over 5 levels of basement parking for 627 vehicles.

Site Area

4,176m2

Zoning

Zone B4 - Mixed Use under Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

The subject site is not listed as a heritage item, is not located within the heritage conservation area. The site is located within proximity to the following 4 heritage items:

1.   Corner Joseph and James Street, Lidcombe, approximately 100m to the west containing Lidcombe War Memorial Statue;

2.   35-49 Joseph Street Lidcombe, approximately 140m to the south-west containing Fenton House;

3.   24 James Street Lidcombe, approximately 50 metres to the south-east containing a heritage listed dwelling; and

4.   Rookwood Cemetery, approximately 185m to the east of the site.

Principal Development Standards

FSR:                                Permissible: 5:1

                                         Proposed: 4.84:1

Height of Building:      Permissible: 32 metres

                                         Proposed: 39.71 metres

Issues

1.   Height of buildings

2.   Awnings

3.   Site coverage

4.   Building envelope

5.   Head height of windows

6.   Deep soil zones

7.   Setbacks

Figure 1 – Photomontage of Proposed Development (Source: Zhinar Architects, 2020)

Figure 2 – Photomontage of Proposed Development (Source: Zhinar Architects, 2020)

 

Summary:

Development Application No. DA-229/2019 was originally received on 25/07/2019 seeking consent for alterations and additions to approved 10 storey mixed use building at 4-14 Mark Street, Lidcombe (DA2017/363); and demolition of existing structures at 16-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe, and construction of an additional 10 storey mixed use building component, accommodating a combined total of 15 commercial suites and 217 residential units over 5 levels of basement parking for 643 vehicles.

The application was amended with the submission of amended plans and documents received by Council on 05/05/2020, seeking consent for alterations and additions to approved 10 storey mixed use building at 4-14 Mark Street, Lidcombe (DA2017/363); and demolition of existing structures at 16-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe and construction of an additional 8 to 11 storey mixed use building component, accommodating a combined total of 15 commercial suites and 213 residential units over 5 levels of basement parking for 627 vehicles.

The application essentially seeks to retain the approved built form under DA2017/363, amend the internal layouts and expand the development to the southern half of the site to include 16-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe.

In accordance with Council’s notification requirements contained within the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (ADCP), the original development proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 13 August 2019 and 27 August 2019. No submissions were received in respect of the proposed development. The amended application was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 20 May 2020 and 3 June 2020. One (1) submission was received in respect of the amended proposal which has been addressed within the main body of this report.

The development application was referred for comments internally to Council’s Development Engineer, Environmental Health Officer, Tree Management Officer and Resource Recovery Officer, and externally to the NSW Police Force – Flemington Local Area Command, Roads and Maritime Services and Ausgrid, to which the application is supported, subject to conditions.

The application was referred to the Design Excellence Panel (DEP) in accordance with the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel Policy, as the proposal seeks a building height of more than 25 metres. The design has been found to be worthy of support, subject to conditions.

The proposed development has been assessed by an independent planning consultant against the relevant matters for consideration pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, including likely impacts, the suitability of the site for the development, and the public interest, and the proposed development is considered appropriate.

 

 

 

Control

Required / Permitted

Proposed

Variation

Height of Building

32 metres

39.71 metres

7.71 metres / 24%

Awnings

4m Soffit Height

4 to 5 metres

1 metre / 25%

1.         Site Coverage

2.         50%

3.         65%

4.         30%

Building Envelope

850m²

1,647m² to 2,160m²

797 to 1,310 metres / 94% to 154%

Head Height of Windows

2.4 metres

2.3 metres

4.16%

Deep Soil Zones

30%

2.4%

92%

Setbacks

4 to 6 metres

2 metres

50% to 66.6%

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination, as pursuant to the Local Planning Panels Direction – Development Applications issued by the Minister for Planning on 23 February 2018, the application constitutes ‘sensitive development’, as it is development to which State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) approve the development application, subject to the draft notice of determination contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The proposed redevelopment of the subject site comprises of 8 allotments and is legally described as Lots 1 to 8, Section 3, DP 846, and is known as 4-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe.

The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use and is situated on the eastern side of Mark Street, south of Marsden Street. The subject site is located within the ‘Lidcombe Town Centre’ in one of the key sites being Precinct 7 - Marsden Street as identified in section 15.0 of the Local Centres chapter of the Auburn Development Control Plan (ADCP) 2010.

The land is regular in shape and has a frontage to Mark Street along the western boundary, Marsden Street along the northern boundary and James Street along the southern boundary. The site has a combined frontage width of 101.65m to Mark Street, 41.205m to Marsden Street and 41.08m to James Street, creating a total combined land area of 4,176m2. The land has a moderate slope with a fall across the site of approximately 4m from the north-eastern corner to the south-western corner of the site.

All 8 allotments are currently occupied by single storey dwelling houses, with the exception of 18 Mark Street, Lidcombe, which currently contains a 3 storey, 3 unit building. A number of trees exist across the 8 lots. The application relies on the Arborist Report submitted and approved for the previous Development Application as well as a new Arborist Report for the additional 2 lots (16-18 Mark Street) that identifies 2 trees, 1 requiring removal and 1 retention. The tree proposed to be removed is located on the common boundary of 14 and 16 Mark Street, Lidcombe, and is stated as having a fair condition. The design of the development and subsequent landscape plan incorporates retention of the tree in question, and Council has prepared appropriate conditions to ensure appropriate protection of those to be retained and replacement for any to be removed.

Surrounding developments in the immediate vicinity are currently characterised by a mix commercial/retail land uses and high density residential and mixed use developments of various size and scale. It is evident that once the area completes transition, the area will be characterised predominantly by commercial and mixed use developments given the context and current zoning of the locality.

Adjoining developments consist of a 2 storey factory building on the opposite side of Marsden Street to the north of the subject site (DA approved for ten storey mixed use development), 3 to 7 storey Residential Flat Buildings to the west and south-west, and single storey dwelling houses to the south. Locality plan of the subject site:

 

Figure 3 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 4 – Aerial View of Subject Site

Figure 5 – Street View of the subject site comprising 4 and 6 Mark Street, Lidcombe

(Source: Google Street View)

Figure 6 – Street View of the subject site comprising 8, 10 and 12 Mark Street, Lidcombe

(Source: Google Street View)

Figure 7 – Street View of the subject site comprising 12 and 14 Mark Street, Lidcombe

(Source: Google Street View)

Figure 8 – Street View of the subject site comprising 16 and 18 Mark Street, Lidcombe

(Source: Google Street View)

Figure 9 – Street View of the subject site looking north-east from the intersection of James Street and Mark Street, Lidcombe

(Source: Google Street View)

Figure 10 – Street View of the subject site looking south-east from the intersection of Marsden Street and Mark Street, Lidcombe

(Source: Google Street View)

Table 1 - Photographs of the Site and Surrounds

Description of the Proposed Development

The amended application seeks consent for alterations and additions to approved 10 storey mixed use building at 4-14 Mark Street, Lidcombe (DA2017/363); and demolition of existing structures at 16-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe, and construction of an additional 8 to 11 storey mixed use building component, accommodating a combined total of 15 commercial suites and 213 residential units over 5 levels of basement parking for 627 vehicles.

The application essentially seeks to retain the approved built form under DA2017/363, amend the internal layouts and expand the development to the southern half of the site to include 16-18 Mark Street.

A summary of the proposed development data is provided below:

Height/Storeys:

39.71 metres, 8 to 11 storeys

GFA/FSR:

20,209.6m2 GFA = 4.84:1 FSR

Commercial GFA:

15 tenancies totalling 1,634m2

Unit Mix:

213 units:

·   37 x 1 bedroom units or 17.4%

·   160 x 2 bedroom units or 75.1%

·   16 x 3 bedroom units or 7.5%

Orientation:

North, east, south and west

Adaptable:

23 units (10.8%)

Car Parking:

A total of 627 spaces are proposed within 5 basement levels including:

·   510 resident spaces

·   22 visitor spaces

·   95 commercial spaces

Bicycle Parking:

86 spaces

Communal Open Space:

1,238.7m2 (30%) on rooftops (residential) and ground floor (commercial)

Table 2 - Summary of Proposed Development Data

History

Date

Comment

15/06/2017

A Pre-Lodgement Application meeting (PL2017/24) was held between the Applicant and Council Officers to discuss a development proposal for a 10 storey mixed use development on the site known as 4-14 Mark Street, Lidcombe.

 

In summary, the development proposal raised a number of issues and matters that required significant amendments and alternate design options explored. Issues included:

·    Site isolation for the two remaining lots in the block to the south of the subject site.

·    Building over height.

·    SEPP 65 non compliances in the presented scheme.

·    Shared access for commercial and residential foyer.

·    Lack of waste facilities at each level.

·    Further articulation of the building was required.

·    In addition, the Applicant was also advised of various documents required for lodgement.

28/08/2017

Development Application DA2017/363 was lodged with Council seeking consent for demolition of existing dwellings & associated structures and construction of a ten storey mixed-use development consisting of 6 commercial tenancies and 165 residential units over five level basement parking at 4-14 Mark Street, Lidcombe.

10/05/2018

DA2017/363 was determined by way of a Deferred Commencement consent being issued requiring satisfaction of the following matters:

1.   Amended architectural plans to address stormwater and traffic/parking matters

2.   Amended BASIX Certificate

14/08/2018

Additional Information comprising the material required to satisfy the Deferred Commencement conditions was received and assessed by Council to be satisfactory to enable the issue of an Operative Development Consent.

15/08/2018

Notice of Deferred Commencement Compliance was issued and Development Consent DA2017/363 became operative.

08/05/2019

A Pre-Lodgement Application meeting (PL2019/24) was held between the Applicant and Council Officers to discuss a development proposal for a 10 storey mixed use development on 4-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe.

 

In summary, the development proposal raised a number of issues and matters that required further information or refinement. Issues included:

·    SEPP 65 ADG Communal Open Space further details for rooftop COS.

·    SEPP 65 ADG Building Separation non-compliances for levels 4 to 7.

·    SEPP 65 ADG Ceiling Heights to be confirmed.

·    ALEP 2010 Building Height exceeding Clause 4.3 Development Standard.

·    ADCP 2010 Rear Setback non-compliance.

·    ADCP 2010 Building Depths exceeding 24 metres.

·    ADCP 2010 Section and Elevations required to assess visual privacy.

·    ADCP 2010 Solar Access and Shadow Diagram details not provided and required.

·    ADCP 2010 Adaptable Housing to comply with minimum requirements of AS4299 (minimum 22 units advised).

·    Urban Design:

·    Building Envelope exceeds ADCP 2010.

·    Transition for Lidcombe Town Centre fringe.

·    Security for Communal Courtyards and Communal Open Space.

·    Building Façade length

·    Stormwater Engineering design details and comments requested.

·    Traffic and Parking Engineering design details and comments requested.

·    Waste/Loading design details and comments requested.

·    Environmental Health design details and comments requested.

·    Tree Management design details and comments requested.

·    Landscape design details and comments requested.

In addition, the applicant was also advised of various documents required for lodgement.

25/07/2019

The subject Development Application DA2019/229 was lodged seeking consent for alterations and additions to approved 10 storey mixed use building at 4-14 Mark Street, Lidcombe (DA2017/363); and demolition of existing structures at 16-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe, and construction of an additional 10 storey mixed use building component, accommodating a combined total of 15 commercial suites and 217 residential units over 5 levels of basement parking for 643 vehicles.

13/08/2019

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the ADCP, the application was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 13 August 2019 and 27 August 2019. No submissions were received in respect of the proposed development.

02/09/2019

The application was referred to the Design Excellence Panel on 2 September 2019 in accordance with the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel Policy as the proposal seeks a building height of more than 25 metres.

 

The panel considered the design excellence of the proposed development and recommended the following: “The Panel considers that the DA has some merit, however, it will require design development with regard to issues of massing and built form articulation, variety in building height, building height transition in the southern part of the building, ground level street frontage design and parking provision. It is expected that the application will need to be re-referred to the Panel after the specific recommendations relating to the changes requested have been made to address the concerns raised.”

04/10/2019

A letter deferring the determination of the application was sent to the Applicant outlining a number of concerns and deficiencies with the application including the following:

 

a.   DEP Comments;

b.   Structure of Application;

c.   SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide matters including:

i. Public domain;

ii.       Communal Open Space;

iii.      Deep Soil Zones;

iv.      Visual Privacy;

v.       Car Parking;

vi.      Solar Access;

vii.     Natural Ventilation;

viii.    Ceiling Heights;

ix.      Façades;

x.       Adaptable Units/Accessible Car Parking;

d.   Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 matters including building height;

e.   Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 matters including balcony soffit treatment;

f.    Concerns raised by Council’s Development Engineer; and

g.   Concerns raised by Council’s Resource Recovery Officer.

11/12/2019

Amended plans received including substantially amended development including a break-up of the development into 4 distinguishable façade blocks with a subsequent reduction in building height on the southern end of the development towards James Street from 10 storeys to 8 storeys, and a consequent increase in building height on the northern end of the development towards Marsden Street from 10 storeys to 11 storeys.

22/01/2020

The amended application was referred to the DEP in accordance with the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel Policy. The panel considered the design excellence of the amended proposed development, and recommended additional changes to the development scheme to better address some of the comments made in relation to the original proposal and also in relation to the amended proposal.

09/03/2020

A letter deferring the determination of the application was sent to the applicant outlining a number of concerns and deficiencies with the application including the following:

 

a.   DEP Comments;

b.   SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide matters including:

i. Communal Open Space;

ii. Natural Ventilation; and

iii.          Adaptable Units/Accessible Car Parking;

c.   Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 matters including building height; and

d.   A request for updated BASIX Certificates.

05/05/2020

Amended plans and reports received including substantially amended development including a break-up of the development into 4 distinguishable façade blocks with a subsequent reduction in building height on the southern end of the development towards James Street from 10 storeys to 8 storeys, and a consequent increase in building height on the northern end of the development towards Marsden Street from 10 storeys to 11 storeys.

20/05/2020

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the ADCP, the amended application was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 20 May 2020 and 3 June 2020. One (1) submission was received in respect of the amended proposal which has been addressed within the main body of this report.

22/05/2020

The amended application was referred to the DEP in accordance with the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel Policy. The panel considered the design excellence of the amended proposed development, and found the application worthy of support, subject to a condition resolving the ‘fault line’ intersection in the façade to Mark Street.

09/06/2020

A letter deferring the determination of the application was sent to the applicant outlining a number of inconsistencies between plans and reports for the application including the following:

 

a.   Height of building details and extent of variation sought under Clause 4.6 of ALEP; and

b.   Amended elevation and section plans requested to nominate proposed RL levels.

10/06/2020

Amended plans and reports were received from the applicant in response to the deferral letter issued on 9 June 2020. The amendments within the plans and reports submitted are limited to nomination of RL levels on elevation and section plans and consistencies between the height of building measurement indicated on the plans and report.

08/07/2020

The application is referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting for determination.

Table 3 -– Site and Development History

Note: The design evolution of the development has been documented within Attachment 8 to this report.

Applicants Supporting Statement

 

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Blondie Consulting dated June 2019 and was received by Council on 25/07/2019 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

Department

Comment

Development Engineer

Supported, subject to conditions.

Environmental Health Officer

Supported, subject to conditions.

Tree Management Officer

Supported, subject to conditions.

Resource Recovery officer

Supported, subject to conditions.

External Referrals

Authority

Comment

Design Excellence Panel

Supported, subject to conditions.

NSW Police Force – Flemington Local Area Command

No concerns raised, conditions provided.

Roads and Maritime Services

No concerns raised, conditions provided.

Ausgrid

No concerns raised, conditions provided.

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;

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

5.     Apartment Design Guide (The Guide);

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

(d)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007;

(e)     State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011; and

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

6.      

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

The State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55), Clause 7, requires Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development. The matters listed within Clause 7 have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

 

Matter for Consideration

Yes/No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:

 

A Detailed Site Investigation report prepared by eiAustralia was submitted with the application. The report did not reveal any potential matters of concern with regard to contamination and concludes the following:

 

“Taking into account the above considerations and subject to EI’s statement of limitations (Section 8), EI concluded there was low potential for contamination to be present on-site. The site was regarded as suitable for the proposed use, subject to the implementation of recommendations detailed in Section 7.”

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the report, and determined that the site is suitable to support such a development, given that the report provides that the site is suitable for the proposed use, subject to conditions that have been recommended.

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

 

The State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (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.

 

A comprehensive assessment against SEPP 65 and the ADG is contained in Attachment 4.

 

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

 

Amended BASIX and ABSA Certificates were submitted for the amended development and will be included in any conditions of consent.

 

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

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

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

The original development occurs within 5 metres of an overhead electricity power line and as such, Council gave written notice of the application to Ausgrid. This subject application does not change any of the requirements previously imposed and included as conditions of consent. However it is noted that comments have been received from Ausgrid raising no concerns with the proposed development.

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

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

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

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

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

The application is not subject to clause 87 of the ISEPP, as the site is not in or adjacent to a rail corridor and the development is not likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

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

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

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

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

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

(e)     State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

Development of a type that is listed under Schedule 7 of SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011, is defined as ‘Regionally Significant Development’, which requires a referral to a Sydney Central City Regional Panel for determination, as constituted by Part 3 of Schedule 2 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

The proposed development does not constitute ‘Regionally Significant Development’, as it has a Capital Investment Value (CIV) of $16,482,077, which does not exceed the $30 million threshold for ‘General Development’. Therefore, in accordance with the Local Planning Panels Direction – Development Applications issued by the Minister for Planning on 23 February 2018, the application is referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel for determination.

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 ADCP compliance table for further discussion.

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

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

(a)     Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP)

The Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP) is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone under the ALEP. However, the application proposes a variation to the Height of Buildings development standard prescribed under the ALEP. The variation is summarised are as follows:

 

Control

Required

Proposed

% variation

Height of Building

32 metres

39.71 metres

7.71 metres / 24%

The variation is discussed in further detail later in this report.

Permissibility:-

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

“shop top housing means one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises.”

The relevant matters to be considered under ALEP and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Attachment 5.

Development Standards:-

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

Clause 2.3

Land Use Table

- B4 Mixed Use

Shop top housing

Yes. Shop top housing is permissible in the zone with consent. The development includes ground floor retail or business premises and dwellings above.

Clause 4.3

Height of Buildings

- 32 metres

39.71 metres

No. The development exceeds the building height under the respective building height standards.

Refer to Drawing No. DA-C 22 to DA-C 27 (inclusive), Issue DA-C dated 10/06/2020.

Clause 4.4

Floor Space Ratio

- 5:1

4.84:1

Yes

7.     Table 6 - Auburn LEP 2010 Compliance Table

(iii) Clause 4.6 – Variation to Building Height

8.     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.

9.      

10.  The Applicant has submitted a written request to vary the Height of Buildings development standards. Based on various case law 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.

11.   

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 consistency of the proposal against the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone is outlined below.

·        To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

12.      The proposed development provides a compatible land use that is consistent with the future character of the Lidcombe Town Centre. It proposes a mix of residential units and commercial space designed to contribute to a compatible built form.

13.       

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

14.      The proposed development provides high-density mixed-use development in an accessible location that maximises public transport patronage and encourages non-vehicular transport.

15.       

·        To encourage high density residential development.

16.      The proposal consists of a high-density residential development that is consistent with the future character of the area.

17.       

·        To encourage appropriate businesses that contribute to economic growth.

18.      The proposed development will generate demand and opportunities for businesses to service the area and contribute to the economic growth of the area. The commercial tenancies will provide floor space for businesses in the growing Lidcombe Town Centre.

19.       

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

20.      The proposed development contributes to creating an accessible, attractive and safe public domain. The development will provide opportunities for passive surveillance and create a vibrant street frontage that will contribute to the vitality of the Town Centre.

Planner’s comment:

It is considered that the proposed development, even with the non-compliant building height, achieves the objectives of the land use zone. Primarily, the development promotes high density development within an accessible location and within the Lidcombe Town Centre, as outlined by the Applicant, and also provides elements that protrude beyond the height plane that offer amenity to residents of the development. The added amenity is in the form of communal rooftop terraces and lift overruns whilst amenity for residents of development opposite to the south along James Street will be improved with a reduced built form interface to the south and displacement of floor space to the north of the site resulting in the height breach. The proposed communal open spaces would not impact upon the amenity of surrounding residential properties with regard to overlooking and solar access, given their position and height relative to adjoining properties.

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

Applicant’s justification:

·        To establish a maximum height of buildings to enable appropriate development density to be achieved.

21.      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 provision of high amenity communal open space areas that allows the development to provide a high-density development whilst providing appropriate amenity to residents and the provision of a built form that transitions form the Town Centre to lower density residential development to the south.

22.       

·        To ensure that the height of buildings is compatible with the character of the locality.

23.      The height of the proposed development is consistent with the changing character and desired future character of the Lidcombe Town Centre. As detailed above the proposed development is consistent with a number of recent approvals that are currently under construction in close proximity to the site. In addition, the top floor of the proposed development is provided with an increased setback of 6m to reduce the overall bulk of the development when viewed form the street and ensure it is compatible with the character of the locality.

Planner’s comment:

The development achieves the objectives of the development standard by proposing a height that is compatible with and more responsive to adjoining development to the north and south of the site. To the south, the reduced 8 storey building height would better relate to the low density 1 to 2 storey built forms along James Street whilst to the north, the increased 11 storey displaced height relates to and corresponds to the 10 storey built form approved at 2 Mark Street.

The proposed building height will ensure that appropriate development density is achieved with the development satisfying the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard and achieving significant compliance with the built form controls of the SEPP 65 ADG and the ADCP.

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

Applicant’s justification:

As detailed in the section above, the proposal maintains the future higher density built form that is at a scale comparative to the site’s location within the Lidcombe Town Centre. The numeric increase in building height for the proposed development is approximately 7.4m, which is a result of providing communal open space on the roof to increase the amenity of the development for residents and a transitional building height that still achieves an appropriate density in line with the applicable controls. This increase is considered reasonable in the context of the site and its ability to result in no adverse impacts on adjoining properties.

The proposed development, including the proposed building elements that exceed the height limits, will continue to achieve the objectives of the standard. It is therefore considered that the objectives of the development standard are met notwithstanding the breach of the height of buildings standard and compliance is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

Planner’s comment:

As detailed in applicant’s submission, the proposal is primarily a result of providing communal open space on the rooftop level to increase the amenity of the development for residents and a transitional building height to the south that with the development being consistent with the high density built form expected for the Lidcombe Town Centre.

The proposed development will continue to achieve the objectives of the land use zone and the development standard and will result in no significant impacts on adjoining properties.

As discussed later within this report, Council has exhibited Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP), which proposes to increase the height of buildings development standard applying to the site from 32 metres to 38 metres. The development would remain non-compliant with the height of buildings development standard in the Draft CLEP, however, this would be limited to the lift overruns of the development as opposed to any habitable floor space. Given that the lift overruns provide access to the rooftop communal open spaces and does not propose any habitable floor space above the 38 metre height, the Draft CLEP further justifies the variation sought by the Applicant.

Given the above, strict compliance with the development standard is considered unnecessary and unreasonable 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?

Applicant’s justification:

It is our opinion that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the building height standard in this instance. These are as follows:

·        The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone and the objectives of the building height control.

·        The proposal does not result in any adverse impacts on adjoining properties.

·        The height variation equates to a maximum 7.4m for a minor portion of the development and does not result in undesirable visual bulk of the building.

·        It reflects the scale of other approvals in the area.

It is considered the objectives of the ALEP Height of Buildings development standard are achieved in this instance where the proposal produces a high quality built form that ensures a high level of amenity for residents. In addition, the proposed materials and finishes and landscaping strategy further reinforces how the development harmonizes with surrounding area.

Whilst the built form exceeds the building height control applicable to the site, it is considered the proposed design does not unreasonably detract from the amenity of adjacent residents or the existing quality of the environment as demonstrated in the Amended Architectural Plans prepared by Zhinar Architects.

Strict compliance with the building height development standard would require the deletion of the communal open space on the roof which would significantly reduce the site’s potential to facilitate higher density residential development whilst ensuring an appropriate level of amenity.

Planner’s comment:

Having regard to the Applicant’s justification, and given that the application achieves the objectives of the land use zone and development standard, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the Height of Buildings development standard, and therefore the Applicant’s written justification is deemed to be well founded and worthy of support.

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, as it is consistent with the objectives of the Height of Buildings development 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 Height of Buildings 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 State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment) (Draft ESEPP) 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.

As discussed under the existing SEPP’s earlier within this Report, the development is considered acceptable having regard to those SEPP’s.

(b)     (Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Remediation of Land)

The Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Remediation of Land) (Draft RSEPP), relates to the remediation of land and seeks to repeal and replace the current SEPP 55. Generally, the Draft RSEPP maintains similar provisions to the current SEPP 55 and will contain provisions to the following effect:

·        Making remediation work permissible, despite anything to the contrary in another environmental planning instrument.

·        Specifying when development consent is, and is not required, for remediation work.

·        Specifying considerations that are relevant in determining development applications.

·        Requiring remediation work meet certain standards and notification requirements.

24.      As discussed under the existing SEPP 55 earlier within this report, the development is considered acceptable having regard to the provisions of SEPP 55 and the site has been identified as being suitable for the proposed development without the need for any remediation that would require separate Development Consent.

(c)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland City Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs applicable to the Cumberland City local government area, those being:

·        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013;

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011; and

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

In addition, the Draft CLEP proposes revised planning controls for the Lidcombe Town Centre by implementing the Lidcombe Town Centre Planning Controls Strategy and proposes changes to the development standards applying to the site as summarised below:

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

Clause 2.3

Land Use Table

- B4 Mixed Use

Shop top housing

Yes. Shop top housing is permissible in the zone with consent. The development includes ground floor retail or business premises and dwellings above.

Clause 4.3

Height of Buildings

- 38 metres (increase from 32 metres)

39.71 metres

No. The development exceeds the building height under the respective building height standard by 1.71 metres / 4.5%.

Clause 4.4

Floor Space Ratio

- 5:1

4.84:1

Yes

Table 7 - Draft Cumberland LEP 2020 Compliance Table

As detailed above, the amended proposal would remain non-compliant with the Height of Buildings development standard in the Draft CLEP. However, this would be limited to the lift overruns of the development as opposed to any habitable floor space, and given that the lift overruns provide access to the rooftop communal open spaces, would further justify the variation sought by the Applicant.

The Draft CLEP has been publicly exhibited and is considered to be certain and imminent in relation to the proposed changes to the development standards applicable to the site. It is therefore considered appropriate to give suitable weight to the Draft CLEP development standards for the subject application as discussed earlier.

Overall, the development is considered acceptable having regard to the provisions of the Draft CLEP.

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

(a)     Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (ADCP)

The Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (ADCP) provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the ADCP.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Attachment 6, providing a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the ADCP. It is considered that the proposal is generally compliant with the ADCP, with the exception of the following matters:

i.        Local Centres

Requirement

Y

N

N/A

Comments

4.0  Mixed Use Developments

4.3  Awnings

D1   Awning dimensions shall generally be:

·    minimum soffit height of 3.2m and maximum of 4m;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Varies along the footpath due to sloping footpath and span of frontage between 4m to 5m. Whilst exceeding the 4m maximum, the awning is an appropriate response to the topography without creating excessive breaks in the horizontal span of the streetscape.

15.0  Lidcombe Town Centre

15.2  Setbacks

D1   Setbacks within the town centre shall be consistent with Figure 7.

 

 

 

 

A 4 to 6 metre setback is required however 2 metres is proposed along Mark Street and 3 metres along Marsden and James Streets. Although non-compliant, the reduced setback was adopted by recommendation of the DEP and considered appropriate for the setting and context.

Table 8 - Auburn DCP 2010 - Local Centres Non-Compliances

ii.       Residential Flat Buildings

Requirement

Y

N

N/A

Comments

2.0 Built Form

2.2    Site coverage

D1    The built upon area shall not exceed 50% of the total site area.

 

 

 

The built upon area exceeds 50% of the total site area, designed to be (65%). It is not feasible to achieve compliance with the stated provision due to the zoning, location of the site within the Lidcombe Town Centre, and the applicable planning controls that allows a high floor space ratio. It is considered appropriate to permit a variation to the stated provision in this instance.

2.3    Building envelope

D3    The tower component of any building above the podium or street wall height is to have a maximum floor plate of 850m2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The upper levels include floorplate areas of between 1,647m2 to 2,160.1m2 exceeding the control, however, the development proposes a site specific building envelope which is considered acceptable given the location within the Lidcombe centre.

2.7    Head Height of Windows

D2    For storeys with a floor to ceiling height of 2.7m, the minimum head height of windows shall be 2.4m.

 

 

 

 

The head height of some windows within the development are less than 2.4m, designed to be 2.3m, however the proposal achieves the performance criteria by allowing for light penetration into rooms and well-proportioned elevations.

3.0    Open Space and Landscaping

3.1    Deep soil zone

D1    A minimum of 30% of the site area shall be a deep soil zone.

 

 

 

 

The basement occupies the entire site prohibiting the provision of significant deep soil zone, with the exception of an area to the eastern boundary. The proposal maintains a deep soil zone of 2.4%.The design is considered acceptable in this instance as the development site is located within the Lidcombe Town Centre and the site is zoned B4 Mixed Use.

 

The area is a relatively dense urban area which restricts the provision of deep soil zones. Suitable stormwater management measures are proposed and soft landscaping accommodating shrubs and small trees form an integral part of the ground level communal open space area and rooftop terrace.

Table 9 - Auburn DCP 2010 - Residential Flat Buildings Non-Compliances

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))

i.             Advertised (newspaper)

ii.             Mail

iii.             Sign

iv.             Not Required

 

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the ADCP, the original development proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 13 August 2019 and 27 August 2019. No submissions were received in respect of the proposed development. The amended application was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 20 May 2020 and 3 June 2020. One (1) submission was received in respect of the amended proposal which is discussed below.

 

Concern

Comment

New overshadowing analysis needs to be undertaken to support the proposed height variation of additional 2 storeys on the northern tower (20% increase).

As detailed within this report and attachments, the proposed development appears to not cause any significant overshadowing of the adjoining properties which appear to continue to receive solar access for at least 2 hours 9:00am to 3:00pm on 21 June as detailed on the shadow diagrams accompanying the DA.

The driveway entrance along Marsden Street should be deleted to ensure Marsden Road is pedestrian-friendly with potential to be designed as a primary east-west pedestrian spine linking residents to the Lidcombe town centre.

It is noted that the original approved development included vehicular access from Marsden Street and the location of the vehicular access remains unchanged. The site has 3 street frontages and separates vehicular access for residents and staff (Marsden Street) from vehicular access for delivery and service vehicles (James Street). No vehicular access is proposed on Mark Street to preserve the streetscape and appearance of the development. Accordingly, it is considered inappropriate to relocate delivery and service vehicle access to Marsden Street or to combine all vehicular access to James Street.

 

Having regard to the characteristics of the streets surrounding the site, the vehicular access points are considered appropriate and ideal as proposed. Furthermore, the application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer and RMS, neither of whom raised objections to the vehicular access points.

Only one Driveway access at a lower point located James Street should be retained.

As discussed above, the vehicular access points are considered appropriate and ideal as proposed.

Should a secondary driveway is required, it should be located along Mark Street, opposite to the existing 1-9 Mark Street complex driveway with minimal width for pedestrian safety.

As discussed above, no driveway access is proposed on Mark Street to preserve the streetscape and appearance of the development which is considered to be severely compromised if vehicular access was to be proposed from the Mark Street frontage of the site.

With close proximity to the Lidcombe Station, Council should lower the maximum car parking requirements in line with the traffic study undertaken by Council's Strategic Planning team to support the draft DCP for Lidcombe Town Centre.

As detailed within the attachments, the application proposes an appropriate number of car parking spaces within the minimum and maximum ranges permitted under the ADCP.

There is a need for a new traffic study given the significant traffic implication of the 627 vehicles

from the 213 units and inform where intersection improvement may be triggered and funded by the developer.

The application was accompanied by a Traffic and Parking Assessment Report that was considered by Council’s Development Engineer and RMS, neither of whom raised objections to 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 as proposed would not be consistent with the public interest.

 

Section 7.11 and Section 7.12 Contribution towards Provision or Improvement of Amenities or Services

 

The development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with the Auburn Development Contributions Plan 2007. In accordance with the currently indexed rate, the required contribution is $1,294,176.93. The draft notice of determination at Attachment 3 includes a recommendation to reflect the above contributions.

 

Note: The contributions listed within Development Consent 2017/363 have not been paid to date.

 

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

 

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

 

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

Conclusion:

Having regard to the relevant matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and is considered to be satisfactory. Any likely impacts of the development have been satisfactorily addressed and the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

The proposed development is appropriate located within the B4 Mixed Use zone under the provisions of the ALEP, and is consistent with the zone. The development however proposes a variation to the Height of Buildings development standard under the ALEP, and awnings, site coverage, building envelope, head height of buildings, and deep soil zone requirements under the ADCP. The development is considered to be acceptable in terms of the relationship to its surrounding built environment, particularly having regard to the impacts on adjoining properties.

 

Report Recommendation:

1.      That the Clause 4.6 variation request to vary the Height of Buildings development standard pursuant to the ALEP be supported.

25.   

2.      That development application DA2019/229 seeking alterations and additions to an approved 10 storey mixed use building at 4-14 Mark Street, Lidcombe (DA2017/363); and demolition of existing structures at 16-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe, and construction of an additional 8 to 11 storey mixed use building component, accommodating a combined total of 15 commercial suites and 213 residential units over 5 levels of basement parking for 627, be Approved, subject to the conditions contained in the draft notice of determination contained in Attachment 3 of this report.

 

 

Attachments

1.      Attachment 1 - Architectural Plans  

2.      Attachment 2 - Clause 4.6 Variation Request  

3.      Attachment 3 - Draft Notice of Determination  

4.      Attachment 4 - SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment  

5.      Attachment 5 - Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 Compliance Assessment  

6.      Attachment 6 - Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 Compliance Assessment  

7.      Attachment 7 - Submission x1  

8.      Design Evolution   

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP033/20

Attachment 1

Attachment 1 - Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP033/20

Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - Clause 4.6 Variation Request


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP033/20

Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP033/20

Attachment 4

Attachment 4 - SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP033/20

Attachment 5

Attachment 5 - Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP033/20

Attachment 6

Attachment 6 - Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP033/20

Attachment 7

Attachment 7 - Submission x1


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP033/20

Attachment 8

Design Evolution


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020

 

Item No: LPP034/20

Development Application for 185-187 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    MOD2020/0040  

 

 

Application Lodged:

11 February 2020

Application Number:

MOD2020/0040

Responsible Officer:

William Attard

Description of Land:

185-187 Great Western Highway, MAYS HILL  NSW  2145

Lot 2, DP 854705 and Lot 27, DP13239

Proposed Development:

Section 4.55(2) modification application seeking alterations to an approved mixed use development

Site Area:

1,243.4m²

Zoning:

B6 Enterprise Corridor

Permissibility:

Permissible – Residential Flat Buildings and Business Premises

Applicant:

ESR Constructions Pty Ltd

Owner:

Mr Tony and Mrs Rola Sahyoun

Notification / Advertising:

01 April 2020 to 22 April 2020

Disclosure of Political Donations / Gifts

None disclosed on the application form

Submissions:

Nil submissions

Principal Development Standards:

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Height of Buildings (HOB)

Permissible: 2.2:1

Approved: 2:1

Proposed: No change

Permissible: 23m

Approved: 22.87m / 14.66m

Proposed: 24.28m / 15.19m

Heritage:

The subject site is not heritage listed, is not located within a heritage conservation area, and is not located within the vicinity of a heritage item.

Variations:

-    Exceedance to HOB Standard

Recommendation:

Approval, subject to conditions

Figure 1 – Perspective of Development Looking South-West (Source: Design Cubicle, 2020)

Summary:

Council is in receipt of a Section 4.55(2) Modification Application MOD2020/0040 from ESR Constructions Pty Ltd seeking alterations to an approved mixed use development at 185-187 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill. The Architectural Plans accompanying the application are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The site is zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor, pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP). A Residential Flat Building and Business Premises are permissible with development consent.

The application was publicly notified for a period of 21 days from 1 April 2020 to 22 April 2020. In response, nil submissions were received.

The proposal has been assessed against State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land), State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development), State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Sydney Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment), Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Remediation of Land), Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020, and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

The modification application was referred for comments externally to Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Services, to which the application is supported.

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant matters for consideration pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, including likely impacts, the suitability of the site for the development, and the public interest, and the proposed development is considered appropriate.

The variations sought via the subject modification application are as follows:

Control

Required / Permitted

Building

Approved

Proposed

% Variation

Height of Buildings (HOB)

23m

Tower A

22.87m

24.28m

5.6%

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination, as pursuant to the Local Planning Panels Direction – Development Applications issued by the Minister for Planning on 23 February 2018, the application constitutes ‘sensitive development’ as it is development to which State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) Approve the Section 4.55(2) Application, subject to the draft notice of determination contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is known as 185-187 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill, and is legally described as Lot 2, DP 854705 and Lot 27, DP13239. The site is a midblock site, with a slight irregularity along its northern boundary. The site has a frontage of 30.785 metres to Great Western Highway, a frontage of 30.715 metres to Peggy Lane, an eastern boundary length of 39.6 metres, and western boundary length of 41.715 metres. The total site area is 1,243.4m², and is illustrated in Figure 2 below:

 

Figure 2 - Location Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

 

The subject site is currently vacant, with no vegetation on the subject site.

 

 

The surrounding locality is characterised as follows:

 

·        North - Great Western Highway, with six storey residential flat buildings beyond.

 

·        East - Seven storey mixed use development.

i)      

·        South -  Peggy Lane, with a two storey dwelling with detached single storey secondary dwelling, and four storey residential flat building beyond

ii)    

·        West - Single storey dwelling, with approval for a part four, part seven storey mixed use development.

 

The topography of the site is maintained to a 3.3% gradient, with a 1.39 metre fall to the north-eastern corner of the site. The site is zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor, pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), as shown in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3 – Zoning Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

The subject site is situated to the south of Great Western Highway. Figure 4 below illustrates an aerial perspective of the site and the general surroundings.

Note: The aerial imagery has not been updated to this point in time, to reflect the recent demolition of the existing structures on-site.

Figure 4 – Aerial Photo (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

The subject site is not heritage listed, is not located within a heritage conservation area, and is not located within the vicinity of a heritage item.

Description of the Proposed Development

The proposal seeks to modify Development Consent DA2015/155 via a Section 4.55(2) Application, and includes alterations to an approved mixed use development.

In detail, the following description has been provided by the Applicant within the Cover Letter prepared by Design Cubicle, dated 29 May 2020:

Details of Modifications sought:

-        The floor levels and roof level have been raised to comply with the ADG.

-        The introduction of a lift overrun to Tower A to comply with lift manufacturer specifications.

-        The commercial level awning has been revised to be a cantilevered concrete awning.

Following from the above, a numerical overview of the key components of the development is provided below:

Numerical Overview of Key Components

Component

Required / Permissible

Proposed

Complies

Site Area

N/A

1,243.4m² (No change)

N/A

Site Frontage

26m

30.785m (No change)

N/A

Floor Space Ratio

(FSR)

2.2:1

2:1 (No change)

N/A

Height of Buildings

(HOB)

Tower A

23m

24.28m

No, but Acceptable on Merit

Tower B

15.19m

Yes

Boundary Setbacks

North

3m

3m (No change)

N/A

South

3m

3m (No change)

East

0m

0m (No change)

West

0m

0m (No change)

Building Separation

North

12m - 24m

>24m (No change)

N/A

South

6m

9.095m (No change)

East

0m

0m (No change)

West

0m

0m (No change)

Between Towers A & B

12m

12m (No change)

Apartment Numbers

Tower A

21 units (No change)

N/A

Tower B

11 units (No change)

Total

32 units (No change)

Apartment Mix

1 bedroom

4 units (12.5%)

(No change)

N/A

2 bedroom

28 units (87.5%)

(No change)

3 bedroom

0 units (0%)

(No change)

Commercial Mix

Commercial 1

95m² (No change)

N/A

Commercial 2

75m² (No change)

Car Parking

Residential

38 spaces

39 spaces (No change)

N/A

Commercial

9 spaces

9 spaces (No change)

Bicycle Parking

Residential

20 spaces

21 spaces (No change)

N/A

Commercial

1 space

Communal Open Space (COS)

310.85m²

500m² (No change)

N/A

Deep Soil Zone

87.04m²

0m² (No change)

N/A

Solar Access (2hr)

23 units

21 units (No change)

N/A

Natural Ventilation

19 units

19 units (No change)

N/A

SITE HISTORY

-        XT2015/155/1  

Section 4.54 Extension of Lapsing Period of 1 Year – Approved by Cumberland City Council on 13 March 2019, changing the date of expiry of Development Consent DA2015/155 to 6 May 2020.

The development was physically commenced between 10 February 2020 and 18 March 2020, via demolition works undertaken on-site in accordance with Development Consent DA2015/155.

-        DA2015/155     

Development Application for demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 2 lots into 1 lot, construction of a part 4, part 7 storey mixed use development comprising 32 residential units over 2 levels of basement parking accommodating 48 car parking spaces – Approved by Holroyd City Council on 6 May 2016 for period of 3 years, with the date of expiry being 6 May 2019.

 

-        DA2014/277     

Development Application for demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 2 lots into 1 lot, construction of a 7 storey mixed use development comprising 32 residential units and 2 commercial units over 2 levels of basement parking accommodating 48 car parking spaces – Withdrawn by the Applicant on 24 October 2014.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Cover Letter prepared by Design Cubicle, dated 31 January 2020, and was received by Council on 11 February 2020 in support of the application.

Additional correspondence was received by Design Cubicle, dated 29 May 2020 and 10 June 2020, in response to Council’s request for amended plans and additional information.

Contact with Relevant Parties

The assessing officer has been in regular contact with the Applicant throughout the assessment process.

Internal Referrals

The application was not required to be referred to internal referral departments.

External Referrals

Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Services

The modification application was referred to Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Services for comments, who advised that the existing conditions of consent stand, and that proposed development is supported.

PLANNING COMMENTS

SECTION 4.55(2) OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (EP & A ACT)

A consent authority may, on application being made by the Applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the Court and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

Requirement

Comment

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

The development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.

(b)  it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 4.8) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

The application was referred to Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Services for comments, with respect to conditions imposed under DA2015/155. Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Services advised that the existing conditions of consent stand, and that proposed development is supported.

(c)   it has notified the application in accordance with:

 

(i)    The regulations, if the regulations so require, or

 

(ii)   A development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

The application was publicly notified for a period of 21 days between 1 April 2020 and 22 April 2020, in accordance with the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP). In response, nil submissions were received.

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

Nil submissions were received in response to the notification of the subject application.

(3)   In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. The consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

The provisions of the applicable DCP are discussed elsewhere in this report.

 

There are no planning agreements or draft planning agreements related to this application.

 

There are no relevant matters referred to in the regulations.

 

The likely impacts of the development as proposed to be modified are considered satisfactory.

 

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

 

Nil submissions were received in response to the notification period, as noted above.

 

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

(4)   The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified.

Noted.

SECTION 4.15 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (EP & A ACT)

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

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

(a)     State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

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

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

The requirement at Clause 7 of SEPP 55 for the consent authority to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development, was considered under the original application. The proposed modifications do not raise any new concerns regarding site contamination.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) applies to the assessment of the subject application, as it includes a residential flat building that is 3 storeys or more in height, and contains more than 4 dwellings. The modification application has been accompanied by a Design Verification Statement from a Registered Architect.

SEPP 65 outlines 9 Design Quality Principles, which are addressed as follows:

Design Quality Principle

Comment

Yes

No

N/A

1. Context and Neighbourhood Character

The site is zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor, pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), with the subject development maintained to a Residential Flat Building and Business Premises development, which is permitted with consent. The development continues to be in harmony with nearby buildings.

2. Built Form and Scale

The building continues to respond with the existing landform, providing for an appropriate building scale when viewed from the public domain.

3. Density

The subject site is well located with respect to existing public transport and community facilities.  The design of the development does not alter the perceived density of the approved development.

4. Sustainability

The requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 were considered under the original application. The endorsed BASIX Certificate requires the installation of sustainable development features, including Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) features that are inclusive of water efficient features and energy saving devices. The proposed modifications do not require an updated BASIX Certificate.

5. Landscape

No changes are proposed to the approved landscape design of the development.

6. Amenity

The proposal will continue to deliver sufficient amenity to residents of the building, with the proposed changes achieving compliance with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

7. Safety

Suitable and secure access continues to be provided to all parts of the building.

8. Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

No changes are proposed to the approved apartment mix and number of adaptable units.

9. Aesthetics

The proposed development has an attractive contemporary appearance, utilising building elements that provide individuality to the development, without compromising the streetscape or detracting from the appearance of existing surrounding development.

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 apartment development. The proposed modifications have been assessed to comply with the requirements of the ADG. A comprehensive assessment against the ADG is contained in Attachment 3 to this report.

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

The requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 were considered under the original application. The endorsed BASIX Certificate requires the installation of sustainable development features, including Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) features that are inclusive of water efficient features and energy saving devices. The proposed modifications do not require an updated BASIX Certificate.

(e)     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”.

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

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) have been considered in the assessment of the modification application.

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

The application is not subject to Clause 45 of the ISEPP, as the development is not within 5m of exposed overhead electricity power lines, or within proximity to underground electricity power lines.

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

The application is not subject to Clause 85 of the ISEPP, as the site is not in or adjacent to a railway corridor.

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

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

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

The application is not subject to clause 87 of the ISEPP, as the site is not in or adjacent to a rail corridor and the development is not likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

The application is subject to Clause 101 of the ISEPP, as the site has a frontage to a classified road, being Great Western Highway. As such, the modification application was referred to Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Services, who advised that the existing conditions of consent stand, and that proposed development is supported.

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

The application is subject to Clause 102 of the ISEPP, as the site has a frontage to Great Western Highway, which has an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 20,000 vehicles. No changes are proposed to the development which would trigger a re-assessment against Clause 102 of the ISEPP.

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

The application is not subject to Clause 104 of the ISEPP, as the development is not classed as a ‘Traffic-Generating Development’.

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

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

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (Vegetation SEPP) applies to the subject site. An assessment of the proposal has revealed the proposed development complies with the requirements of the Vegetation SEPP, noting:

·        The site is not located in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value as outlined within the Biodiversity Values Map;

iii)            

·        The proposed modifications do not include tree removal, and therefore the area clearing threshold for native vegetation pursuant to the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is not applicable; and

iv)            

·        The proposal does not include tree removal, and therefore the test of significance pursuant to Section 7.3 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is not applicable.

i.   Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP)

The Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) applies to the subject site. The proposed development has been assessed to comply with the requirements of HLEP, with the exception of the Height of Buildings (HOB) development standard, which is discussed below. The relevant matters to be considered under HLEP, and the applicable clauses for the proposed development, are summarised below. A comprehensive assessment against the HLEP is contained in Attachment 4 to this report.

Permissibility

The proposed development is defined as a Residential Flat Building and Business Premises, and is permissible in the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone with consent.

Residential flat building means a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing.

Note. Residential flat buildings is a type of residential accommodation.

Business premises means a building or place at or on which-

(a)     an occupation, profession or trade (other than an industry) is carried on for the provision of services directly to members of the public on a regular basis, or

(b)     a service is provided directly to members of the public on a regular basis, and includes a funeral home and, without limitation, premises such as banks, post offices, hairdressers, dry cleaners, travel agencies, internet access facilities, betting agencies and the like, but does not include an entertainment facility, home business, home occupation, home occupation (sex services), medical centre, restricted premises, sex services premises or veterinary hospital.

Note. Business premises are a type of commercial premises.

Key Development Standards

The following key development standards are applicable:

Development Standard

Permitted

Approved / Proposed

Compliance

Floor Space Ratio

(FSR)

2.2:1

2:1 (No change)

N/A

Height of Buildings

(HOB)

23m

Building

Approved

Proposed

No, but Acceptable on Merit

Tower A

22.87m

(Building)

24.28m

(Lift Overrun)

 

23.82m

(Building)

Tower B

14.66m

(Building)

15.19m

(Building)

Yes

Variations Sought

Height of Buildings (HOB)

The subject modification application proposes a variation to the Height of Buildings (HOB) development standard of 1.28m, as measured to the lift overrun, and 0.82m, as measured to the built form, representing a variation of 5.6%.

A Clause 4.6 request is not required as the application is made under Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, however, Council has considered the proposed variation based on the 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. The above case laws set out a 3 part assessment framework for a variation request, which 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?

The modified development is considered to be consistent with the B6 Enterprise Corridor objectives, as it continues to promote businesses along main roads, encourages a mix of compatible uses, and provides for residential uses, but only as part of a mixed use development.

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

The modified development is considered to be consistent with the Height of Buildings (HOB) objectives as outlined within Clause 4.3 of the HLEP, as it minimises the visual impact of the development, ensures sufficient solar access and privacy for neighbouring properties is maintained, and provides an appropriate scale of development.

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

Strict compliance with the development standard in this instance is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance as:

·        The site continues to be consistent with the character envisaged by the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone, and the sites’ proximity to public transport.

·        The additional height is sought to achieve compliance with Apartment Design Guides (ADG) design criteria related to ceiling heights, when factoring in thicknesses of materials, and the provision of services. Furthermore, the additional height is sought so as to introduce a lift overrun, which is designed to adhere to the specifications set by the lift manufacturer.

·        The additional height will not result in noticeable bulk, as viewed from the public domain.

·        The additional height does not change how the building will be read in the context of the overall development.

·        The additional height does not result in additional overshadowing, view loss or a reduction in privacy.

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

The circumstances of the case are considered to warrant support of the departure. The development continues to respond to the site, and does so without unduly compromising relationships with adjoining development, and the development does not unduly compromise other relevant controls. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Height of Buildings (HOB) development standard, and development within the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone. In this regard, the exception is well founded and can be supported.

Council is satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest, as 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 the variation to the maximum Height of Buildings (HOB) development standard is worthy of support on merit, in this instance.

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

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

(a)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment) (Draft ESEPP)

The Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment) (Draft ESEPP) 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 ESEPP 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.

Refer to assessment above under the heading ‘State Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005’.

(b)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Remediation of Land)

The Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Remediation of Land) (Draft RSEPP), relates to the remediation of land and seeks to repeal and replace the current SEPP 55. Generally, the Draft RSEPP maintains similar provisions to the current SEPP 55 and will contain provisions to the following effect:

·        Making remediation work permissible, despite anything to the contrary in another environmental planning instrument.

·        Specifying when development consent is, and is not required, for remediation work.

·        Specifying considerations that are relevant in determining development applications.

·        Requiring remediation work meet certain standards and notification requirements.

As discussed under the existing SEPP 55 earlier within this report, the proposed modifications do not raise any new concerns regarding site contamination.

(c)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland City Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs currently applicable to the Cumberland City local government area, those being:

·        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the HLEP, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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

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

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP)

The Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP) provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the HLEP. The proposed development complies with the relevant provisions of the HDCP. A detailed assessment against the provisions of the HDCP is contained in Attachment 5 to this report.

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 agreements or draft planning agreements associated with the subject modification application.

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

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

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

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. The modifications are minor in nature, and will not create adverse impacts on the surrounding 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 HDCP, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days between 1 April 2020 and 22 April 2020. In response, nil submissions were received.

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

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

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94 Contributions)

This part of the Act relates to the collection of monetary contributions from Applicants for use in developing key local infrastructure. The subject development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013.

A condition was imposed on the original consent requiring the payment of contributions. The residential and commercial yield, and unit mix, is not proposed to change, and therefore, the value of the contributions do not change as a result of the proposed modifications.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

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

Conclusion:

The proposed development has been assessed against the matters for consideration listed in Section 4.15 of the EP & A Act, 1979, and is considered to be satisfactory. Any likely impacts of the development have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposal is considered to be in the public interest. Further, the subject site continues to be suitable for the development.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone pursuant to the HLEP, and is consistent with the zone objectives. The development however proposes a variation to the Height of Buildings (HOB) development standard under the HLEP. The development is considered to perform in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

The development, as proposed to be modified, is considered to be substantially the same development as approved and modified and therefore satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

 

Report Recommendation:

That modification application MOD2020/0040 seeking alterations to an approved mixed use development at 185-187 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill, be Approved, subject to the conditions contained in the draft notice of determination contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

 

 

Attachments

1.      Attachment 1 - Architectural Plans  

2.      Attachment 2 - Draft Notice of Determination  

3.      Attachment 3 - SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment  

4.      Attachment 4 - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment  

5.      Attachment 5 - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment   

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP034/20

Attachment 1

Attachment 1 - Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP034/20

Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP034/20

Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP034/20

Attachment 4

Attachment 4 - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP034/20

Attachment 5

Attachment 5 - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020

 

Item No: LPP035/20

Development Application for 1-3 Bransgrove Street, Wentworthville

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    MOD2019/5282  

 

 

Application lodged

20 December 2019

Applicant

Archi-Build International

Owner

Premier United Group Pty Ltd, Maroun Bros Group Pty Ltd,

Pmpy Pty Ltd

Application No.

MOD2019/5282

Description of Land

1-3 Bransgrove Street, Wentworthville NSW 2145, Lot 1 DP 14951, Lot 2 DP 14951

Proposed Development

Section 4.55(2) application to modify floor levels, hydrant booster location, external finishes and stormwater disposal of an approved residential flat building

Site Area

1,211m2

Zoning

R4 – High Density Residential Zone

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

The subject site does not contain a heritage item, located within the vicinity of the heritage item or heritage conservation area.

Principal Development Standards

FSR

Permissible: 1.2:1

Proposed: No changes sought under the subject modification application

 

Height of Building

Permissible: 15m

·    Proposed: Max. 16.4m (9.3% variation sought)

·    Clause 4.6 Written Variation Request is not required for a modification application; however the applicant has submitted a planning justification for height variation on similar grounds. 

Issues

Variation to maximum 15m building height (HLEP 2013)

Summary:

1.      Development Application No. DA2016/79 was approved on 20 January 2017 for the demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4-storey residential flat building containing 17 units, rooftop terrace over basement parking accommodating 22 car parking spaces and associated strata subdivision into 17 lots.

2.      Modification Application No. M2016/79/2 was approved on 8 June 2018 for a Section 4.55(1A) modification approving removal of an existing tree at the front of the subject site.

3.      Current Modification Application was received on 20 December 2019 for the Section 4.55(2) application to modify floor levels, hydrant booster location, external finishes and stormwater disposal.

4.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 21 days between 18 March 2020 and 8 April 2020. In response, no submissions were received.

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

6.      The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 and Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP 2013) and the Draft Cumberland LEP and DCP 2020.

7.      The variations are as follows:

 

Control

Required

Provided

% Variation

Building Height

Permissible: Max. 15m (HLEP 2013)

 

Approved: 15.24m (DA2016/79)

Max. 16.4m (RL 37.4 - RL 21) = 16.4m to lift overrun.

 

Max. 15.4m (RL 36.34 – RL 21.2) to access stairs

1% - 9.3%

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

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 1 & 3 Bransgrove Street, Wentworthville and is legally described as Lots 1 and 2 in DP 14951. The sites have a combined area of 1,211m2 and combined frontage of 28.955m to the western side of Bransgrove Street with a 2.155m splay corner and a secondary street frontage of 40.325m to Fullagar Road. There is currently a single storey dwelling and associated outbuildings located on each of the existing sites. The site falls approximately 1.2m from the front to the rear of the site.

The subject site, and all adjoining sites are zoned R4 – High Density Residential and sites opposite to the north are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. The rear boundary of the subject site adjoins a Council reserve (Irwin Place Park) and Finlaysons Creek.

The subject site does not contain any heritage items and is not within a heritage conservation area. There are no heritage items within the vicinity of the subject site.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site. Source: Cumberland City Council Intramaps

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site. Source: Cumberland City Council Intramaps

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site (No. 1 Bransgrove Street, Wentworthville). Source: Cumberland City Council 2020.

Figure 4 – Street view of subject site (No. 3 Bransgrove Street, Wentworthville). Source: Cumberland City Council 2020.

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a modification application to modify floor levels, hydrant booster location, external finishes and stormwater disposal to approved residential flat building. The proposed changes include the following:

Level

Proposed Modifications

Basement

·   Aisle width approved as 5.894m; modified to be 5.8m.

·   Deletion of fire stairs.

Ground floor

·   Deletion of fire stair exit adjacent to main entry.

·   Floor to ceiling height approved as 2.7m, modified to be 2.8m.

First floor

·   FFL approved as 24.94; modified to be 25.04.

·   Floor to ceiling height approved as 2.7m, modified to be 2.8m.

Second floor

·   FFL approved as 27.84; modified to be 28.04.

·   Floor to ceiling height approved as 2.7m, modified to be 2.8m.

Third floor

·   FFL approved as 30.74; modified to be 31.04.

·   Floor to ceiling height approved as 2.7m, modified to be 2.8m.

Roof terrace

·   FFL approved as 33.74; modified to be 34.04.

·   Deletion of roof over terrace area.

·   Ridge level approved as 36.04, lift overrun RL modified to be 37.4 and access stairs to be 36.34.

 

·   Amended schedule of colours and finishes.

·   Changes to stormwater design.

·   Addition of a fire hydrant booster along the Bransgrove Street frontage.

The applicant is also seeking to satisfy the Schedule ‘A’ conditions under the subject modification application.

 

History

Date

Action

20 December 2019

The subject modification application was lodged with Council.

23 January 2020

The application was referred to Council’s internal development engineering department for review.

18 March 2020 to 8 April 2020

The application was placed on public notification. In response, no submissions were received.

8 July 2020

The application has been referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Maximum Developments Australia dated 17 December 2019 and was received by Council on 20 December 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 recommended conditions of consent.

External Referrals

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

PLANNING COMMENTS

The relevant matters for consideration under the EP&A Act 1979 are:

Section 4.55(2):

Requirement

Comments

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

The development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the original consent. That is, the demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4-storey residential flat building containing 17 units, rooftop terrace over basement parking accommodating 22 car parking spaces and associated strata subdivision into 17 lots.

 

The subject modification application seeks minor alterations, including the increase of the floor to ceiling height from 2.7m to 2.8m, minor changes to the basement level, changes to the schedule of colours and finishes, the installation of a fire hydrant booster and changes to the stormwater design, which are considered minor and substantially the same development as approved under DA2016/79/1.

Council has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

No Minister, public authority or other approval body was required to be consulted regarding the proposed modification.

Council has notified the application in accordance with:

(i)   the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)   a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

See discussion on “Public Notification” in this report.

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

See discussion on “Public Notification” in this report.

Relevant matters referred to in Section 4.15(1) of the act have been taken into consideration

Proposed modification is not contrary to the public interest and the likely environmental impacts of the development as modified are considered acceptable.

 

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 original 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 under the original application.

An amended design statement was not submitted as part of the subject modification application, however, the modifications sought are consistent with the deign statement under the original application signed by registered architect Ziad Boumelem (8008).

Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, the proposal is generally considered compliant and therefore performs satisfactorily with respect to building amenity. A comprehensive assessment against SEPP 65 and the ADG is contained in Attachment 2.

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

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

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

No additional trees or vegetation is proposed to be removed as part of the subject modification application.

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

The proposed modifications do not require a revised BASIX Certificate.

Local Environmental Plans

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013

 

The provision of the HLEP 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the HLEP 2013 and the objectives of the R4 – High Density Residential zone.

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a ‘Residential flat building’ and is permissible in the R4 – High Density Residential zone with consent.

The relevant matters to be considered under HLEP 2013 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Attachment 3.

Figure 4 – Holroyd LEP 2013 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

COMPLIANCE

DISCUSSION

4.3 Height of Buildings

Max. 15m

No – Max 16.4m (9.3% variation sought)

No – The Applicant has submitted a written request to justify the variation – Refer to Attachment 5.

 

Refer to discussion below.

(b)     Variation to Height of Buildings Development Standard

Height variation sought

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

The proposal breaches the height standard by a maximum of 1.4m, which represents a variation of 9.3%. The height breach of the proposal is limited to the lift overrun and access stair which are located at the centre of the building.

Figure 5 – Eastern elevation along Bransgrove Street frontage showing extent of height variation sought. Source: Archi-Build International

Figure 6 – Section plan showing extent of height variation sought. Source: Archi-Build International

Clause 4.6 assessment of variation sought

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. A formal submission of Clause 4.6 is not warranted for a modification application; however the applicant has submitted this statement, which offers reasonable planning assessment and justification. This is discussed in the following sections.

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standards for the maximum 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?

Zone R4   High Density Residential

1   Objectives of zone

·    To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment.

·    To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

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

Applicant’s justification:

The proposed variation is considered to improve the amenity of approved housing stock. The additional height positively contributes to the streetscape with the use of modulation and articulation whereby the approved residential flat building presents to the street as a modulated built form. The extent of the variation to height of building is unlikely to result in any limitations or constraints to adjoining properties in relation to impacts or limitation of development potential. This will not result in a substantial change in approved built form. The proposed minor variation sought is not inconsistent with the intent of this objective.

The proposed additional which is considered to be of a low environmental impact given the will improve the amenity of the residential occupants and is not inconsistent with the intended building typology which will remain at four (4) storeys and rooftop level. The proposed variation sought is not inconsistent with the intent of this objective.

The approved built form comprises of a residential flat building which is a permissible use within the R4 High Density Residential Zone. The proposed additional height sought within this modification does not offend this objective of the zone.

Planner’s comment:

The proposal is for a four storey residential flat building containing 17 units at the subject site which provides for the housing needs of the local area. The variation sought will not restrict the surrounding land uses from providing the facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of the local residents. The variation to the development standard will not result in any adverse impacts on the surrounding land uses. Having regard to this, 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?

v)              

4.3   Height of buildings

1.      The objectives of this clause are as follows—

(a)     to minimise the visual impact of development and ensure sufficient solar access and privacy for neighbouring properties,

(b)     to ensure development is consistent with the landform,

(c)     to provide appropriate scales and intensities of development through height controls.

Applicant’s justification:

(a)     to minimise the visual impact of development and sure sufficient solar access and privacy for neighbouring properties.

The proposed height and built form is considered to be consistent with other approved residential flat buildings within the locality which breach the height limit of 15m. The proposed height of building of results in a built form is appropriately articulated, setback and modulated given the immediate context.

The proposed variation to height does not result in any solar access unreasonable impacts to the amenity of adjoining dwellings given the site; orientation, slope and context. Given this, reasonable levels of solar access are achieved and therefore this objective has been satisfied. The additional height sought exceeding the development standard is considered to result in negligible overshadowing impacts due to the topography of the site and orientation. In this regard, despite the numerical variation sought, the underlying objective of this clause has been satisfied.

The extent of the variation sought is not considered to detract from the amenity of adjoining residential uses. The extent of the height variation is unlikely to result in unreasonable impact in relation to amenity including; privacy, bulk and scale or view loss.

Given the design of the bulk form and minor extent of the height breach, the proposed variation is considered not to offend the underlying intent of this clause. In this regard, despite the numerical variation, the objective of this clause has been met.

(b)     to ensure that development is consistent with the landform

The site is affected by flooding whereby the minimum habitable finished floor level this is turn has resulted in the building being lifted to achieve suitable floor levels. Given the slope for the site which slopes from west (low) to high (east) the proposal has been designed to step into the landscape. By strictly complying with the prescriptive height of 15m would result in the inability to provide adequate function.

The proposed height exceedance in wall height is considered to be negligible in relation to bulk and scale. Given the immediate context of the existing built form, the proposed variation reasonably satisfies the underlying intent of this clause given that the proposal reasonably responds to the topography of the site.

(c)     to provide appropriate scales and intensities of development thorough height controls

The proposals seeks to adopt reasonable floor to ceiling heights being 2,800mm for the ground floor to fourth floors which are considered to be modest and not excessive. Given this, the proposal provides reasonable amount of residential amenity for future occupants.

The subject site which is zoned R4 Low Density Residential, the immediate surrounding area also shares this zoning and height controls. Despite the variation in height, the proposed built form is considered to result in an appropriate height transition on the site.

It is further noted that the breach in height is unlikely to be easily read as (a height breach) from the public domain from a casual observer given the sitting and modulation of the variation and context of the surrounding area.

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 with the maximum floor space ratio applicable to the subject site. The height breach of the proposal is limited to the lift overrun, which is located within the centre of the building, and does not achieve any additional levels or gross floor area for the development.

The site is subject to mainstream flooding and the finished floor levels of the development is required to be in accordance with the flood planning level. Furthermore, by increasing the floor to ceiling heights of each level, the proposal is able to achieve the required services for each unit. Having regard to this, and the gradual slope of the site from the front to the rear of the site, the proposal is considered to be designed to respond to the topography of the site.

It is further noted that the departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties, with respect to solar access, or visual and acoustic privacy.

The additional height is located within the centre of the building and does not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape or neighbouring properties, 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, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the height standard and development within the R4 zone.

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

Applicant’s justification:

It is considered that numerical compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as the objectives of the development standard have been achieved despite the numerical departure, as previously addressed within this report. In this instance the proposal is considered to result in a neutral outcome in comparison to strict numerical compliance.

The proposed variation is considered to be inconsequential given the numerical departure based on the immediate visual context and slope and flooding constraints of the site. The proposed variation does not offend the underlying intent of the Clause 4.3 Objectives which are intended to reduce bulk and scale, overshadowing impacts and minimise impacts to the natural environment of which despite the numerical departure has been satisfied.

Whilst the proposal seeks a variation height of building for built forms centrally located on site, the extent of the variations are visible along all external elevations however are of negligible to minor impact. It is considered that given the sloping topography of the site, appropriate floor levels to be achieved, immediate residential character within the visual catchment would result in unreasonable strict numerical compliance with the 15m height of building control.

Council’s Clause 4.6 Register, assessment report recommendations have demonstrated that strict numerical compliance in relation the Clause 4.3 Height of Building have been varied for similar planning reasons for lift overruns and access stairs as to that sought within this justification. In this regard, strict numerical compliance is considered unnecessary and unreasonable given the topography of desired character of the zone. Furthermore, as previously mentioned the proposal is likely to result in negligible impacts in relation to solar access and visual bulk and scale in comparison to strict numerical compliance. This is considered to result in a neutral impact.

The zoning for the subject site is R4 Low Density Residential, in this instance this is considered to be reasonable. It is noted that the remainder of the proposal (i.e. communal rooftop) complies with the 15m Height of Building Limit.

Strict numerical compliance in relation to the application of this clause is not considered to result in any significant material planning benefit. No unreasonable material amenity impacts arise from this variation for minor increase in height to the residential flat building. Sufficient environmental planning grounds for the breach in height of building have been provided for Council’s consideration which is detailed within this report, of which is considered to be valid, reasonable and sound given the topography of the site, flood impacts of the site and immediate surrounding context.

In this instance, given the above, whilst is it acknowledged that the proposed variation will indeed result in a lesser outcome than strict numerical compliance. However notwithstanding it is considered that contravention of the Development Standard will result in a proposal which is still consistent with the underlying objectives of the control despite the numerical departure (Clause 4.3 Height of Building), furthermore, the proposed exceedance to the Development Standard results is considered to be of a minimal environmental impact in relation to solar access, overshadowing, privacy and visual impact.

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 16.4m for a small portion of the building being the lift overrun and stairs. The additional height of the building will not be highly notable or visible from the adjacent properties or the street.

The proposed variation to the development standard is necessary in order for the building to achieve the required FFL, which correspond with the flood planning level, and to provide adequate floor to ceiling heights to facilitate the services within each unit.

The overall proposal is consistent with the scale of the existing and future 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 the adjoining properties. The additional height does not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape and would not impinge on the changing streetscape that is anticipated for the immediate area. It is considered, therefore, that strict compliance with the Development Standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

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

Applicant’s justification:

As previously discussed, this extent of the variation is inconsequential and does not result in any unreasonable impacts given the slope of the site and immediate visual context. More importantly, the proposed variation satisfies the objectives of the underlying intent of Clause 4.3, and therefore the merits of the works sought are considered to be worthy of approval. It has been demonstrated within Council and the Courts to apply a reasonable approach in supporting variations to development standards. The proposal is not considered to result in any adverse material amenity impact.

·        Strict numerical compliance would unlikely result in a materially better urban design outcome given the extent of the variation. The variation sought will not result in a dominant built form. Strict numerical compliance would result in negligible reduction of impacts in relation to bulk and scale, solar access and overshadowing however the benefits would appear to be minimal. Strict numerical compliance would thwart the underlying objectives of the controls and would result in a built form much lesser than that of other recently approved residential flat buildings within the area in particular the visual catchment.

·        Council development assessment records indicate that the Council have approved and have recommended support for similar variations for lift overruns and access stairs to Clause 4.3 Height of Building within the locality therefore abandoning strict numerical compliance with the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and have supported such variations on planning merit.

·        The extent of the variation for height is unlikely to be visually apparent to be out of character when viewed by a casual observer from the public domain given that the variation sought. The proposal will read as a four (4) storey residential flat building with communal open space on the rooftop. Given the extent of the variation, the additional height is unlikely to be significantly perceivable from ground level or the public domain whereby as such the lift core and access stairs are described as generally being centrally located on the rooftop level.

·        The resultant-built form from the variation is considered to be compatible with other residential flat buildings within the locality is unlikely to result in an undesirable impact or outcome. The proposal is not considered to result in any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties and is unlikely to set an undesirable precedent.

·        By supporting this variation to the height of building in its current form, it is considered that appropriate flexibility be applied on planning merit which results in a reasonable built form which is commensurate of other residential flat buildings within the locality.

·        The extent of the variation is considered to be in the public interest as the proposal does not result in any adverse material impact to adjoining properties or beyond or detrimentally affect amenity on site. Strict numerical compliance is considered to result in a negligible benefit.

·        As previously discussed, the proposed extent of the variation adequately satisfies the underlying objectives of the controls of which do not result in any unacceptable impacts to the; built, natural, social or economic impacts for consideration under the Act.

·        The extent of the variation is not considered to be inconsistent with the Objects of the Act are considered to be satisfied regarding the merits of the additional height sought.

·        The extent of the variation is considered to be moderate-minor in nature and results in a negligible environmental planning impact in accordance with the considerations of the Act.

Planner’s comment:

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, or results in non-compliances with 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, in this instance.

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.

(b)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs currently applicable to the Cumberland local government area, those being:

·        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the HLEP, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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

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

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Attachment 4.

The proposed fire hydrant booster assembly is located within the front setback area. The HDCP 2013 does not provide specific setback controls for hydrant boosters. The location of the structures is dictated by the access and safety requirements of the relevant service authority. No changes are proposed to the built form of the development and the streetscape impacts are considered satisfactory.

The proposed development complies with the provisions of the Holroyd DCP 2013 and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning view point.

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 Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days between 18 March 2020 and 8 April 2020. No submissions were received in respect 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

Council has imposed a Section 7.11 Contribution to be paid under the original application for DA2016/79/1. No amendment to contributions is required as a result of the subject modification application.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The modification application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Statement Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65), Holroyd LEP 2013 and Holroyd DCP 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

The development as modified is appropriately located within the R4 High Density Residential Zone under the relevant provisions of the Holroyd LEP 2013, however a variation in relation to the Height of Buildings development standard under the Holroyd LEP 2012 is sought.

Having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, Council may be satisfied that the development has been responsibly designed and provides for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents. It is considered that the proposal successfully minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Hence the development, irrespective of the departure 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 and 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the modified development may be approved subject to conditions.

 

Report Recommendation:

That Modification Application No. MOD2019/5282 for a Section 4.55(2) application to modify floor levels, hydrant booster location, external finishes and stormwater disposal to approved residential flat building on land at 1-3 Bransgrove Street, Wentworthville NSW 2145 be approved, subject to attached conditions in Attachment 1.

 

Attachments

1.      Attachment 1 - Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Attachment 2 - Apartment Design Guide Compliance Table  

3.      Attachment 3 – Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

4.      Attachment 4 - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

5.      Attachment 5 - Clause 4.6 Written Request  

6.      Attachment 6 - Architectural Plans  

7.      Attachment 7 - Stormwater  Engineering Plans  

8.      Attachment 8 -Landscape Plan  

9.      Attachment 9 - Locality Map   

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP035/20

Attachment 1

Attachment 1 - Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP035/20

Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - Apartment Design Guide Compliance Table


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP035/20

Attachment 3

Attachment 3 – Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP035/20

Attachment 4

Attachment 4 - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP035/20

Attachment 5

Attachment 5 - Clause 4.6 Written Request


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP035/20

Attachment 6

Attachment 6 - Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP035/20

Attachment 7

Attachment 7 - Stormwater  Engineering Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP035/20

Attachment 8

Attachment 8 -Landscape Plan


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP035/20

Attachment 9

Attachment 9 - Locality Map


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020

Item No: LPP036/20

Development Application for 122 Robertson Street, Guildford

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0280  

 

 

Application lodged

12 May 2020

Applicant

Mr S Christou

Owner

Mr S Christou & Mrs G I Christou

Application No.

DA2020/0280

Description of Land

122 Robertson Street Guildford NSW 2161

Lot 111 DP 1114778

Proposed Development

Erection of a pergola at the rear

Site Area

348.39sqm

Zoning

R2 – Low Density Residential

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

No

Principal Development Standards

N/A - No Change to FSR or Height of Building

 

Proposed Pergola Height: 2.75m maximum

Issues

Nil

Summary:

1.      Development Application No. DA2020/0280 was received on 12 May 2020 for the erection of a pergola at the rear.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 15 May 2020 and 29 May 2020. In response, no submissions were received.

3.      There are no variations proposed to Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011.

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

5.      The application is referred to the Panel as part owner of site is a sitting Councillor of Cumberland City Council.

Report:

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The site forms Lot 111 of DP1114778 and is known as 122 Robertson Street, Guildford. The site has an area of 348.39sqm and a frontage to Robertson Street, Guildford of 7.62m.

A site inspection of the premises carried out on 1 June 2020 confirmed that the site is currently occupied by a two storey dual occupancy development with concrete area to the rear of the dual occupancy unit and landscaping.

The existing development immediately adjoining the site includes the adjoining dual occupancy unit known as 122A Robertson Street, Guildford, to the immediate south which contains a pergola of similar materials, size and location as the current proposal. Adjoining the site to the further south is a two storey dual occupancy development and a single storey dwelling which contains a large tree within the rear yard adjoins the site to the immediate north.

Figure 1 – Locality map of 122 Robertson Street Guildford

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

 

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

Figure 4 – Photo of concreate area of proposed pergola location facing towards Robertson Street, Guildford

Figure 5 – Photo of north side elevation of concrete area of proposed pergola location

Figure 6 – Photo of south side elevation of concrete area of proposed pergola location

Figure 7 – Photo of pergola attached to adjoining southern dual occupancy unit known as 122A Robertson Street Guildford

Figure 8 – Photo of landscaping within the rear yard looking towards the rear boundary

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application on 12 May 2020 seeking approval for the erection of a pergola at the rear.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

·        Construction of a pergola attached to the rear of a dual occupancy unit known as 122 Robertson Street, Guildford which contains the following details:

o Colourbond roof of grey colour with metal support posts; and

o Constructed on an existing concrete slab, measuring 7.62m in width and 7m in depth, located at the rear of the dwelling with a total area of 53.34sqm.

The existing concrete slab at the rear of the dwelling is located against the southern and northern side boundaries of the subject site. The pergola is proposed to cover the whole area of the existing concrete slab and as such is proposed to measure 7.62m in width and 7m in depth for a total area of 53.34sqm and is to be attached to the rear of the dwelling. The pergola is proposed to contain a maximum height of 2.75m.

History of Site

1.      Development Application (Cumberland City Council Reference: DA99/1639-01) lodged with Parramatta City Council to demolish existing dwelling and erect a single storey dwelling;

2.      On 13 August 2002, Development Application JD/00145/02 was approved by Parramatta City Council for construction of an attached dual occupancy and subdivide into two (2) lots - Cumberland City Council Reference: DA/145/2002;

3.      On 17 June 2003, Section 96(1A) Modification Application JD/145/02 was approved by Parramatta City Council to modify the development consent for 122 Robertson Street Guildford by relocating the on-site detention system from under the driveway area to the landscaped planted area adjacent to the driveway - (Cumberland City Council Reference: DA02/145-01)

4.      Subdivision Application (Parramatta City Council Reference: SC/122/2006) approved by Parramatta City Council on 16 March 2007.

5.      Construction Certificate (Cumberland City Council’s Reference: CC2020/0158) has been lodged with Council in conjunction with the current development application for the erection of a pergola at the rear.

It is noted that the existing concrete area of which the Pergola is proposed to be constructed upon, was approved in accordance with Development Application JD/00145/02 for construction of an attached dual occupancy and subdivide into two (2) lots.

 

History of Development Application

Date

Action

12 May 2020

The Development Application was lodged for the erection of a pergola at the rear.

13 May 2020

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Building Surveyor for comment.

15 May 2020 to 29 May 2020

Application was placed on public notification for 14 days. No submissions were received.

1 June 2020

Site Inspection conducted.

1 June 2020

Comments were received from Council’s Building Surveyor.

8 July 2020

Application referred to Cumberland Local Planning Panel for determination.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects which was received by Council on 12 May 2020 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

Council 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

Building Surveyor

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

A further comment was provided being as follows, however this comment is in relation to the Construction Certificate lodged with Council (Cumberland City Council’s Reference: CC2020/0158) and is not required at the DA stage:

1.      Construction details (Structural engineer's details of the proposed pergola are required to be provided which includes connections to the external walls, bearers details, engineering details of the roof rafters, roof cladding, post and post anchoring) and residential construction specification shall be provided to the Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate;

External Referrals

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

PLANNING COMMENTS

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

Matter for Consideration

Yes/No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

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

 Yes  No

Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:

 

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

(b)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (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 does not incorporate basement excavation in proximity (within 2 metres) to an electricity distribution pole nor does the development occur within 5 metres of an overhead electricity power line. As such, the Consent Authority is not required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority.

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

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

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

The application is not subject to clause 102 of the ISEPP as the average daily traffic volume is less than 40,000 vehicles on Robertson Street, Guildford.

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

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

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

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

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

Yes – The proposal does not involve the removal of any vegetation.

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

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

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

The cost of works is valued at less than $50,000 therefore a BASIX Certificate was not required to be submitted as part of the development application.

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 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the objectives of the R2 – Low Density Residential Zoning.

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development being for the erection of a pergola at the rear is an ancillary structure to the existing approved dual occupancy unit. A ‘dual occupancy’ is permissible in the R2 – Low Density Residential zone with consent.

The relevant matters to be considered under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.

Figure 4 – Parramatta LEP 2011 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

COMPLIANCE

DISCUSSION

4.3 Height of Buildings

Maximum permissible: 10m

Yes

The pergola proposes a maximum height of 2.75m.

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

Maximum permissible: 0.7:1

Yes

The development application is for the erection of a pergola at the rear of an existing dual occupancy development only and as such no change to the existing floor space ratio is proposed.

5.10 Heritage conservation

N/A

The subject site does not contain a heritage item, and is not located within the vicinity of the heritage item or heritage conservation area. 

6.1 Acid sulfate soils

N/A

The site is not affected by Acid Sulfate Soils.

6.2 Earthworks

N/A

The development application is for the erection of a pergola at the rear of an existing dual occupancy development only, which is proposed to be constructed upon an existing concrete slab area previously approved.

6.3 Flood planning

N/A

The site is not identified as being flood prone.

6.4 Biodiversity Protection

N/A

The site is not identified as Biodiversity on the Natural Resources - Biodiversity Map.

6.5 Water Protection

N/A

The site is not identified as “Riparian Land and Waterways”.

6.11 Dual occupancies on land in Zones R2, R3 and R4

N/A

The development application is for the erection of a pergola at the rear of an existing dual occupancy development only.

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.

(b)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) and draft Cumberland Development Control Plan 2020 (Draft CDCP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) and Draft Cumberland Development Control Plan 2020 (Draft CDCP) have been prepared by Cumberland City Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs and three existing DCPs currently applicable to the Cumberland local government area, those being:

·        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013,

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, and

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and Auburn Development Control Plan 2010.

The planning controls proposed within the draft CLEP and draft CDCP for the subject site, are not proposed to affect the proposed development.

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

The Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

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

It is noted that Parramatta Development Control Plan 2013 does not contain any specific development controls for a pergola. As such the development has been assessed under ‘Dual Occupancy’ development controls provided within Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 as the pergola is proposed to be attached to the rear of the existing dual occupancy unit.

It is also noted that the dual occupancy development was approved prior to the current Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 becoming operational.

The following table highlights non-compliances with Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, which relate to side setbacks and rear setback, however as stated above, the side setback and rear setback development controls within Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 are for dual occupancy development as there is no specific development controls relating for pergolas. The variations sought are considered satisfactory on merit in this instance.

Figure 9: PDCP 2011 Variation Table

 

Part 3 – Clause 3.1 – Table 3.1.3.3 – Dual Occupancies

 

Control

Proposed

Variation

Side Setbacks

 

 

Minimum 1.5m

 

0mm to southern and northern side setbacks

 

100%

Rear setback

Minimum 30% of site length

13.12% (6m/45.72m)

16.88%

As indicated in Figure 7 above, the adjoining southern dual occupancy unit known as 122A Robertson Street Guildford, currently contains a pergola (Council Reference: DA2008/8729) which is of similar materials, size and location as the current proposal in terms of it is also located on the northern and southern side boundaries and is built upon an existing concrete slab previously approved and is of a similar size to the current proposal.

The northern and southern side setbacks proposed for the pergola being 0mm and proposed rear setback of the pergola being 13.12% of the site length (6m), are considered acceptable on merit as the pergola is proposed to be constructed upon an existing approved concrete slab and as such will not reduce deep soil and landscaping for the site.

The pergola, including gutters, is proposed to be contained wholly within the subject site and is not proposed to overhang adjoining properties.

The subject allotment currently does not contain any covered private open space area for occupants and as such the proposed pergola will increase outdoor amenity for the occupants of the dwelling in terms of protection from weather elements such as heat, rain and wind by providing shelter and it is considered that the proposal performs adequately from an environmental planning viewpoint and may be supported.

The development application was also referred to Council’s Building Surveyor who raised no concerns subject to recommended conditions being imposed in the development consent, due to the proposed 0mm northern and southern side setbacks, for the external walls of the pergola to achieve a Fire Resistance Level of 60/60/60 to comply with the Building Code of Australia Deemed To Satisfy provisions with details of the materials used to satisfy this requirement required to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing of any Construction Certificate and for the stormwater to be connected to the existing stormwater system onsite.

The proposed side and rear setbacks for the pergola are considered acceptable subject to conditions imposed in development consent as per Council’s Building Surveyor’s comments provided above as the proposal will not impact on the streetscape, will protect the amenity of adjoining sites, will increase outdoor amenity for occupants of the subject site and will provide for the provision of a functional private open space area for the existing development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)

Mail

Sign

Not Required

In accordance with Council’s notification requirements contained within the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 15 May 2020 and 29 May 2020. No submissions were received in respect 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 draft conditions set out in Attachment 1, will have no significant adverse impacts on the public interest.

Section 7.12 (Formerly S94A) Fixed Development Consent Levies

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

 

Comments:

The development does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 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 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011. 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.

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.

 

Report Recommendation:

That Development Application No. DA2020/0280 for the erection of a pergola at the rear on land at 122 Robertson Street Guildford NSW 2161 be approved subject to attached conditions.

 

 

Attachments

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 Compliance Table  

3.      Architectural Plan  

4.      Waste Management Plan   

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP036/20

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP036/20

Attachment 2

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 Compliance Table


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP036/20

Attachment 3

Architectural Plan


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP036/20

Attachment 4

Waste Management Plan


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020

Item No: LPP037/20

Development Application for 25A Crescent Street, Holroyd

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0113  

 

 

Application lodged

28 February 2020

Applicant

Qms Media C/- Mecone

Owner

Cumberland City Council

Application No.

DA2020/0113

Description of Land

25A Crescent Street HOLROYD  NSW  2142, Lot 12 DP 773184

Proposed Development

Replacement of an existing twin sided static advertising sign with a twin sided LED sign.

Site Area

Total site area (Holroyd Gardens):18,600m2

Area for the proposed sign: 64m2

Zoning

RE-1 Public Recreation

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

The subject site is located within the vicinity of a heritage item of local significance being “Goodlet & Smith (brickmaking plant and chimney and Hoffman kiln and chimney) at No. 23-25 Brickworks Drive, Holroyd (I53)

Principal Development Standards

N/A

 

Issues

The proposal does not seek any new non compliances.

 

Summary:

1.      Development Application No. DA2020/0113 was received on 28 February 2020 for the Replacement of an existing twin sided static advertising sign with a twin sided LED sign.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period 14 days between 1 April 2020 and 15 April 2020. In response, no submissions were received.

3.      The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP 2013), State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage, and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP 2013).

4.      The application involves the following non-compliance* (as existing) which is considered supportable as discussed in detail elsewhere in the report:

Item

Required

Proposed

% Variation

Height of the sign

(HDCP 2013)

15 m

16.35m (as existing)

9%

*Note: The proposal does not seek any new non compliances.

5.      The owner of the subject property is identified as Cumberland City Council. In this regard, in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Local Planning Panel Direction – Development Applications, the application is referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination.

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

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site comprises of Holroyd Sportsground which is located adjacent to the M4 Motorway. The site is bound by the M4 Motorway to the north, whilst also located adjacent to Holroyd industrial and business areas to the south and west. The site is not developed with any significant structures other than a sportsground and clubhouse. The site is also bounded by vegetation to the north and south. The total site area is approximately 1.86ha and irregular in shape. The signage is located over approximately 64m2.

Figure 1 – Aerial view of subject site

 

Figure 2 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 3- view of the subject site

Figure 4 & 5 – Existing advertising structure as viewed from M4 Motorway (westbound) and Holroyd Sportsground

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for the conversion of an existing twin sided static advertising sign with a twin sided LED sign incorporating:

·        Removal of the two existing static signs; 

·        Removal of six (6) flood lights attached the signage structure; and 

·        Installation of two (2) LED advertising display boards facing eastbound and westbound along the M4 Western Motorway. 

·        The proposed digital advertising signs will display a series of static images, with a dwell time of 25 seconds with a transition time of 0.1 seconds or less; and

·        The total area of each digital sign to be 42.41 m2. 

The specifics of the advertising structure include:

·        An existing height of 16.35m above ground level (existing);

·        Existing dimensions of 3.35m x 12.66m (42.41m2); and

·        Constructed from a perforated metal profile.

Figure 6 & 7 – Proposed advertising structure as viewed from M4 Motorway (westbound) and (eastbound)

Application History

Date

Action

28 February 2020

DA 2020/0113 was lodged with Council

17 March 2020

Application referred to Council’s internal departments and RMS for review.

1 April to 14 April 2020

Application notified to surrounding properties, a sign was erected on the site, and an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper. No public submissions were received as a result of the notification.

14 April 2020

RMS provided concurrence subject to conditions.

8 July 2020

Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Mecone dated February 2020 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

Parks and Recreation

The development application was referred to Council’s Parks and Recreation Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to recommended conditions of consent.

External Referrals

NSW Roads and Maritime Services

The application was referred to NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for concurrence, pursuant to clause 18 of the State Environmental Planning Policy No.64. The response received 14 April 2020 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to 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 64 – Advertising and Signage

The proposal is for the conversion of an existing twin sided static advertising sign with a twin sided LED sign. with an overall height of approximately 16.35m (existing) and display area of 42.41 m2. The structure is twin sided and would be visible to both eastbound and westbound traffic on the M4.

Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 64, it is considered that the proposal satisfactorily addresses relevant matters such as design quality, road safety, lighting, views and vistas and as such satisfies the objectives of the Policy and the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.

The relevant provisions of the SEPP are addressed below:

Clause 8 – Granting of consent to signage

Pursuant to clause 8, consent must not be granted to an application to display signage unless the consent authority is satisfied that the signage is consistent with the objectives of the Policy and that the signage satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.

The objectives of the policy are as follows:

a)      to ensure that signage (including advertising):

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

ii.       provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

iii.      is of high quality design and finish, and

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

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

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

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

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the policy.

Clause 13 – Matters for consideration

Pursuant to clause 13, Council cannot grant consent to the proposal unless:

Requirement

Comment

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

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the policy as detailed under clause 8 above.

If clause 18 or 24 applies to the case;

 

the proposal has been assessed by the consent authority in accordance with the assessment criteria in    Schedule 1 and the consent authority is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts, and

 

Council is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts, having regard to the schedule 1 assessment criteria.

 

 

If clause 18 or 24 applies to the case;

 

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

(i)   design, and

(ii)  road safety, and

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

A detailed assessment against the schedule 1 criteria is provided at attachment 1 as required.

 

The DA was accompanied by a Road Safety Assessment prepared by McLaren and a Lighting Impact Report prepared by Electrolight Australia Pty Ltd. Based on the information submitted, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of road safety and design. With regard to the public benefits (iii), this is not applicable for this application as Council owns the subject land.

 

However, Council’s Large Advertising Signage Policy requires execution of a lease or licence agreement for the duration of the advertisement on signs located on land that is owned or Managed by Council.  In this regard, the client QMS Media and Council already have an executed license agreement.

 

The details of this agreement have committed to providing Council with a minimum of 8% screen time for the digital assets of Cumberland Council to run advertising for local events, services and selected charity partners.

if clause 18 or 24 applies to the case,

 

arrangements that are consistent with the Guidelines have been entered into for the provision of the public benefits to be provided in connection with the display of the advertisement.

 

As above

Clause 14 – Duration of consents

Clause 14 limits the lifespan of any advertising structure to 15 years from the date of operation of the consent or a lesser period if in the opinion of the consent authority. A condition has been imposed limiting the operation of the consent to a maximum of 15 years.

Clause 17 – Advertisements with a display area greater than 20 square metres or higher than 8 metres above ground

Clause 17 applies as the sign is greater than 20 m² and higher than 8 m above ground. Clause 17 acts to:

·        identify the proposal as ‘advertised development’,

·        require that a schedule 1 assessment be provided by the applicant,

·        require that the consent authority is satisfied the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts, and require concurrence is obtained from RMS.

The DA has been advertised in accordance with the Act and a schedule 1 assessment was provided by the applicant. RMS have provided concurrence, as discussed under ‘external referrals’ above and Council is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its visual impacts.

Clause 18 – Advertisements greater than 20 square metres and within 250 metres of, and visible from, a classified road

Clause 18 also applies to the development as the signage is greater than 20m² and within 250 m of and visible from the M4 Motorway which is a classified road. Clause 18 also states that a consent authority must not consent to any signage to which this clause applies without concurrence from RMS.  The application was referred to the RMS for concurrence, and the response received 14 April 2020 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

Clause 19 – Advertising display area greater than 45 square metres

Clause 19 does not apply to the amended proposal, as the display area of the advertisements is less than 45 m2.

Clause 23 – Freestanding advertisements

Clause 23 operates to prevent the grant of consent in situations where the proposal protrudes above the dominant skyline, including any buildings, structures or tree canopies, when viewed from ground level within a visual catchment of 1 kilometre.

The applicant provided a statement addressing the Schedule 1 assessment criteria. The proposal maintains the existing height, scale and overall proportion and is not considered to obscure or compromise any important views or skyline.  Council is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts as discussed earlier.

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

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

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

The proposal does not propose any vegetation removal.

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

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

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

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

The provision of the HELP 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. The proposed development is defined as a ‘signage’ and is permissible in the RE1 – Public Recreation zone with consent. 

It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Holroyd LEP and the objectives of the RE1- Public Recreation zone. A comprehensive HLEP compliance table is provided at attachment 3.

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.

(b)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan (CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland City Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs currently applicable to the Cumberland City local government area, those being:

·        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

vi)             

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the HLEP, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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

Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013 contains general controls which relate to all developments under Part A, and signage controls under Part F.

A comprehensive HDCP compliance table is attached to this report at Attachment 5. It shall be noted that the proposal does not seek any new non-compliances.  A summary of the DCP non-compliances is provided in the following table.

7.

Sign specifications

 

 

 

 

Pole and Pylon Signs, and Flag Poles

 

A pole or pylon sign must:

g) not exceed 15 metres in height to the highest point of the sign;

 

The proposed sign will be a maximum of 16.35 metres, resulting in a 1.35 metre variation. Notwithstanding, the height of the sign is existing, and the proposal does not seek to alter this height. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable in the context of the site.

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

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

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

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

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

It is considered that the proposed development will have no significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts in the locality. The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to relevant matters such as design quality, landscaping, road safety, lighting and views and vistas subject to the imposition of suitable conditions of consent to satisfactorily control the development.

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

It is considered that the development is suitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality.

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

Advertised (newspaper)

Mail

Sign

Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 1 April 2020 and 15 April 2020. No submissions were received as a result of the notification.

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.

Cumberland Council Large Display Advertising Policy

Cumberland Council adopted a large display advertising policy at its meeting held 4 September 2019. It is in the public interest that the Policy be considered in the assessment and determination of the DA.

The policy applies to all signs to which consideration must be given under clause 13(3) of SEPP 64. The policy applies to the proposed development.

For Signs Located on Land that is Owned or Managed by Council, Council’s Large Advertising Signage Policy requires execution of a lease or licence for the duration of the advertisement on signs located on land that is owned or Managed by Council.  In this regard, the client QMS Media and Council have an executed license agreement.

The details of this agreement have committed to providing Council with a minimum of 8% screen time across each of the digital assets of Cumberland Council to run advertising for local events, services and selected charity partners.

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

The proposed development does not attract the payment of any development contributions.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage, Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines, Council’s Large Display Advertising Policy, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020  and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Report Recommendation:

That Development Application No. DA2020/0113 for replacement of an existing twin sided static advertising sign with a twin sided LED sign on land at 25A Crescent Street HOLROYD NSW  2142 be approved subject to conditions within the draft notice of determination provided at Attachment 1.

 

 

Attachments

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      SEPP 64 - Schedule 1 Assessment  

3.      Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines  

4.      HLEP 2013 Compliance Table  

5.      HDCP 2013 Compliance Table  

6.      Council's Large Display Advertising Policy  

7.      Architectural Plans  

8.      Locality Map   

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP037/20

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP037/20

Attachment 2

SEPP 64 - Schedule 1 Assessment


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP037/20

Attachment 3

Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP037/20

Attachment 4

HLEP 2013 Compliance Table


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP037/20

Attachment 5

HDCP 2013 Compliance Table


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP037/20

Attachment 6

Council's Large Display Advertising Policy


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP037/20

Attachment 7

Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP037/20

Attachment 8

Locality Map


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020

Item No: LPP038/20

Development Application for 58 & 60 Berwick Street, Guildford

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2019/0501  

 

 

Application lodged

19 December 2019

Applicant

Baini Design

Owner

Manmark Holdings Pty Ltd, Anrite Holdings Pty Ltd,

Chrisyl Holdings Pty Ltd

Application No.

DA2019/0501

Description of Land

58 & 60 Berwick Street GUILDFORD  NSW  2161, Lot 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 & 34, Sec 9 DP 734

Proposed Development

Demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating 25 units and 22 car parking spaces under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009

Site Area

1,349.08m² (1,236.18m² post road widening dedication)

Zoning

R4 High Density Residential

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

The subject site is located within the vicinity of a heritage item of local significance being “Kelvin”, Federation/Queen Anne bungalow at No. 67 Berwick Street, Guildford (I33)

Principal Development Standards

Floor Space Ratio:

Max. 1.2:1 permitted (HLEP) + ARH 36% Bonus

·   Proposed FSR = 1.56:1 (this includes a bonus ARH FSR of 36%)

 

Height of Buildings:

Max. 15m permitted

·   Proposed Max. 15.8m (5.3% variation sought)

Clause 4.6 Written Variation Request submitted for the departure sought to building height

Issues

·    Variation to maximum 15m building height (HLEP 2013)

·    Building separation (ADG)

·    Solar Access (ARH SEPP and HDCP 2013)

·    Site coverage (HDCP 2013)

·    Submissions

Summary:

1.      Development Application No. DA2019/0501 was received on 19 December 2019 for the demolition of existing structures, construction of a 5 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating 27 units and 25 car parking spaces under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 21 days between 5 February 2020 and 26 February 2020. In response, 1 submission (3 x form letters) was received.

3.      The assessment of the application identified issues including overall building height, scale, amenity impacts to the adjoining southern development and as such the application was deferred seeking amended plans. Amended plans and information were provided to Council on 18 May 2020. The design refinements resulted in the deletion of the units on the top floor, reduction of the overall gross floor area of the development and compliant building separation along the southern boundary. The amended plans did not warrant re-notification.

4.      The application as amended proposes demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating 25 units and 22 car parking spaces under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

5.      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).

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

 

Control

Required

Proposed

% Variation

Building separation (ADG)

Min. 6m up to 4 storeys

 

Levels 1-3:

Eastern Boundary

Balconies = 5.4m

 

10%

Building Height

(HLEP 2013)

Max. 15m

Max. 15.8m (RL 45.30) to the roof of lift core and stairwell

5.3%

Driveway Setback (HDCP 2013)

Min. 1.5m

1.26m

16.3%

Site coverage (DCP)

Max 30% (370.85m2)

43% (531.2m2)

43.2%

Basement setback (DCP)

3 m

1.25m to eastern side boundary

63.3%

Sunlight access (DCP)

1 main living area of existing adjacent dwellings to receive 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 4pm, 22 June.

The proposal results in overshadowing of the northern windows of 6 out of 17 units on the adjacent development to the south.

-

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

8.      The application is recommended for deferred commencement approval subject to the conditions as provided in Attachment 1.

Background / History

DA2019/11/1 for demolition of existing structures, and construction of a 4 storey building comprising of a 76 place child care centre on the ground floor with 18 residential units above with two basement car parking levels for 36 vehicles made pursuant to Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 was refused by Cumberland Local Planning Panel on 14 August 2019,

On 28 February 2018, DA2017/81 granted development consent for the construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 21 units above basement parking accommodating 26 car parking spaces. This is an active consent which applies to the land. The date of expiry of DA2017/81 is 28 February 2023.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

INTRODUCTION

The subject site is known as 58-60 Berwick Street, Guildford; and is legally described as Lots 29-34, Sec 9 in DP734. The site has an area of 1,349.08m² and frontage of 40.235m and 33.53m to Berwick Street and Beaufort Street respectively. The site is regular in shape and has a depth of 40.235m to the eastern boundary and depth of 33.53m to the southern boundary.

The property is subject to 1.5m road widening to both Beaufort Street and Berwick Street, with 3m x 3m splay at the corner of both streets; as identified within Map 1 – Appendix K – Locations Subject to Road Widenings and Splay Corners in Part A of HDCP 2013. The site area will be reduced to 1,236.18m² post dedication of land along Beaufort Street and Berwick Street for road widening.

The property is occupied by two dwelling houses, ancillary structures, outbuildings and mature trees.

The site is located approximately 800m from Guildford Railway Station.

The subject site and neighbouring allotments directly to the east and south are zoned R4 – High Density Residential. Properties located on the northern side of Beaufort Street and western side of Berwick Street are zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential. Opposite the subject site at the corner of Beaufort Street and Berwick Street are Beaufort Street Park and Berwick Street Reserve.

The existing developments surrounding the subject site are residential flat building directly to the south and south-east, and primarily dwelling houses and low to medium density housing to the east. However, there is a transition occurring currently with higher density zoned sites being developed into residential flat buildings.

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

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

IMG_0031

Figure 3 – No. 60 Berwick Street (subject site) and adjoining residential flat building south of the site at No. 62-66 Berwick Street. Source: Cumberland Council

IMG_0029

Figure 4 – No. 58 Berwick Street (subject site). Source: Cumberland Council

IMG_0028

Figure 5 – View of No. 58 Berwick Street (subject site) from Berwick Street. Source: Cumberland Council

IMG_0042

Figure 6 – View of No. 58 Berwick Street (subject site) from Beaufort Street and adjoining property No. 63A Bangor Street. Source: Cumberland Council

Description of the Proposed Development (as amended)

DA 2019/0501 seeks consent for demolition of existing structures, consolidation of two lots into one lot, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising of 25 residential units with basement car parking pursuant to Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009

Key features of the development proposal (as amended) are as follows:-

Level

Details

Basement level

22 residential car spaces (including 4 accessible parking spaces)

5 bicycle spaces

Storage areas

Bin and service rooms

Lift core and stairwell

Ground level

 

Pedestrian access to the building from Berwick Street

7 residential units

Lift, fire stairs and landscaping

Level 1

6 residential units

Level 2

6 residential units

Level 3

5 residential units

Level 4

Roof and communal open space 

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

The dwelling mix of the proposal (as amended) is as follows:

·        7 x 1-bedroom units (28%)

·        17 x 2-bedroom units (68%)

·        1 x 3-bedroom units (4%)

Figure 7 – Streetscape of proposed development – Beaufort St & Berwick St frontage

Application History

Date

Action

19 December 2019

The subject development application was lodged with Council.

31 January 2020

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

·    Development Engineering

·    Traffic Engineering

·    Environmental Health

·    Landscaping/Tree Management

·    Waste Management

·    Endeavour Energy

·    Transgrid

·    Cumberland Police Area Command

·    Sydney Water

5 February 2020 to 26 February 2020

Application placed on public notification. In response, 3 proforma submissions were received.

7 May 2020

Application deferred seeking additional information and amended plans

18 May 2020

Amended plans and additional information received by Council

8 July 2020

Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 9 December 2019 was submitted with the application.

A written request to vary the building height standard, prepared in accordance with Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2013 by Think Planners, dated 9 December 2019 was submitted in support of the application.

An addendum to the Statement of Environmental Effects was submitted to Council as part of the amended plans dated 20 February 2020.

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 regard to parking, traffic management and on-site parking provision in the basement level, subject to conditions.

Landscaping/Tree Management

The application was referred to Council’s Landscape and Tree Management Officer for comment. Response received indicates that the proposed tree removal and landscape works are satisfactory subject to conditions. The conditions recommended by the Landscape Officer are included in the draft determination.

Waste Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment and issues were raised with regard to the ongoing management which have been imposed within the draft conditions of consent.

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

Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment pursuant to Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 for comment, who has advised that the development is required to provide adequate safety clearances to existing electricity lines, which have imposed within the draft conditions of consent.

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.

Sydney Water

The application was referred to Sydney Water for comment regarding Sydney water assets. Response dated 26 February 2020 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to recommendations which have imposed within the draft conditions of consent.

PLANNING COMMENTS

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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 at Attachment 2.

16A Character of local area

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

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

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

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

·        Step 1 – Identify the ‘local area’.

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

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

An assessment against each step is provided below:

Step 1 – Identify the local area.

This assessment identifies the local area as primarily the visual catchment of the site (hatched in red) as viewed from within the site and directly adjacent to the site on the street which is defined by the yellow line in Figure 8, and white line in Figure 9 below:

Figure 8 – Local Area catchment as identified on Aerial

Figure 9 – Local Area catchment as identified on Zoning Map

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

The zoning of the broader locality and immediate area comprises R4 High Density Residential adjoining the site directly to the south and east, and R3 Medium Density Residential for properties located on the western side of Berwick Street and northern side of Beaufort Street; under the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013.

Present Character of the area

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

Berwick Street

1.      Three (3) storey residential flat building (62-66 Berwick Street).

2.      Detached dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies located on the western side of Berwick Street.

3.      Opposite the subject site at the corner of Beaufort Street and Berwick Street are Beaufort Street Park and Berwick Street Reserve.

Bangor Street

4.      Detached dwellings houses and attached dual occupancies located on both sides of Bangor Street; and both sides of Berwick Street north of the site.

5.      Three (3) storey residential flat buildings at the corner of Berwick Street and Bangor Street with Stimson Street – 72-74 Berwick Street & 77-79 Bangor Street respectively.

6.      Three (3) storey walk up residential flat building at the corner of Bangor Street and Beaufort Street (54-56 Bangor St).

7.      Three (3) storey residential flat building (67-71 Bangor Street).

Cardigan Street

8.      Two (2) storey walk up residential flat building at the corner of Beaufort Street and Cardigan Street (67 Cardigan Street).

9.      Part 2 and part 3 storey residential flat building at the corner of Beaufort Street and Cardigan Street (64-68 Cardigan Street).

10.    Three (3) storey residential flat buildings at the corner of Cardigan Street and Stimson Street (72-78 Cardigan Street).

11.    A part 2 and part 3 storey residential flat building has been approved at 69-77 Cardigan Street (DA2006/226). The DA is operative but construction has not yet commenced.

12.    The remaining sites on Cardigan Street comprise of detached dwellings and dual occupancies.

Future character of the area

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 zoned R4 High Density Residential is subject to a maximum height limit of 15m and maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.2:1. The emerging character of the area is generally that of small, 3 to 4 storey residential flat buildings. 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 and height limits applicable to sites within the local area.

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

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

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

The height, FSR and landscaping of the proposed development are designed to maintain the harmony within the streetscape, whilst contributing to the site context and constraint. The height of building breaches the 15m height limit requirement for part of the roof and the lift core 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. 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 existing development on the southern side (62-66 Berwick 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 compliant and consistent with the higher density zones. The proposal is considered to maintain an appropriate residential character which is consistent with the evolving higher density streetscape in the locality. As indicated, 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 Ben Vitale was submitted with the application.

SEPP 65 sets 9 design quality principles. The development has adequately addressed the principles in the following way:

Figure10 – SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles Table

ADG design quality principle

Response

1. Context and neighbourhood character

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

2. Built form and scale

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

3. Density

The subject site is well located with respect to existing public transport and community facilities. The proposal includes an affordable housing component that allows for a maximum bonus FSR of 0.5:1 over the LEP standard for the site.  The design of the development provides for appropriate separation between dwellings, supplemented by privacy treatment to balconies and windows where necessary. 

4. Sustainability

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

5. Landscape

Compliant landscape area has been provided, which will provide appropriate level of amenity to the resident and consistent with the environmental surrounds of the subject site.

6. Amenity

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

7. Safety

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

8. Housing diversity and social interaction

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

·    7 x 1-bedroom units (28%)

·    17 x 2-bedroom units (68%)

·    1 x 3-bedroom units (4%)

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

9. Aesthetics

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

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.

No.

Control  

Comments

Compliance

 

 

 

 

3F

Visual Privacy

Yes

No

N/A

3F-1

Design Criteria

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

 

Note:

Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room.

 

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

The proposal generally complies with the building separation requirements.

 

Building is 4 storey in height, with roof top terrace.

 

West: Berwick Street

 

North: Beaufort Street

 

East :

 

Up to level 3

 

Requires a min. 6m setback to boundary.

 

Bedrooms and bathrooms setback 6m to boundary. Balconies setback 5.4m to boundary (measured from outer face of balcony). However, privacy screens are provided to majority of these balconies which is considered acceptable in this instance.

Further, condition of consent has been imposed to provide 1.5m high privacy features to the remaining  balconies along the eastern boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

Matter for Consideration

Yes 

   No

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

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 not identified in Council’s records as being contaminated. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that following review of the submitted Preliminary Site Investigation, the site is considered suitable for the proposed childcare and residential development, subject to the imposition of conditions.

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

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment, who raised concerns relating to adequate safety clearances to existing electricity power lines, which have included as part of the reasons for refusal contained within the draft notice of determination.

(c)     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.

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

The proposal includes removal of some existing trees within the subject site. However, this does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable. Please refer to the HDCP 2013 compliance table at Attachment 5 for further comment regarding the proposed tree removal.

(e)     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.

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

BASIX certificate 987245M_02 dated 26 November 2019 was submitted with the application. The certificate achieves target scores and is consistent with the architectural plans.

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

(a)     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 the following variations to HLEP 2013:

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

COMPLIANCE

DISCUSSION

4.3 Height of Buildings

15m   

No

Proposed: 15.8m (RL 45.30)

Variation: 5.3%

 

Refer to the discussion below.

 

Height of Buildings

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

The proposed building has an overall height of 15.8m (RL 45.30) to the roof of the lift core and RL 44.30 to the top of the structures associated with the roof top communal open space. The proposal breaches the height by 800mm to the roof of the lift core, representing a maximum variation of 5.3%.

(a)     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. 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 development will provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density environment;

·        The development contributes to a variety of housing types in a high density environment;

·        The development will maximise public transport patronage by providing residential accommodation in an accessible location;

·        The development is designed to respond to the context and setting of the locality and the development is consistent with the desired future character of the locality;

·        The development is designed to minimise impact on the amenity of the area and adjoining properties.

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

·        The area of non-compliance to the building height is limited to a small portion of the upper level roof form and lift over-run- and this element is recessed back from the perimeter of the building below such that the visual impact from the public domain and adjoining properties is minimised;

·        The non-compliance also stems from the provision of affordable dwellings that allows the development to exceed the FSR of 1.2:1 for the site contained in LEP 2013. Council’s Building envelope controls of height, FSR and setbacks are designed to accommodate a residential flat building with an FSR of 1.2:1. This development has a greater allowable FSR under the ARHSEPP and the additional floor space can only be appropriately accommodated by breaching the building envelope controls- namely the minor departure to the height standard. 

·        The overall height of the development presents as a compatible form of development with the 5th storey recessed to downplay visual dominance as viewed from the public domain and adjoining properties.

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

·        The extent of overshadowing is satisfactory as shown on the shadow diagrams and the privacy impacts arising from the additional height control are negligible when having regard to the design of the built form which focuses the 5th storey living rooms and balconies over the street frontages.

·        The height breach is at the upper most level where the building is recessed such that the visual impact of the development is minimised as viewed from adjoining properties and the public domain.

·        The overshadowing impact arising from the building height departure is limited given that the shadow is cast from the level below as it relates to the adjoining apartment building which is reflected in the ‘views from the sun’. Therefore there is no additional overshadowing impact to adjoining properties as a result of the height departure. 

·        The height breach is a function of raising the ground floor to accommodate the required flood freeboard level that means that the overall height is increased to achieve this which is a preferred planning outcome to mitigate flooding impacts.

·        The development is designed to respond appropriately to the landform.

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 with the maximum FSR 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, 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 provisions 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 15.8m (RL 45.30) 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 the site being subject to flooding which requires an elevated ground floor plate. 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 (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.

(b)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan (CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland City Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs currently applicable to the Cumberland City local government area, those being:

·    Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

·    Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

·    Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the HLEP, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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.

PART A – GENERAL CONTROLS

Clause

Control

Proposed

Complies

3.5

Access, Manoeuvring and Layout

 

Driveways shall be setback aa minimum of 1.5m from the side boundary

Driveway is setback 1.26m from eastern boundary.

 

The proposed driveway location is considered to provide a safe vehicular access to the basement car park. Further, this area has been appropriately landscaped to mitigate any negative impacts associated with the vehicular access adjacent to the common boundary.

No – Acceptable in this instance.

PART B – RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS

Clause

Control

Proposed

Complies

1.8

Sunlight Access

 

1 main living area of existing adjacent dwellings to receive 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 4pm, 22 June.

 

Min. 50% of required POS of existing adjacent dwellings to receive 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 4pm, 22 June.

Detailed shadow diagrams are provided for 9am, 12pm, 1pm and 3pm and identify the north facing private open space and living areas of 6 out of 17 units, of the adjoining RFB at 62-66 Berwick St as not receiving the minimum 3 hours sunlight, mid-winter, as required.

 

However, this is considered to be reasonable based on the following merits:

 

· The non-compliance is a function of the allotment orientation as No.62-66 Berwick Street is located immediately to the south of the site which means that avoiding overshadowing impacts, whilst enabling development for a residential flat building proposal is not possible without delivering a significant underdevelopment on the subject site;

 

· The setbacks exceed the 3m control in Holroyd DCP 2013 and provide ADG compliant setback of 6m to maximise separation to the adjoining developments.   Therefore it is not possible to achieve the required levels of solar access, even when fully complying with the building separation and building height requirements;

 

· The impact of the proposal on the existing development would be limited to a few units and would not preclude compliance with the ADG requirement of 70% of units to achieve 2 hours solar access i.e. 13 out of 17 units (76%) of units will still be able to achieve 2 hours of solar access;

 

· It is considered that the additional overshadowing is acceptable when having regard to the lot orientation, design of the development proposal that meets the building envelope controls. Therefore the variation has merit on planning grounds, and is considered supportable.

No – Acceptable in this instance.

6.2

Site Coverage

 

 

 

Maximum site coverage of any residential flat development shall not exceed 30% (Max. 370.85m²)

43% (531.2m²) non-compliance is considered acceptable, given that the site is subject to road widening dedication.  Notwithstanding, it still achieves adequate provision of deep soil planting, landscaping, driveways, communal open space and OSD system.

No – Acceptable in this instance.

6.2

Setbacks and separation

 

 

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))

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified from 20 February 2019 to 13 March 2019. As a result of the notification, 1 (3 x form letter) submission was received.

The submissions are included at Attachment 10 to this report. The issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

Concern:

Location of basement car park entry/exit in close proximity to the boundary and noise impacts associated with the basement car park.

The proposal compromises visual privacy with inadequate building separation to the eastern boundary. 

The proposed development is considered to provide appropriate separation to the adjoining properties that will in turn achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy for future residents and residents of adjoining properties. The proposal achieves complaint building separation from the bedrooms and living areas. However, the balconies of the units proposes a minor noncompliance. Notwithstanding, visual privacy screens are incorporated which are considered to mitigate any privacy impacts to the adjoining properties along the eastern boundary.

Concerns raised that the development has an excessive height that exceeds the maximum LEP height of 15m.

This matter has been discussed in the main body of this report where it has been determined that the proposed height is appropriate and the height exceedance relates to the lift and stair overruns only. Given that the proposal provides a reasonable level of amenity in terms of privacy and solar access to the adjoining properties, the minor non-compliance to height is considered acceptable.

Concern raised with respect to the location of the basement driveway along the eastern boundary and its acoustic impacts. It is recommended that the basement entry be moved to another location. 

The basement driveway location is considered to be appropriate with regard to the site context (being a corner lot) and the overall design ensures safe vehicular movement.  Further a landscapes setback of 1.26m has been provided to mitigate any negative impacts associated with the vehicular access adjacent to the common boundary.  In addition, the application is accompanied by an acoustic report which has assessed the noise generated from the proposed development. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the report which accounted for noise impacts from the proposed development and found it to be acceptable, subject to compliance with the recommendations of the Acoustic Report and imposition of appropriate conditions.

Concerns raised that there is insufficient car parking proposed and the development will affect the availability of on-street car parking.

The application is lodged pursuant to Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 (ARH SEPP) and the proposal complies with the car parking requirements of the SEPP. Further, Council’s traffic engineers have assessed this application and have raised no objections with regard to traffic and parking impact of the proposal as it is satisfied that sufficient off street parking is provided within the proposed development. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not cause undue stress on traffic movement within the locality.

Impacts of excavation on the adjoining property

 

Whilst the construction details of any development are assessed during the application for a Construction Certificate, the subject development would comprise of excavation to the required depth and construction of the basement using reinforced concrete. The construction details of the basement will be assessed either by Council or a private certifier.

 

Notwithstanding, a standard condition is recommended to be imposed which requires the developer to undertake a dilapidation report of adjoining properties prior to the commencement of any work. This will then determine whether damage to adjoining properties is the result of any excavation or construction associated with 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:

·        7 x 1-bedroom dwellings – $8,860 x 7 = $62,020.00

·        17 x 2-bedroom dwellings – $14,984.49 x 17 = $254,736.00

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

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

As at 8 July 2020, the fee payable is $296,756.33. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The draft determination attached includes a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The 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 Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Report Recommendation:

1.   That the Local Planning Panel approve the variation to the Development Standard relating to building height as contained within Clause 4.3 of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 as the applicant’s Clause 4.6 objection has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 (3) and the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the Height Standard and the objectives of the R4 – High Density Residential zone.

2.   That Development Application No. DA2019/0501 for demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating 25 units and 22 car parking spaces under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 on land at 58 & 60 Berwick Street GUILDFORD  NSW  2161 be approved under deferred commencement subject to attached conditions.

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

 

 

Attachments

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      SEPP ARH 2009 Compliance Table  

3.      ADG Compliance Table  

4.      HLEP 2013 Compliance Table  

5.      HDCP 2013 Compliance Table  

6.      Architectural Plans  

7.      Shadow Diagrams  

8.      Accompanying Clause 4.6 Variation Request to Building Height  

9.      Locality Map  

10.    Submission (3 x form letters)   

 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP038/20

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP038/20

Attachment 2

SEPP ARH 2009 Compliance Table


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP038/20

Attachment 3

ADG Compliance Table


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP038/20

Attachment 4

HLEP 2013 Compliance Table


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP038/20

Attachment 5

HDCP 2013 Compliance Table


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP038/20

Attachment 6

Architectural Plans


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP038/20

Attachment 7

Shadow Diagrams


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP038/20

Attachment 8

Accompanying Clause 4.6 Variation Request to Building Height


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP038/20

Attachment 9

Locality Map


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT LPP038/20

Attachment 10

Submission (3 x form letters)


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020


Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 8 July 2020

Item No: LPP039/20

Development Application for 81-83 Mountford Avenue, Guildford

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    MOD2019/5251  

 

 

Application lodged

14 January 2020

Applicant

Designcorp Architects

Owner

H & M Develop Construct Pty Ltd

Application No.

MOD2019/5251

Description of Land

81-83 Mountford Avenue GUILDFORD NSW  2161, Lot B DP 334110, Lot 4 DP 231471

Description of original proposed development

Demolition of existing structures, tree removal and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building and townhouses over basement carparking pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Description of proposed modification to development

Section 4.55(2) modification for alterations to an approved residential flat building and townhouse units, including reconfiguration of the basement, changes to floor levels, modified roof design and alteration to fencing and screening heights and

Site Area

2695.8m2

Zoning

Zone R4 High Density Residential (PLEP 2011)

Disclosure of political donations and gifts

Nil disclosure

Heritage

No

Principal Development Standards

FSR

Permissible: PLEP 2011 = 0.8:1 and 1.1:1

                     ARHSEPP 2009 = 1.023:1 for the main part of the site            

                     (including bonus of 0.223) relating to Blocks A and B

Approved: 0.99:1 (Blocks A and B) and 0.68:1 (Block C)

Proposed: 0.96:1 (Blocks A and B) and no change to Block C

 

Height of Building

Permissible: 11m applies to Blocks A and B and 14m for Block C

Approved: Block A – 12.8m on northern part to 13m on southern part. 10m for Blocks B and C

 

Proposed: Block A – 13.3m on northern part to 13m on southern part. No height adjustments proposed to Blocks B and C.

Issues

LEP height variation

Submission

Summary:

1.      Modification Application No. MOD2019/5251 was received on 14 January 2020 for Section 4.55(2) modification for alterations to an approved residential flat building, including reconfiguration of the basement, changes to floor levels, modified roof design and alterations to fencing and screening heights.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 11 March 2020 and 25 March 2020. In response, Council received one (1) submission.

3.      The notable variation/s are as follows:

 

Development Standard

Required

Provided

% variation

Height of building

11m

Approved: 13m

Proposed: 13.3m applies to only the northern part of building A.

 

2.3% variation from 13m height approved.

21% variation from maximum 11m height permitted.

4.      The application is recommended for approval subject to amendments to the relevant conditions affected by the proposed modification and the inclusion of additional conditions as recommended by Council’s development engineers provided in the attached schedule.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site is identified as Lot B in DP 334110, Lot 4 in DP 231471 and known as 81 - 83 Mountford Avenue, Guildford. The subject site is located on the northern side of Mountford Avenue between Talbot Road to the east and Railway Terrace to the west. The site is irregular in shape and has a cumulative southern front boundary measuring 29.26m. The site has a total area of 2695.8sqm and has a fall from the south-eastern corner towards the western wing of the site of approximately 2.79m.

Currently at 81 Mountford Ave, is a single storey fibro dwelling with a detached fibro garage and two free standing awnings and four trees within the rear open space. At 83 Mountford Ave is also a single storey dwelling with an attached fibro laundry and shed and a clad shed with attached awning, detached freestanding awning, three trees and metal shed outbuilding within the rear open space.

The subject site is adjoined by three storey residential flat buildings on either side. The locality is undergoing transition and is characterised by a variety of three and four storey residential flat buildings and detached dwellings. 

 

 

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

 

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a modification application for alterations to an approved residential flat building and townhouse development, including reconfiguration of the basement, changes to floor levels and part of building height of block A, reconfiguration of units 4, 9 and 10 of block A, provision of stair access from basement in townhouse units and alteration to fencing and screening heights.

The detailed breakdown of the proposed modifications are listed below:

·        To satisfy deferred commencement condition DC7, amend levels of the communal area on the ground floor and basement level to provide minimum headroom clearance of 4500mm for manoeuvring of trucks entering and exiting the site (in accordance with AS2890). Therefore, basement levels 1 and 2 have been amalgamated into one level resulting in a relocation of car spaces and access to the ground level via additional fire stairs.

·        Building form is modified on southern elevation to allow the driveway ramp and basement height to provide the required 4.5m clearance for the waste truck.

·        To satisfy DC6, the basement door has been amended to increase air flow by proposing an open style door and the removal of the planter boxes above this area to increase opportunity for ventilation into the basement.

·        Raise height level of the northern portion of building A by a maximum of 500mm to the same height level as the southern part of the building (to address Council’s request to accommodate waste truck movements on basement level which has resulted in changes to the basement).

·        Due to single basement design, landscaped and deep soil area have been reduced.

·        All fencing and screening height have been increased to 1.6m for all ground floor terraces to provide privacy to all private open spaces.

·        Communal open space on rooftop is reduced and surrounded by non-trafficable areas to maintain privacy to neighbouring properties.

·        Unit mix have been modified to comprise of 2 studios, 9x 1br, 16x 2br, 5x 3br and 1x 4br units.

·        Increase one additional affordable rental housing unit from 7 to 8 affordable units (i.e. units 10-17 within the RFB of block A and none within the townhouses of blocks B and C).

·        Number of carparking spaces will decrease from 47 spaces to 41 spaces to comply with minimum requirements under SEPP 65 (ADG and RMS rates) and ARHSEPP rates.

·        Townhouse units are provided with internal stairs linking to basement carpark below and stair access to attic is removed and a ladder and hatch is proposed instead.

·        Modify internal layout to units 4, 9 and 10 as follows:

o The bedroom of unit 4 is required to be relocated from the western to the eastern side to make room for the required headroom clearance for truck access into the basement.

o Similarly, the private open space area for unit 9 is also required to be relocated from the western side to the eastern side to satisfy minimum headroom clearance.

o Unit 10 has been reconfigured from a 2 bedroom into a 1 bedroom unit which has resulted in the deletion of the western portion of the unit causing a recess in the western elevation.

·        Modify external finishes and materials as shown in elevations and schedule of materials and finishes.

History

On 22/08/2018, the Cumberland Local Planning Panel resolved to approved DA2017/500 as a deferred consent, for the demolition of existing structures, tree removal and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building and townhouses over basement carparking pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

Specifically, the approval included a total of 33 units comprising of:

·        27 units within the RFB (Block A) with unit mix as follows: 2x studios, 8x 1br, 17x 2br

·        6 multi dwelling units (Blocks B and C) with unit mix as follows: 5x 3br, 1x 4br

·        4 adaptable units

·        7 affordable housing units (i.e. Units 10 - 15 in block A and Unit 31 in Block B)

·        47 car spaces located within 2 basement levels

It should be noted that the deferred consent has not yet been made operational as the terms of the deferred consent has yet to be satisfied.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Design Corp P/L dated December 2019 and was received by Council on 11 December 2019 in support of the application. A subsequent Statement of Environmental Effects was submitted to confirm and clarify detailed modifications proposed under this 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 the inclusion of additional conditions to ensure compliance with relevant Australian Standards in relation to parking layout.

External Referrals

 

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

PLANNING COMMENTS

Section 4.55(2):

Requirement

Comments

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

The development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the original approved development in that, the residential nature of the use and the bulk and scale of the development remains substantially the same.

 

The proposal results in minor alterations to the façade treatment, changes to site conditions in relation to landscaping, deep soil areas and communal open space, minor height and FSR adjustments to the building and internal reconfiguration of the parking layout in the basement level, some unit layouts and overall number of unit mix. These changes are considered to be satisfactory and remains consistent with the relevant planning controls. The changes are also largely in response to satisfying the deferred commencement conditions for the provision of truck access into the basement requiring minimum headroom clearance.

 

Further detailed discussions are provided in the compliance tables listed under attachment 5.

Council has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

No Minister, public authority or other approval body was required to be consulted regarding the proposed modification.

Council has notified the application in accordance with:

(i)   the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)   a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

See discussion on “Public Notification” in this report.

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

See discussion on “Public Notification” in this report.

Relevant matters referred to in Section 4.15(1) of the act have been taken into consideration

Proposed modification is not contrary to the public interest and the likely environmental impacts of the development as modified are considered acceptable.

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 and Sydney Regional Environmental Plans:

(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 and addressed under the original consent and the site was considered satisfactory to proceed. As such the modifications proposed under this application will not alter the previous conclusions regarding the condition of the site.

(b)     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 coastal management area.

(c)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The original consent was referred to Endeavour Energy in accordance with clause 45 of the Infrastructure SEPP (ISEPP) 2007. There are no significant changes proposed under this modification application and as such a re-referral to the relevant external government agency is not required.

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

A revised BASIX Certificate 879644M_05 issued on 25 November 2019 has been submitted to support the application. The revised BASIX Certificate which incorporates the proposed design changes is considered satisfactory.

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

The relevant matters to be considered under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 for the proposed modification are outlined below and a full assessment is provided in attachment 5.

Requirement

Y/N

Comment

13   Floor space ratios

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

(2)  The maximum floor space ratio for the development to which this clause applies is the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land on which the development is to occur, plus:

(a)  if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less:

(i)  0.5:1—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is 50 per cent or higher, or

(ii)  Y:1—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is less than 50 per cent,
where:

AH is the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing.

Y = AH ÷ 100

(3)  In this clause, gross floor area does not include any car parking (including any area used for car parking).

Note. Other areas are also excluded from the gross floor area, see the definition of gross floor area contained in the standard instrument under the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006.

 

Y

 

 

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

As noted in the previous consent, the affordable housing units are situated wholly on the part of the site to which there is a maximum allowable FSR of 0.8:1. In applying clause (2)(a)(ii), 22.3% of the GFA of the development is used for affordable housing. Therefore, the GFA bonus of 0.223:1 will be applied to that portion of the site bringing the maximum allowable FSR of the main part of the site to 1.023:1. The development situated on that part of the site, comprising the residential flat building and the western multi dwelling block B is calculated to have an FSR of 0.99:1 (2234.7sqm).

 

The result of the proposed modification which affects the unit configuration and layout does not cause an increase in FSR approved for the site. Rather, the overall FSR has decreased for the site with a revised FSR of 0.96:1 (2182.61sqm) where minor changes are noticeable in units 4, 9 and 10 of the RFB (in block A). Consequently, it is noted that the overall percentage of the GFA bonus has also slightly reduced from 22.8% (516.09sqm) to 22.5% (508.24sqm) which is negligible. Moreover, the additional affordable unit nominated within the development does not generate additional FSR for the site as the number of units remain the same.

 

The development remains compliant as the proposed modifications do not exceed the maximum FSR permitted for the site nor does it exceed the approved FSR for the site.

14   Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1) Site and solar access requirements A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

(a)    (Repealed)

(b)  site area if the site area on which it is proposed to carry out the development is at least 450 square metres,

(c)  landscaped area if:

(i)  in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider—at least 35 square metres of landscaped area per dwelling is provided, or

(ii)  in any other case—at least 30 per cent of the site area is to be landscaped,

(d)  deep soil zones if, in relation to that part of the site area (being the site, not only of that particular development, but also of any other associated development to which this Policy applies) that is not built on, paved or otherwise sealed:

(i)  there is soil of a sufficient depth to support the growth of trees and shrubs on an area of not less than 15 per cent of the site area (the deep soil zone), and

(ii)  each area forming part of the deep soil zone has a minimum dimension of 3 metres, and

(iii)  if practicable, at least two-thirds of the deep soil zone is located at the rear of the site area,

(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.

(2) General A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

 

 

 

 

(a)  parking if:

(i)  in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider for development on land in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms, or

(ii)  in any other case—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b)  dwelling size if each dwelling has a gross floor area of at least:

(i)  35 square metres in the case of a bedsitter or studio, or

(ii)  50 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 1 bedroom, or

(iii)  70 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 2 bedrooms, or

(iv)  95 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 3 or more bedrooms.

(3)  A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

 

 

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The cumulative site area is 2695.8sqm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The amount of landscaping provided has been reduced on site and is calculated to be 30% (809.25sqm including planting on roof) which complies.

 

 

 

A reduction in deep soil area is noted however remains compliant as 16.6% (449.68sqm) is being provided for the site.

 

 

 

 

Deep soil zones have a minimum dimension of 3m.

 

 

71.8% (353.3sqm) of the deep soil zone is located at the rear of the site.

 

 

The proposed modification will not alter the amount of solar amenity provided to the units as the number of units remain unchanged.

 

As for the entire RFB development 70.4% (19 of 27) of units receive at least 2 hours mid winter. 7.4% (2 of 27 units) receive no direct sunlight in midwinter due to their south facing aspect and overhang to west side facing windows from the built form above.

The remainder of the units will either receive at least an hour of sunlight to their living areas or some direct sunlight to other parts of the apartment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a result of modification to consolidate the two basement levels and reconfigure the parking layout, adequate number of car spaces are still being provided for the whole development being 41 car spaces which complies. A breakdown of the parking is provided as follows:

 

Affordable housing units based on clause (2(a)(ii)

Rate

Units

Total

0.5/1B

9 x 1B and

2 x ST = 11

5.5

1.0/2B

16

16

Total

27

21.5 rounded up = 22

 

The above table demonstrates that a minimum of 22 parking spaces are required for the RFB component of the development.

 

In relation to visitor spaces, the RFB attracts a parking rate of 1 car space per 5 units under the RMS guideline, therefore 27 units/5 = 5.4 spaces for visitors being required.

 

Multi dwelling units based on PDCP 2011:

Rate

Units

Total

1.5/3B

5

7.5

2/4B

1

2

Total

6

9.5

(rounded up = 10)

0.25 Visitor

6

1.5

 

Having regard to the above parking rates applying to each component of the development, a cumulative total of 39 spaces are required as follows:

 

32 (22+10) resident spaces and 7 (5.4+1.5) visitor spaces.

 

Amendments to the relevant conditions imposed under the previous consent will be made to reflect this change.

 

 

 

All bedroom units meet the minimum dwelling size requirements.

 

 

Clause 16A – Character of local area:

As a result of minor changes being proposed to the front façade of the southern elevation, Clause 16A has been considered in terms of whether the design of the development will still be compatible with the character of the local area.

The proposed amendments primarily include changes to parts of the materials and finishes of the southern elevation from render and paint finish to brick and aluminium clad finish. Units 10 and 19 have also been modified to incorporate a more defined architectural façade treatment and further articulation has been provided to unit 10 with the provision of a new balcony and the replacement of windows to sliding doors for access to the balcony.

These changes proposed to the Mountford Avenue streetscape are considered minor and remains substantially the same as the original façade treatment proposed to the development under the previous consent. In this regard, Council is satisfied that the proposed changes are considered to be compatible and do not diminish the streetscape and character of the local area.

(f)      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. Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, the proposal as modified remains compliant and therefore performs satisfactorily with respect the building amenity. The clauses applicable to the proposed modification are discussed below and a comprehensive assessment against the ADG is contained in Appendix A.

Design Criteria

Compliance

Comment

Part 2

2F Building Separation

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

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

Up to 4 storeys (approximately 12m):

·    12m between habitable rooms/balconies;

·    9m between habitable and nonhabitable rooms; and

·    6m between nonhabitable rooms

Yes

 

No noticeable changes to approved setbacks from the north and east side.

 

From the west, approval was granted for 3m to boundary for the front section of the building which is supportable as it relates to either a blank wall or non-habitable rooms and 6m for the remainder of the flat building which features habitable rooms and balconies. The modifications which affects unit 10 on level 1 has been further offset by an additional 2.7m from the boundary as a result of the deletion of the western portion of the unit. Therefore, a setback of 8.7m is being provided from the western boundary for unit 10 instead of 6m previously provided.

Part 3

3D Communal and public open space

COS should have a minimum dimension of 3m.

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

Design criteria

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Common open space has decreased from 769m2 (28.5%) to 683.59m2 (25.3%). This includes areas to the east and west of the flat building and communal open space on the roof which complies.

 

 

Compliance with min 2h of solar access to COS is achieved as 170m2 of rooftop COS receives unlimited solar access and approx. 200m2 of ground level COS within eastern side setback receives  2h of sun in the morning (refer to basement 1 plan for approx. areas within eastern side setback COS and solar access diagrams for compliance with solar access). ADG min COS requirement is 674m2 and 50% of that area is 337m2. Proposed rooftop (170m2) and ground level eastern setback (approx. 200m2) results approx. 370m2 of COS area that receives min. 50% required solar access during mid-winter.

3E Deep soil zones

Design criteria

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

 

 

Yes

 

A reduction in deep soil area is noted however remains compliant as 16.6% (449.68sqm) is being provided for the site.

3J Car parking

Design criteria

1. For development in the following locations:

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

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

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

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

 

Yes

 

Based on the ADG, as the site is within 800m of a railway station, the parking rates in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments will apply.

 

Metro Sub-regional centres for RFB:

Rate

Units

Total

0.6/1B and Studio

9 x 1B and

2 x ST = 11

6.6

0.9/2B

16

14.4

1/5 V

27

5.4

Required: 21 resident spaces and 6 visitor spaces = 27 car spaces for RFB component of the development.

 

There is adequate space within the basement to accommodate the minimum parking requirements for the whole development. This is discussed in detail in the DCP section.

4D Apartment size and layout

Design criteria

1. Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5m2 each

A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12m2 each

2. Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

The affected units 4, 9 and 10 are compliant with the minimum apartment sizes for 1 and 2 bedrooms being 72.49sqm, 77.15sqm and 50.25sqm respectively.

 

 

4E Private open space and balconies

Design criteria

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

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

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

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes