11 November 2020

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

 

 11 November 2020

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

LPP052/20... Development Application for 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands.................. 5

LPP053/20... Development Application for 11 Hilltop Road, Merrylands....................... 171

LPP054/20... Development Application for 12 Railway Terrace, Granville.................... 479

LPP055/20... Modification Application for 75-77 Merrylands Road, Merrylands.......... 603

 

 11 November 2020

 

Item No: LPP052/20

Development Application for 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0103  

 

 

Council is in receipt of a development application DA2020/0103 from Lot 11 Neil Street Pty Limited seeking construction of four (4) additional storeys on top of an approved 12 storey residential flat building (Building 3) accommodating an additional 32 residential units totalling 210 units and a roof top communal open space at 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands. The Architectural Plans accompanying the application are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The site was formerly known as 1-7 & 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands, which was changed to 20-22, 24, 24R & 27 Dressler Court, Merrylands, following the subdivision of the site. The subject development is limited to Building 3, maintained to 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands / Lot 3, DP 1248018.

The application was publicly notified for a period of 35 days from 27 March 2020 to 01 May 2020. In response, six (6) submissions were received, objecting to the proposal.

The site is zoned part R4 High Density Residential, and part SP2 Infrastructure (Drainage), pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), with the proposed works limited to the R4 High Density Residential zone. A Residential Flat Building is permissible with development consent in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

The subject site is located adjacent to a heritage item to the north being the former brickworks site known as Item I53 - Goodlet & Smith (brickmaking plant and chimney, Hoffman kiln & chimney) under the HLEP. The subject site is known as the Millmaster Feeds site and is identified as a potential Archaeological site.

The development application was referred for comments externally to Sydney Trains, Transport for NSW, Natural Resources Access Regulator, Sydney Water, Heritage Council of NSW, and Endeavour Energy, and internally to Council’s Development Engineer, Tree Management Officer, Environmental Health Officer, and Waste Project Officer, to which the application is supported, subject to conditions.

The development 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 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 proposal has been assessed against the following Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs), Draft EPIs, and Development Control Plans (DCPs):

-        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 (CLEP);

-        Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

 

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

 

 

Table 1 – Variations (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

 

Note: Planning Proposal PP2020/0005 was lodged on 11 February 2020 with Cumberland City Council seeking amendment to FSR and HOB mapping to facilitate an additional four storeys of residential apartments on Building 3, in the south east corner of the site. The Planning Proposal was Gazetted as HLEP (Amendment 20) on 25 September 2020 by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, following the lodgement of the subject application. As the subject application was an undetermined application at the time of the Gazettal of HLEP (Amendment 20), and in the absence of a savings provision, the subject application has been assessed pursuant to HLEP (Amendment 20). This position has been confirmed by Council’s Legal Counsel.

 

Following the lodgement of Planning Proposal PP2020/0005, a Planning Agreement was entered into on 6 July 2020 between Cumberland City Council and Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd, which sought the payment of additional development contributions in-lieu of an uplift in height and floor space sought under Planning Proposal PP2020/0005. The intention of the Planning Proposal was to realise an additional 2,468m² of Gross Floor Area (GFA) on-site.

 

As identified within Table 1 above, the subject application seeks a variation to the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard, pursuant to HLEP (Amendment 20). Council Officers have deemed the request to be acceptable in this instance, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the HLEP, as the subject development is within the upper limits of the additional GFA intended to be realised on-site, as outlined within the Planning Agreement entered into between Cumberland City Council and Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd.

 

For further discussion on this matter, refer to commentary provided under the heading Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Development Standard below.

 

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 and Public Spaces on 30 June 2020, 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.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands, and is legally described as Lot 3, DP 1248018. The land is an irregular shaped lot and has a frontage of 47.78 metres to the southern Neil Street boundary, a 64.42 metre width along the northern boundary, a 131.195 metre width along the eastern boundary shared with the railway corridor, and a 129.035 metre width along the western boundary.

The subject site is located within the ‘Merrylands Town Centre’ within the Merrylands Neil Street Precinct, as identified in the Merrylands Centre Controls section of the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP). The site is adjacent to a railway corridor that spans the eastern boundary of the site and approximately 350 metres north-east from Merrylands train station. The total site area is 6,765m², and is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 below:

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

Figure 3 – Site Plan with Text Annotations (Source: Marchese Partners and Cumberland City Council)

The area of the site to which Building 3 is cited is currently vacant, however, construction works have commenced, and are nearing completion, to the north associated with Building 4. The locality is characterised by existing low rise former industrial premises to the west along Neil Street, mixed use and residential flat building developments approved, under construction, and recently completed to the west and north, commercial and retail development to the south-west, and residential to the east and south.

The topography of the site is fairly consistent with a slight fall from south to north. The site adjoins the A’Becketts Creek watercourse which traverses in a north to south direction. Consequently, the land is affected by local overland stormwater overflow. The subject site currently benefits from vehicular access directly from Neil Street. Vehicular access to the development is dependent on a proposed extension of Dressler Court to the north east of the site, which will connect to a new road running through the site along the western side of the A’Becketts Creek watercourse.

The site is zoned part R4 High Density Residential, and part SP2 Infrastructure (Drainage), pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), with the proposed works limited to the R4 High Density Residential zone, as shown in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4 – Zoning Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

The subject site is situated to the north of Neil Street. Figure 5 below illustrates an aerial perspective of the site and the general surroundings.

Figure 5 – Aerial Photo (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

The site is located adjacent to a heritage item to the north being the former brickworks site known as Item I53 - Goodlet & Smith (brick-making plant and chimney, Hoffman kiln & chimney). The subject site is known as the Millmaster Feeds site and is identified as a potential Archaeological site. Figure 6 below illustrates the location of the heritage items, listed above:

Figure 6 – Heritage Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

Description of the Proposed Development

The proposal is for construction of four (4) additional storeys on top of an approved 12 storey residential flat building (Building 3) accommodating an additional 32 residential units totalling 210 units and a roof top communal open space.

In detail, the following description has been provided by the Applicant within the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd, dated 25 February 2020:

Development Proposal

The development proposal is for additions to an existing approved residential flat building – Building 3 within the Mills development.

The proposal involves an additional 4 storeys above the approved Building 3 at the south-eastern corner of the site. The additional storeys comprise the following unit mix:

-     9 x 1 bedroom units, and

-     23 x 2 bedroom units.

The proposed additional storeys would result in a total of 210 units within Building 3, with an overall unit mix of 68 x 1 bedroom units, 130 x 2 bedroom units, and 12 x 3 bedroom units.

The development proposal is described in detail as follows:

Level 12

The first additional floor at Level 12 contains 3 x 1 bedroom unit sized 52m² - 60m², and 5 x 2 bedroom units sized 75m² - 82m². Each unit features a balcony or roof terrace sized 8m² - 57m².

All units at Level 12 are cross ventilated and 5 out of 8 units will receive 2 hours of solar access in midwinter. 2 x 1 bedroom units are adaptable.

Level 12 also includes a new rooftop communal open space with an area of 121m² with soft landscaping / planter boxes along the northern edge of the roof form. The rooftop open space also provides communal amenities including seating and barbeque facilities. The communal open space is located at the north-eastern portion of the roof form of Building 3. Privacy screens at a height of 1.8m are proposed along the southern edges of the communal areas to screen plant and equipment areas from the communal open space.

Level 13-15

Levels 13-15 each contain 2 x 1 bedroom apartment sized 52m²-55m² and 6 x 2 bedroom apartments sized 75m² - 79m². Each unit features a balcony sized 8m² - 21m².

All units at Levels 13-15 are cross ventilated and 18 out of 24 units will received 2 hours of solar access in midwinter. 4 x 1 bedrooms units are adaptable.

Materials and Finishes – Roof Form

The additional storeys will be finished in a variety of materials and finishes consistent with the approved residential flat building which includes light painted render, glass balustrading, and powder coated aluminium window frames and louvers.

The development proposal has been designed with a flat roof. Plant areas and lift overruns are located at the roof level. Plant screening is proposed at a height of RL 66.00 to screen the central plant area. Stair access is provided to the roof through 3 x stairs to allow for maintenance access to the roof level.

Landscape Works

The application is supported by a Landscape Plan prepared by Greenplan – Landscape Architects. The landscape works include planter boxes at the communal open space – Level 12 containing a covered BBQ area with fixed bench seating and tables, raised garden beds, and casual seating.

The application does not involve any landscape works at the ground level and does not require the removal of any trees.

Following from the above, a numerical overview of the key components of the development is provided in Table 2 below:

Numerical Overview of Key Components

 

Table 2 – Numerical Overview of the Key Components (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

* DKA – Dual Key Apartments

Site History

The following site history is noted as under:

The site was formerly known as 1-7 & 9-11 Neil, Merrylands, which was changed to 20-22, 24, 24R & 27 Dressler Court, Merrylands, following the subdivision of the site. The subject development application is limited to additions to the approved development known as Buildings 3, maintained to 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands / Lot 3, DP 1248018.

 

  PP2020/0005             Planning Proposal seeking amendment to FSR and HOB mapping to facilitate an additional four storeys of residential apartments on Building 3, in the south east corner of the site – Gazetted as HLEP (Amendment 20) on 25 September 2020 by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces.

 

MOD2020/0257          Section 4.56 Modification Application seeking deletion of Condition 38G and amendment to Condition 127 of Development Consent DA2016/496 – Approved on 15 September 2020 via Delegated Authority.

 

M2016/496/8               Section 4.56 Modification Application seeking internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, including changes to basement levels, rearrangement of apartments to introduce additional dual key apartments, enlargement of Building 3 footprint, modification of roof form, reconfiguration of OSD tanks, relocation of substation kiosk and changes to glazed areas – Part Approved on 27 May 2020 via the Cumberland Local Planning Panel.

 

M2016/496/7               Section 4.56 Modification Application seeking internal and external alterations to Building 3 and 4, including reconfiguration of car parking arrangement, balcony reconfiguration on the southern elevation of Building 3, rearrangement of apartments on the northern elevation of Building 4 to introduce dual key apartments and relocation of substation kiosk – Approved on 28 August 2019 via the Cumberland Local Planning Panel.

 

M2016/496/6               Section 4.56 Modification Application seeking to remove the subdivision component of the development – Approved on 4 October 2018 via Delegated Authority.

 

M2016/496/5               Section 4.56 Modification Application seeking amendments to the approved subdivision of the site from 7 lots to 6 lots – Approved on 14 August 2018 via Delegated Authority.

 

M2016/496/4               Section 4.56 Modification Application seeking internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, and relocation of hydrant booster and substation kiosk – Approved on 13 March 2019 via the Cumberland Local Planning Panel.

 

M2016/496/3               Section 4.56 Modification Application seeking internal and external alterations to Building 4 – Approved on 13 March 2019 via the Cumberland Local Planning Panel.

 

M2016/496/2               Section 96AA Modification Application seeking minor alterations to an approved residential flat building development – Approved on 11 September 2017 via Delegated Authority.

 

DA2016/496               Development Application for construction of a 2 x residential flat buildings (Buildings 3 & 4) over 3 levels of basement parking accommodating a total of 438 car parking spaces and 5 on-grade spaces; Building 3 being 12 storey accommodating 178 units and Building 4 being Part 6, Part 8 and Part 12 storeys accommodating 133 units. The application includes consolidation of 2 existing lots making up the overall site of 1-11 Neil Street and re-subdivision of the consolidated lot into 3 Torrens title lots and 4 Stratum Lots – Deferred on 26 April 2017 following consideration by the Sydney West Central Planning Panel (SWCPP).

 

The Applicant subsequently lodged a Class 1 Appeal against the deemed refusal of the Development Application with the NSW Land and Environment Court (Appeal Number 2017/132564), which was approved subject to Deferred Commencement Consent conditions.

 

Deferred Commencement matters were resolved on 23 August 2018.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

The Applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd, dated 25 February 2020, and was received by Council on 27 February 2020 in support of the application.

Additional correspondence was received by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd, dated 24 July 2020 and 17 September 2020, in response to Council’s request for amended plans and additional information.

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 comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable on the grounds of traffic, parking, and stormwater management, subject to standard conditions, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

Tree Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable on the grounds of the design of the communal open space area on Level 12, subject to standard conditions, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

Environmental Health Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable on the grounds of acoustic amenity and vibration, subject to standard conditions, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

Waste Project Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Project Officer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable on the grounds of waste management, subject to standard conditions, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

External Referrals

Design Excellence Panel (DEP)

The development application was referred to Council’s 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 DEP has advised that the proposed development is worthy of support, subject to conditions, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

Sydney Trains

The development application was referred to Sydney Trains in accordance with Clause 85 – Development Adjacent to Rail Corridors, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Sydney Trains has advised that the proposed development is supportable, subject to conditions, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

Transport for NSW

The development application was referred to Transport for NSW in accordance with Clause 104 – Traffic-Generating Development, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Transport for NSW in response provided advisory comments for Council’s consideration.

Natural Resources Access Regulator

The development application was referred to the Natural Resources Access Regulator in accordance with Clause 91 – Activity Approvals, pursuant to the Water Management Act, 2000. The Natural Resources Access Regulator has advised that the proposed works are exempt from the need to obtain a controlled activity approval.

Sydney Water

The development application was referred to Sydney Water, as the site adjoins the A’Becketts Creek watercourse, which traverses in a north to south direction. Sydney Water in response provided comments for Council’s consideration.

Heritage Council of NSW

The development application was referred to the Heritage Council of NSW in accordance with Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation, pursuant to the HLEP. The Heritage Council of NSW has advised that the proposed development will not impact on the potential archaeological resource of the site, as it does not require subsurface works, providing conditions, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy in accordance with Clause 45 – Determination of Development Applications – Other Development, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Endeavour Energy has advised that the proposed development is supportable, subject to conditions, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

Planning Comments

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

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

The following Environmental Planning Instruments are relevant to the assessment of the subject 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 development application DA2016/496, related to construction of 2 x residential flat buildings known as Buildings 3 and 4.

Given the subject application is limited to 4 additional storeys atop the approved residential flat building development known as Building 3, the proposed development does not raise any new matters related to 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 development application has been accompanied by a Design Verification Statement from a Registered Architect.

SEPP 65 outlines 9 Design Quality Principles, which are addressed in Table 3 below:

Table 3 – SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

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 development has been assessed to comply with the requirements of the ADG. A comprehensive assessment against the ADG is contained in Attachment 4 to this report.

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

A BASIX Certificate has been lodged as a part of the development application. The BASIX certificate indicates that the development has been designed to achieve the required water, thermal comfort and energy scores.

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

The subject site is not identified as a coastal wetland and is not on land identified as ‘proximity area for coastal wetlands’ or ‘coastal management area’.

 

(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 – Determination of Development Applications – Other Development

The application is subject to Clause 45 of the ISEPP, as the subject development occurs within 5 metres of overhead electricity power lines. As such, the Consent Authority is required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority. The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy, who advised that the development is supported, subject to conditions.

Clause 85 – Development Adjacent to Railway Corridors

The application is subject to Clause 85 of the ISEPP, as the subject site is located adjacent to a railway corridor. As such, the Consent Authority is required to given written notice to the rail authority. The development application was referred to Sydney Trains, who advised the development is supported, subject to conditions.

Clause 86 – Excavation in, Above, Below or Adjacent to Rail Corridors

The application is not subject to Clause 86 of the ISEPP, as the development does not involve excavation to a depth of at least 2m within, below or above a rail corridor, within 25m (measured horizontally) of a rail corridor, of the ground directly below a rail corridor, or of the ground directly above an underground rail corridor.

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

The application is subject to Clause 87 of the ISEPP, as the site is in or adjacent to a rail corridor and the proposed residential accommodation is likely to be affected by rail noise or vibration. An acoustic report has not been submitted with the subject application, however, the Applicant has confirmed within the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects that the acoustic recommendations provided within the Acoustic Report endorsed by development application DA2016/496 will be implemented for the additional levels of the development.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised the proposed development is supportable on the grounds of acoustic amenity and vibration, subject to conditions.

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 of Neil Street is less than 40,000 vehicles.

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

The application is subject to Clause 104 of the ISEPP, as the development combined with the development approved under DA2016/496, exceeds 300 dwellings. As such, the Consent Authority is required to given written notice to the RMS. The development application was referred to Transport for NSW (formerly the RMS), who in response provided advisory comments for Council’s consideration.

(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’, and is not a ‘Strategic Foreshore Site’. 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;

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

-        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) and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standards, which are 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 5 to this report.

Permissibility

The part of the land on which Building 3 is sited is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to the HLEP. The subject development is characterised as a residential flat building.

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

Heritage

The subject site is located adjacent to a heritage item to the north being the former brickworks site known as Item I53 - Goodlet & Smith (brickmaking plant and chimney, Hoffman kiln & chimney) under the HLEP. The subject site is known as the Millmaster Feeds site and is identified as a potential Archaeological site.

Given the subject application is limited to 4 additional storeys atop the approved residential flat building development known as Building 3, the proposal is not expected to negatively impact upon on the heritage item, or potential archaeology on the site. This position is supported by the Heritage Council of NSW.

Key Development Standards

The following key development standards are applicable:

Table 4 – HLEP Key Development Standards (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

Clause 4.6 – Variation to Height of Buildings and Floor Space Ratio Development Standards

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

The Applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard for building height, which is contained in Attachment 2 to this report. 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 and recent case law in RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130, a 3 part assessment framework for a variation request proposed under clause 4.6 has been considered and an assessment of the proposed variance, following the 3 part test is discussed in detail below.

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

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

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

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

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

The preconditions are addressed in turn.

Height of Buildings (HOB) Development Standard

 

Figure 7 – Height Exceedance (Source: Zhinar Architects, 2020)

(Note: The 50m HOB standard is only applicable to Building 3)

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

 

Table 5 – R4 Zone Objectives (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

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

 

Table 6 – HOB Development Standard Objectives (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

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

Applicant’s Comment

Pursuant to Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the HLEP, the variation to the height of building development standard is acceptable in the circumstances of this case, and compliance with the development standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary because the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height of building standard, notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

Council’s Comment

Council agrees with the comments made, and further notes that:

-     The site is consistent with the high density residential character envisaged by the R4 High Density Residential zone, and associated objectives.

-     The development is supported by the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel, and is of high architectural design, which will contribute to the streetscape and visual amenity of the area.

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 Comment

Pursuant to Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the HLEP, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation to the height of buildings development standard because:

-        The variation to the 50m height standard pursuant to the HLEP (Amendment 20) is confined to the lift overrun and building plant associated with the proposed 4-storey addition to the approved residential flat building. The lift overrun and building plant will not result in any significant adverse visual impacts upon adjacent properties or the public domain, with the additional 4 storeys being suitable for the south-eastern corner of the site.

-        The overall building form of the proposal is suitable for the subject site, and compatible with the planning objectives and intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal for the site and the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone.

-        The variation to the height limit confined to the lift overrun and building plant does not contribute to additional bulk and scale at the street level, noting the proposed works do not extend the existing building footprint, and are restricted above Building 3. The additional storeys will not result in unreasonable privacy impacts, overshadowing, or the loss of views / outlook from the adjoining properties.

-        The shadow diagrams confirm that the additional levels and minor variation to the 50m height standard, do not cast shadow onto potential development to the south (opposite side to Neil Street), after 11.30am mid-winter, and the north elevation concept development will receive more than 2 hours of solar access, consistent with the design principles under the ADG at Part 4D – Solar Access.

-        The lift overrun and plant that exceed the 50m height of building standard, will not result in additional overshadowing. The shadow cast of these building elements falls onto the roof of the building.

-        The variation in height is consistent with the following relevant aims of the HLEP found at Clause 1.2(2).

-        (2)(b) The proposed upper levels (4 storeys) will allow for additional housing on the subject site to meet the needs of the community.

-        (2)(d) The proposed upper levels (4 storeys) allows for an increased density on the subject site within close proximity – 300m walking distance of Merrylands Railway Station and Town Centre.

-        (2)(e) The proposed upper levels (4 storeys) will allow for a development yield that is consistent with the Neil Street Masterplan.

-        (2)(f)(i)The variation to height will not have an adverse impact upon the archaeological significance of the Millmaster Feeds Site, noting no additional building footprint is proposed that would potentially disturb the archaeological site.

-        (2)(f)(ii) The proposal will not have an adverse impact upon riparian corridor adjoining the site – A’Beckett’s Creek, with no additional building footprint proposed.

-        The variation to height is consistent with the following objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as follows:

-        1.3(c) – The proposal is an orderly and economic use of the site, noting the development is proposed in response to the Planning Proposal prepared by Cumberland City Council, and is supported by the HLEP (Amendment 20), which allows a 50m height control at the south-eastern portion of the site.

-        1.3(d) – The proposed upper levels (4 storeys) allows for additional dwellings to be provided on the subject site – 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings, contributing to housing choice and affordability in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

-        1.3(f) – The variation to height will not have an adverse impact upon the archaeological significance of the Millmaster Feeds Site, noting no additional building footprint is proposed that would potentially disturb the archaeological site.

-        1.3(g) – The proposed upper levels (4 storeys) presents a good design and amenity outcome for the development, allowing for additional building density at a suitable location, being the south-eastern corner of the site.

-        1.3(g) – The proposed upper levels (4 storeys) have been designed to maximise cross-ventilation and solar access to provide a high level of residential amenity for future occupants.

-        1.3(i) – The proposed variation aligns with the intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal prepared by Cumberland City Council for the site, which has been granted Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

-        1.3(j) – The development proposal will be notified to adjoining property owner’s during Council’s notification process.

Council’s Comment

Council agrees with the comments made that are confined to the lift overrun and rooftop plant variation sought to the Height of Buildings development standard. Council further notes that the development responds to the site, and does so without unduly compromising relationships with adjoining development, and the other relevant controls.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Height of Buildings development standard, and development within the R4 High Density Residential zone. In this regard, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, and the Applicant’s written justification is well founded.

Conclusion

Council is satisfied that the Applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6. Council is further 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.

Considered the application on its merit, the exception to the Height of Building Development Standard is considered acceptable in this instance.

Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Development Standard

 

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

 

Table 7 – R4 Zone Objectives (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

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

 

Table 8 – FSR Development Standard Objectives (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

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

Applicant’s Comment

Pursuant to Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the HLEP, the variation to the floor space ratio development standard is acceptable in the circumstances of this case, and compliance with the development standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary because the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard, notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

Council’s Comment

Council agrees with the comments made, and further notes that:

-        The site is consistent with the high density residential character envisaged by the R4 High Density Residential zone, and associated objectives.

-        Council’s Strategic Planning Officers confirmed that the intention of the Planning Proposal (PP) was to realise an additional 2,468m² of Gross Floor Area (GFA) on-site, which is identified within the associated Planning Agreement (PA) entered into on 6 July 2020, between Cumberland City Council and Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd.

-        A discrepancy exists between the additional 2,468m² of GFA intended to be realised on-site, and FSR development standard of 3.66:1. The following calculations are noted:

-        The site area of 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands is 6,765m².

-        The maximum permissible GFA for the site, based upon the previous FSR development standard associated with HLEP (Amendment 20) of 3.5:1, is 23,677.5m².

-        The maximum permissible GFA for the site, based upon the current FSR development standard of 3.66:1, is 24,759.9m².

-        The Applicant proposes a GFA of 25,959.3m², equivalent to an FSR of 3.84:1.

-        The extent of GFA based upon the previous FSR standard of 3.5:1, and additional 2,468m² identified within the associated PA, is equivalent to 26,145.5m², representing an FSR of 3.87:1.

-        The proposed GFA is therefore within the scope of the additional 2,468m² envisaged by the PP.

-        The development is supported by the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel, and is of high architectural design, which will contribute to the streetscape and visual amenity of the area.

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 Comment

Pursuant to Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the HLEP, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation to the floor space ratio development standard because:

-        The proposed GFA for Building 3 and 4 is 25,959.3m² consistent with the Planning Proposal.

-        The overall building form and additional density proposed is suitable for the subject site, and compatible with the planning objectives and intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal for the site, and the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone.

-        The variation to the FSR standard does not contribute to additional bulk and scale at the street level, noting the proposed works do not extend the existing building footprint and are restricted above Building 3. The additional storeys will not result in unreasonable private impacts, overshadowing, or the loss of views / outlook from the adjoining properties.

-        The variation to floor space ratio is consistent with the following relevant aims of the HLEP (Amendment 20) found at Clause 1.2(2).

-        (2)(b) The additional density proposed will allow for additional housing on the subject site to meet the needs of the community – 32 x additional dwellings, being 1 and 2 bedroom apartments. Further, 6 x adaptable dwellings are proposed in addition to those previously approved within Building 3.

-        (2)(d) The variation allows for an increased density and additional dwellings on the subject site within close proximity – 300m walking distance of Merrylands Railway Station and Town Centre.

-        (2)(e) The proposed variation will allow for a development yield that is consistent with the Neil Street Masterplan.

-        (2)(f)(i)The variation to FSR will not have an adverse impact upon the archaeological significance of the Millmaster Feeds Site, noting no additional building footprint is proposed that would potentially disturb the archaeological site. The additional density proposed is adequately separated from the nearby heritage item to the north, and will not impact upon the curtilage or heritage significance of the item.

-        (2)(f)(ii) The proposal will not have an adverse impact upon riparian corridor adjoining the site – A’Beckett’s Creek, with no additional building footprint proposed.

-        The variation to the FSR control is consistent with the following objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as follows:

-        1.3(c) – The proposal is an orderly and economic use of the site and the development is consistent with the intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal prepared by Cumberland City Council, and is supported in principle by the Planning Proposal which seeks an increased density on the site. The proposed form of the addition is consistent with the surrounding built form and the desired future character of the locality.

-        1.3(d) – The proposed variation allows for additional dwellings to be provided on the subject site – 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings, contributing to housing choice and affordability in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

-        1.3(f) – The proposed FSR variation will not have an adverse impact upon the archaeological significance of the Millmaster Feeds Site, noting no additional building footprint is proposed that would potentially disturb the archaeological site. The additional density proposed by the 4 storey addition is adequately separated from the nearby heritage item to the north, and will not impact upon the curtilage or heritage significance of the item.

-        1.3(g) – The variation to the FSR control presents a good design and amenity outcome for the development, allowing for additional building density at a suitable location, being the south-eastern corner of the site, providing a strong corner element servicing as a gateway to the Merrylands Town Centre from Neil Street to the east.

-        1.3(g) – The proposed units within the 4 storey addition have been designed to maximise cross-ventilation and solar access to provide a high level of residential amenity for future occupants.

-        1.3(i) – The proposed variation aligns with the intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal prepared by Cumberland City Council for the site, which has been granted Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

-        1.3(j) – The development proposal will be notified to adjoining property owner’s during Council’s notification process.

Council’s Comment

Council agrees with the comments made, and further notes that the development responds to the site, and does so without unduly compromising relationships with adjoining development, and the other relevant controls.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio development standard, and development within the R4 High Density Residential zone. In this regard, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, and the Applicant’s written justification is well founded.

Conclusion

Council is satisfied that the Applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6. Council is further 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.

Considered the application on its merit, the exception to the Floor Space Ratio Development Standard is considered acceptable 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.

As discussed under the existing State Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 earlier within this report, the development is considered acceptable having regard to the provisions of the SEPP.

(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 development is considered acceptable having regard to the provisions of SEPP 55.

(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, related to Height of Buildings (HOB) and Floor Space Ratio (FSR), as contained within the HLEP, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

The Draft CLEP however de-lists the subject site from the Cumberland Heritage List, as all structures and remnants relating to its former uses have been removed and the site is currently undergoing redevelopment. Any built features relating to its former significance are no longer present, and any archaeological potential would be considered low/nil and likely to be highly disturbed.

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 development 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, with the exception of the length of building (above podium), building height (storeys), and setbacks, which are discussed below. A detailed assessment against the provisions of the HDCP is contained in Attachment 6 to this report.

Length of Building (Above Podium)

 

The HDCP requires the length of a building above a podium be a maximum of 55m, as viewed from New Road 2. In this regard, the proposed length of the building above the podium is designed to be 57m, representing a variation of 2m / 3.6%.

The proposed variation is considered acceptable on its merits, noting the following:

-        The variation is a product of the layout of the site, and design of the lower levels of the development. The north-western façade requires an assessment to be undertaken of what would traditionally be 2 separate facades and 2 separate building lengths.

On assessment, when the length of the building is measured from the northern and western most points of the development, in a straight line, that being the extent of built form perceived when viewed the development from the public domain, the total length of the building above the podium is designed to be 27m. Refer to Figure 8 below.

Figure 8 – Building Length (Source: Zhinar Architects and Cumberland City Council, 2020)

-        The articulated north-western façade provides an architectural variation, which both delivers a consistent design response to the lower levels of the development, and limits the extent of perceived bulk as viewed from the public domain.

-        The proposed development is supported by the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel, and the appearance of the development is acceptable in the context of the desired future character of the locality.

-        The building length does not result in additional overshadowing, view loss or a reduction in privacy.

Building Height (Storeys)

 

The HDCP requires the height of buildings in storeys for the subject site to be limited to 12 storeys. In this regard, the proposed height of buildings is 16 storeys, representing a variation of 4 storeys / 33.3%.

The proposed variation is considered acceptable on its merits, noting the following:

-        The variation is a product of the up-lift realised under Planning Proposal PP2020/0005, which saw the height for the southern portion of the site increase from 39m / 12 storeys to 50m / 16 storeys. The control therefore does not represent the number of storeys which can be realised on the subject site.

-        The height of the development has been assessed to be acceptable, having regards to the relevant design criteria, objectives and controls. Refer to commentary provided under the heading Height of Buildings (HOB) Development Standard above.

Setbacks

 

The HDCP requires the setback of the development along Neil Street and the Railway Line to be 2.5m and 6m respectively. In this regard, the proposed setbacks are designed to be 1.7m and 5.2 respectively, representing a variation of 0.8m / 13.3% to 32%.

The proposed variation is considered acceptable on its merits, noting the following:

-        The setback of the development along Neil Street and the Railway Line provides a consistent design response to the lower levels of the development.

-        The variation is limited to balcony areas along the south-eastern corner of the development, which seek to pronounce the corner, and introduce additional private open space area to units, which would otherwise have limited morning sunlight.

-        The proposed development is supported by the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel, and the appearance of the development is acceptable in the context of the desired future character of the locality.

-        The setbacks do not result in additional overshadowing, view loss or a reduction in privacy.

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))

A Planning Agreement pursuant to Section 7.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, was entered into on 6 July 2020, between Cumberland City Council and Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd. The Planning Agreement sought the payment of additional development contributions in-lieu of an uplift in height and floor space sought under Planning Proposal PP2020/0005, which was gazetted as HLEP (Amendment 20) on 25 September 2020 by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces.

Should the development be approved, a condition of consent will be imposed requiring the development contributions as identified within the Planning Agreement, be paid in accordance with the terms of the Planning Agreement. The condition has been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

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. 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 Council’s Notification requirements contained within the HDCP, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 35 days between 27 March 2020 and 1 May 2020. In response, six (6) submissions were received, which is contained within Attachment 7 to this report.

The matters raised, and associated planners comments, are detailed in the following table.

Table 9 – Comments on Submission/s Received (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

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

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

Section 7.11 (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 Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020 – Neil Street Precinct Plan.

In accordance with the current indexed rate, the require contribution is $669,885.60. The draft Notice of Determination at Attachment 3 includes a recommendation to reflect the above contributions.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

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

The 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, the subject site is suitable for the development, and the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R4 High Density Residential zone under the provisions of the HLEP, and is consistent with the zone objectives. The development however proposes a variation to the Height of Buildings and Floor Space Ratio development standards pursuant to the HLEP, and length of building (above podium), building height (storeys), and setbacks development controls pursuant to the HDCP. 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 requests to vary the Height of Buildings, and Floor Space Ratio development standards pursuant to the HLEP, be supported. 2.       That development application DA2020/0103 seeking construction of four (4) additional storeys on top of an approved 12 storey residential flat building (Building 3) accommodating an additional 32 residential units totalling 210 units and a roof top communal open space at 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands, be Approved, subject to the conditions contained in the draft notice of determination contained in Attachment 3 of this report. 3.       That persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Attachment 1 - Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Attachment 2 - Architectural Plans  

3.      Attachment 3 - Clause 4.6 Variation Statements  

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

5.      Attachment 5 - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment  

6.      Attachment 6 - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment  

7.      Attachment 7 - Submissions x 6   

 

Attachment 1

Attachment 1 - Draft Notice of Determination

 11 November 2020

Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - Architectural Plans

 11 November 2020

Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - Clause 4.6 Variation Statements

 11 November 2020

Attachment 4

Attachment 4 - SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment

 11 November 2020

Attachment 5

Attachment 5 - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

 11 November 2020

Attachment 6

Attachment 6 - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

 11 November 2020

Attachment 7

Attachment 7 - Submissions x 6

 11 November 2020

 11 November 2020

 

Item No: LPP053/20

Development Application for 11 Hilltop Road, Merrylands

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0341   

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2020/0341 was received on 18 June 2020 for alterations and fit out of an existing heritage item to facilitate a 56 place centre based child care facility with 20 at-grade parking spaces.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of neighbouring properties for a period of 14 days between 2 July 2020 and 16 July 2020. As a result of the notification, 10 submissions were received, including 1 petition.

3.      Development Application No. DA2019/227/1 was previously refused by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for the subject site on 10 December 2019 for alterations and fit out of an existing building to facilitate a 70 place centre based child care centre with 22 at grade parking spaces.

4.      The subject site is listed as an item of local heritage significance under Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 and Hilltop Road is listed as an unsuitable collector or local road under Holroyd Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013 for the purpose of child care centre development.

5.      The development as proposed by the applicant involves the following non-compliances:

 

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

7.      The application is referred to CLPP as the proposal is considered to be contentious development.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 11 Hilltop Road Merrylands. The legal description of the site is Lot X in DP 405801. The subject site and all adjacent sites are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. The properties on the opposite side of Hilltop Road are zoned B1 – Neighbourhood Centre (Hilltop Shops).

Figure 1 – Zoning map of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Existing dwelling, view from Hilltop Road

The site has frontage of 26.415m to Hilltop Road, and a total area of 1,948m2. The site falls approximately 3m to the rear, and currently contains a split level dwelling house and associated outbuildings. The existing dwelling is listed as an item of local heritage significance in the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013. There are no other heritage items in the vicinity of the site, and the site is not within a heritage conservation area.

Description of the Proposed Development

The proposal is for alterations to the existing dwelling to accommodate a centre based child care facility with a maximum capacity of 56 places as follows:

·        0-2 years: 8 places;

·        2-3 years: 20 places; and

·        3-5 years: 28 places

Parking for 20 cars (15 visitor and 5 staff spaces) is to be provided at grade, at the front of the site. Operating hours of Monday to Friday 7.00am – 6.00pm. The centre includes 3 separate indoor play areas, kitchen, staff and administration areas. Outdoor play areas are provided to the rear of the site, and within the eastern setback. The proposal also involves transplanting of two established palm trees from within the front garden, one tree adjoining the front boundary and the other to the southern end of the former garage.

 

History

 

Reasons for Refusal (DA2019/227)

1.      The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of Clause 5.10 of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 in that the proposal does not conserve the heritage significance of the item including associated fabric setting and views.

Planner’s Comment:

Refer to assessment under “Environmental Heritage” below.

2.      The proposal fails to adequately consider and include the aims, objectives and controls of the Conservation Management Plan prepared in 2013 by Edwards Planning.

Planner’s Comment:

Generally the works will be carried out internally. The proposal has now been accompanied with Schedule of Conservation Works and Planned Cyclical Maintenance, and Building Fabric Survey to maintain satisfactory works without adversely impacting the existing Heritage Item. The works proposed are internal refurbishment works including removal of identified walls and installation of partition walls to create new rooms, removal of hall partition wall to ‘Burda’, introduce new door opening to the north-western room hall partition, and addition of ramp access to rear verandah, balustrading and barriers to be constructed to match the existing building. Detailed works to be carried out externally, particularly to the landscaping, have been amended to address the reason of refusal.

3.      The proposed development and use of the front garden for hardstand parking and access and the transplanting of the phoenix palms will adversely impact on the visual quality of the heritage item and its setting.

Planner’s Comment:

Only one of the phoenix palms will be transplanted away from the existing dwelling adjoining to the front boundary. The other phoenix palm that is currently blocking the view to the existing heritage item building will be relocated in the new garden area in front of the existing garage.

Figure 4 – Relocated phoenix palms, view from Hilltop Road (Landscape Plan dated 31 March 2020)

A letter from Weir Phillips Heritage and Planning dated 14 April 2020 submitted with the application stated that the revision to the proposal, particularly for the landscape design and material proposed for the hardstand car space, will contribute positively to the Heritage Item and its heritage significance with justification below provided.

4.      The proposed development fails to adequately take into account the internal and external heritage fabric of the item.

Planner’s Comment:

The proposal has now been accompanied with Schedule of Conservation Works and Planned Cyclical Maintenance, and Building Fabric Survey to maintain satisfactory works without adversely impacting the existing Heritage Item. The proposal takes account of previous unauthorised alterations carried out on the external heritage fabric circa 2012, which will be subject to further conservation works, including corrective maintenance plan, under this application to ensure that the Heritage Item fabric will continually be maintained.

5.      The proposal fails to adequately comply with the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (Parts A and I) in regard to location, parking and access requirements.

Planner’s Comment:

The proposal now provides a compliant number of car parking spaces by reducing the number of children for the child care centre. In terms of the location and access requirements, the proposal has also been accompanied with revised Traffic Assessment Report prepared by TEF Consulting dated 12 October 2020, refer to Attachment 11, which addresses the matters raised.

6.      The proposal is unsuitable for the site pursuant to section 4.15 (c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Planner’s Comment:

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development, if carried out subject to the conditions set out, the impact on the proposed development could be minimised. Accordingly, it is considered that the development is suitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality.

7.      The proposal fails to provide adequate plans and information regarding the proposed scope of physical works and a lack of information in regards to the ongoing maintenance and restoration of the heritage item.

Planner’s Comment:

Amended plans and documentation have been submitted to provide the proposed scope of physical works and ongoing maintenance and restoration of the heritage item.

8.      The proposed development will adversely affect the traffic flows on Hilltop Road and increase potential congestion in the immediate vicinity.

Planner’s Comment:

The proposal has also been accompanied with revised Traffic Assessment Report prepared by TEF Consulting dated 12 October 2020, refer to Attachment 11, which concluded as follows and addresses the matters raised.

Council’s Traffic Engineer generally supports the revised design and will require the imposition of conditions for further  traffic study contributing to traffic calming measures and the construction of a median island on Hilltop Road to restrict right turn movements into and out of the property to minimise the impact of the proposed development on the existing traffic, subject to local traffic committee (LTC) approval prior to the issue of an operative consent.

9.      The proposed development includes a single point of ingress and egress which will create the potential for adverse safety conditions for pedestrians and vehicles on the site and adjacent street.

Planner’s Comment:

Traffic impact from the proposed development will be minimised by the reduction in the number of children. As stated above, Council’s Traffic Engineer also recommended further traffic study for traffic calming measures and installation of a median island on Hilltop Road.

10.    The proposal fails to comply with the required unencumbered outdoor space under State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017.

Planner’s Comment:

The number of children has been reduced to 56 and the proposed unencumbered outdoor space area is now complying with the SEPP requirements.

11.    The proposal is contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 4.15 (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Planner’s Comment:

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

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd dated 13 May 2020 and was received by Council on 18 June 2020 in support of the application. The following responses are provided to address the reason for refusal of DA2019/227/1.

Planner’s Comments:

The proposed development is considered to be supportable given the overall reduction in the number of children proposed from 70 to 56, provision of compliant car parking spaces and outdoor encumbered play area, transplanting one of the palm trees closer to the heritage item building, installation of grasscrete paving for the car parking area and heritage certified front fence, and submission of revised heritage assessment, including Schedule of Conservation Works and Planned Cyclical Maintenance, and Building Fabric Survey to maintain satisfactory works without adversely impacting the existing Heritage Item, and Traffic Assessment Study. Council will further impose conditions for a traffic study contributing to traffic calming measures and the construction of a median island within Hilltop Road to restrict right turn movements into and out of the property to minimise the impact of the proposed development on the existing traffic.

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

Traffic Engineer

The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment, in which the following concerns are identified and the proposal is supported, subject to conditions.

1.      Unsuitability of the site for a child care centre, given its location on Hilltop Road.

2.      Non-compliance with DCP parking requirements for the provision of tandem car spaces.

3.      Lack of separate entry and exit driveways (as required by Part I of the DCP).

4.      The requirement for approval from the local traffic committee (LTC) for any works within the public road, including new or adjusted traffic signs, linemarking, or traffic devices. 

These matters have been considered as follows:

·        It is considered reasonable to permit staff spaces to be provided in a stacked arrangement behind the visitor spaces as proposed.

·        Council’s planning staff are satisfied that the site is suitable for a child care centre development with 56 places. Compliant numbers of car parking could now be accommodated on site. The reduction of car parking spaces from 22 to 20 by the deletion of 2 spaces will allow for additional vehicles manoeuvring area.

·        Council’s Traffic Engineer also recommended that right turn movements into and out of the property could be restricted by construction of a median island within Hilltop Road to minimise the impact of the proposed development on the existing traffic network and its operation. In this regard, conditions are included in the draft determination to require a median island to be constructed, subject to LTC approval prior to the issue of an operative consent.

·        Council’s Traffic Engineer also recommended that a condition be imposed to require a traffic study to be prepared and submitted to Council, identifying any required traffic calming measures.

Development Engineer

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment, in which the proposal is considered satisfactory subject to deferred commencement conditions requiring registration of a drainage easement to discharge water to Essey Place. Conditions as recommended by the Development Engineer are included in the draft notice of determination.

Heritage Consultant

The applicant’s response has addressed the matters previously raised. Council is satisfied on the basis of the information provided by the applicant that the heritage impacts will be satisfactory. This is discussed in more detail at the HLEP 2013 section of this report.

Children’s Services

The application was referred to Council’s Children’s Services for comment, in which the proposal is considered satisfactory subject to conditions.

 

Environmental Health

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment. The response received indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions, including compliance with the recommendations of the Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) and Asbestos Removal Works and Clearance Certificate submitted with the application.

Tree Management Officer

The application was referred to Council’s Landscape and Tree Management Officer for comment. The response received indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions, including a requirement for details regarding the proposed tree transplantation to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Waste Management

The application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment, in which the proposal is considered satisfactory subject to conditions. 

Building Services

The application was referred to Council’s Building Services Unit for comment. The response received recommends that the building be brought into conformity with the Building Code of Australia/National Construction Code. Conditions to that effect are included in the draft determination.

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))

The proposed development is affected by the following Environmental Planning Instruments:

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

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

(b)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

The relevant provisions of the SEPP Education are detailed in the following table:

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

Note: Will be superseded once Draft SEPP Environment comes into effect.

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

The proposed development is defined as a centre-based child care facility, and is permitted with consent in the R2 – Low Density Residential zone which applies to the land. The proposal is considered to be not incompatible with the relevant zone objective, in that it could provide a facility and service to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The proposal complies with all applicable development standards under HLEP 2013. A detailed compliance table is provided at Attachment 3.

The assessment against the provisions of clause 5.10 are provided below.

Environmental Heritage

The subject site is identified as an item of local heritage significance at schedule 5 of the LEP (I62 – late Victorian period cottage). There are no other heritage items in the vicinity of the site, and the site is not within a heritage conservation area. The statement of cultural significance from the 1993 Holroyd Heritage Study reads as follows:

“11 Hilltop Road has local historic significance as an early surviving cottage believed to have been erected on "Burda Park" (adjacent to the Estate of the same name). Dating the residence (stylistically) to the turn of the century, its architectural character and siting provide evidence of an almost semi-rural development, this evidence surviving subsequent subdivisions of adjacent areas. The building also has local aesthetic significance as a good representative example of suburban Federation house with a mix of "Bungalow" and "Queen Anne" elements which, despite some alterations, retains important original features and detail, most notably the weatherboard cladding profiled to resemble ashlar. The historic and aesthetic significance of the site is enhanced by its retention of a spacious "open" quality and mature tree planting.”

Objectives of clause 5.10

Clause 5.10 of the LEP details Heritage conservation requirements. The objectives of clause 5.10 are as follows:

(a)     to conserve the environmental heritage of Holroyd

(b)     to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c)     to conserve archaeological sites

(d)     to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

Objectives (c) and (d) are not relevant to the subject application as the site is not identified as having any archaeological or Aboriginal heritage significance. The proposal provides for the conservation of a listed heritage item, including the fabric, setting and views associated with the item. As such, the proposal is considered to be consistent with objectives (a) and (b) of clause 5.10.

The subject application seeks consent for alterations to the existing dwelling and ancillary structures, as required by clause 5.10(2) of the LEP.

Assessment of Impact

Clause 5.10(4) requires that the consent authority consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned.

The applicant submitted a heritage impact statement, and supplementary information prepared by Greg Patch of Archnex Designs, and Schedule of Conservation Works and Planned Cyclical Maintenance, Building Fabric Survey and a supporting letter dated 14 April 2020 prepared by Weir Phillips Heritage and Planning.

The heritage impact statement report prepared by Greg Patch of Archnex Designs indicated that the proposed works largely consist of internal alterations and fit out works, which will have minimal impact on the significance and setting of the item as stipulated in the conclusion below.

The proposal has now been accompanied with Schedule of Conservation Works and Planned Cyclical Maintenance, and Building Fabric Survey to maintain satisfactory works without adversely impacting the existing Heritage Item. The proposal takes account of previous unauthorised alterations carried out on the external heritage fabric circa 2012, which will be subject to further conservation works under this application. The proposed car park and relocation of the phoenix palms will have an impact on the garden setting of the existing dwelling. However, an amended landscape design is proposed with this application. A letter from Weir Phillips Heritage and Planning dated 14 April 2020 submitted with the application stated that the revision to the proposal, particularly for the landscape design and material proposed for the hardstand car space, will contribute positively to the Heritage Item and its heritage significance.

The proposed waste storage area between the dwelling and garage structures will restrict the reading of the dwelling as a separate structure. This aspect of the proposal also was not documented or assessed in the applicant’s statement of heritage impact. Accordingly, a condition is included in the draft determination to require that the waste storage area be shifted towards northern side behind the heritage item building curtilage.

Conservation management plan

Clause 5.10(6) provides that the consent authority may require, after considering the heritage significance of a heritage item and the extent of change proposed to it, the submission of a heritage conservation management plan before granting consent. A Conservation Management Plan was prepared for the subject site as part of a previous application. It is not considered necessary to obtain a new or updated Conservation Management Plan in this instance, as the amended details have now shown that minor physical works are proposed within the existing heritage dwelling. Schedule of Conservation Works and Planned Cyclical Maintenance, and Building Fabric Survey have been submitted with the subject application. Conditions are included in the draft determination to require the works to the heritage item to be appropriately planned, supervised and documented.

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

(a)     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, and

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the Holroyd LEP 2013 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

Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of HLEP 2013. A comprehensive compliance table is provided at Attachment 4.

The assessment against the DCP non-compliances are provided below.

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))

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development, if carried out subject to the conditions set out, the impact on the proposed development could be minimised. 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))

1.         Advertised (Council’s website)

2.             Mail

3.         Sign

4.         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 2 July 2020 and 16 July 2020. The notification generated 10 unique submissions, including 1 petition, in respect of the proposal. The proposed development was advertised to accommodate a 59 place, instead of a 56 place centre based child care facility. Reduced numbers for the proposed child care centre do not warrant re-notification of the application. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

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 Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020

The development would require the payment of contributions in accordance with Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020. In accordance with the Contribution Plan a contribution is payable, pursuant to s7.12, calculated on the cost of works. A total contribution of $2,500.00 would be payable prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, SEPP (Education), HLEP 2013 and HDCP 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory subject to deferred commencement approval.

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That Development Application No. DA2020/0341 for Alterations and fit out of an existing heritage item to facilitate a 56 place centre based child care facility with 20 at-grade parking spaces on land at 11 Hilltop Road MERRYLANDS NSW 2160 be approved as deferred commencement consent subject to conditions listed in the attached schedule. 2.      Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Appendix 1 - Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 Compliance Table  

3.      Appendix 2 - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

4.      Appendix 3 - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

5.      Architectural Plans  

6.      Landscape Plans  

7.      Heritage Impact Statement  

8.      Heritage Letter  

9.      Schedule of Conservation Works and Planned Cyclical Maintenance  

10.    Building Fabric Survey  

11.    Traffic Report  

12.    Redacted Public Submissions  

13.    Development consent DA2019/227/1  

14.    Refused Landscape Plan  

15.    Refused Architectural Plan   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 11 November 2020

Attachment 2

Appendix 1 - Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 Compliance Table

 11 November 2020

Attachment 3

Appendix 2 - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 11 November 2020

Attachment 4

Appendix 3 - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 11 November 2020

Attachment 5

Architectural Plans

 11 November 2020

Attachment 6

Landscape Plans

 11 November 2020

Attachment 7

Heritage Impact Statement

 11 November 2020

Attachment 8

Heritage Letter

 11 November 2020

Attachment 9

Schedule of Conservation Works and Planned Cyclical Maintenance

 11 November 2020

Attachment 10

Building Fabric Survey

 11 November 2020

Attachment 11

Traffic Report

 11 November 2020

Attachment 12

Redacted Public Submissions

 11 November 2020

Attachment 13

Development consent DA2019/227/1

 11 November 2020

Attachment 14

Refused Landscape Plan

 11 November 2020

Attachment 15

Refused Architectural Plan

 11 November 2020

 11 November 2020

 

Item No: LPP054/20

Development Application for 12 Railway Terrace, Granville

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0196  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2020/0196 was received on 15 May 2020 for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a 5 storey residential flat building over a basement car parking level pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of twenty one (21) days from Wednesday 20 May 2020 until Wednesday 10 June 2020. In response, there were eleven (11) submissions to the development with four (4) of those being unique in nature.

3.      The site is not listed as a heritage item and is not located within a heritage conservation area pursuant to the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

4.      The variations are as follows:

 

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

6.      The application is referred to the Panel because the development comprises a residential apartment building that is greater than three storeys in height and comprises more than four (4) apartments.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site has dimensions of 15.24 metres x 61.12 metres and occupies and area of 931.4 square metres. The site is situated on the southern side of Railway Terrace midway between Randle Street to the north and the Mombri Street overpass to the south.

The site is dominated by a small dwelling house and a large paved area which acts as a driveway and parking area for vehicles.

A significant Eucalyptus tree situated adjacent to the southern boundary of 14 Railway Terrace overhangs much of the south eastern portion of the site.

The site is situated within the R4 High Density Residential zone and the locality has been the subject of much redevelopment over recent years from low density residential development to high density residential development. There are apartment buildings situated on allotments to the rear facing Boomerang Street. Additionally, there is a large apartment complex situated at nearby 30 to 44 Railway Terrace, seven allotments to the south. Notwithstanding this, the allotments of land situated at 24 and 26 Randle Street and 2 to 28 Railway Terrace encompass one and two storey dwelling houses. 

A railway corridor lies along the northern curtilage of Railway Terrace to the north and the Merrylands town centre and railway station lies approximately 630 metres to the south.

The location of the site is shown below.

The zoning of the land is shown below.

Photos of the site are provided below.

Comment:- The site and streetscape with dwelling houses to the immediate north and south. Further afield, there are apartment buildings predominating.

Comment:- The railway line on the opposite side of the road.

Description of the Proposed Development

Development application 2020/0196 is proposing the demolition of the structures on site and construction of a five storey residential apartment development with basement car parking for ten (10) vehicles. The development comprises the following:-

Demolition

The dilapidated dwelling house on site and associated outbuildings are to be demolished.

Land Excavation and Basement car park

Much of the site is shown to be excavated to a depth of 3 metres to allow for a basement car park to be constructed. This will require the removal of approximately 1,452 cubic metres of soil from the site to facilitate such construction.

The plans are showing the basement car park as having room to park ten (10) vehicles, a bicycle storage room, a waste bulky goods store, plant room, OSD tank and a lift / stairwell.

 

Ground floor

There are two apartments on the ground floor with both apartments having two bedrooms. A pedestrian access way, common open space and landscaped area is provided.

Levels 1 and 2

The plans are showing Levels 1 and 2 as having two apartments across each floor with both apartments per floor as having two bedrooms each (four x two bedroom apartments). All four apartments are provided with a balcony facing either the front or rear.

Levels 3 and 4

The top two floors comprise two apartments with both apartments being two storeys in height and having three bedrooms. There is a balcony facing the front and rear on level 3.

The plans are suggesting a terrace across the forth storey with access from each bedroom and as a result, residents of both apartments can access the entire terrace level. A dividing wall that partitions the top floor terrace into two separate terraces for apartments numbered 3.01 and 3.02 to a height of at least 1.8 metres will address the issue.

Affordable Housing

The applicant has nominated Apartments Numbered 1.01 and 1.02 on Level 1 as being affordable housing for the purpose of State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing” 2009 which represents 21.1% of the development.

Size of the development

The development occupies a floor area of 878.1 square metres which provides a floor space ratio of 0.943:1 and has a maximum height of 15.8 metres. The development has a maximum of eight (8) apartments across five levels.

History

Prior to lodging the development application, the applicant attended a pre lodgement meeting with Council officers on 10 May 2018 to discuss various issues with a development on the site. As per the pre lodgement notes dated 10 May 2018, the following issues were required to be addressed:-

·        Floor space ratio to be addressed.

·        Development must address State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing” 2009 and State Environmental Planning Policy 65 “Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development” and the associated ‘Apartment Design Guide”.

·        Building separation.

·        Site width and site amalgamation.

·        Submission requirements.

The development application was lodged with Council on the 3 April 2020 for determination.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by ABC Planning which is dated April 2020 which was submitted as part of the development 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 subject to conditions. Notwithstanding this, the stormwater plans require minor modification and as such, the stormwater plans are not to be approved should the Panel support the application. Proposed condition 58 attached to the recommendation addresses the requirement for amended stormwater plans.

 Environment and Health

As per the comments from Council’s Environmental Health Unit, the development application is supported subject to conditions addressing land contamination and acoustic measures.

Landscape Architect/Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Landscape Architect/Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions. There are no significant trees on site although the significant trees on the adjoining sites are able to be protected during development works.

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to a condition addressing the need for a bin tug system to be installed to allow for bins to be transferred from the basement car park to the street on garbage collection days.

External Referral

The development application was referred to the following external agencies:-

 

Endeavour Energy

Given the presence of powerlines at the front of the site, the development application was referred to Endeavour Energy under Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007. There were no objections to the proposed development. Appropriate conditions are provided to the recommendation that addresses electricity connection and power supply to service the development.

Sydney Trains

The development application was referred to Sydney Trains under Clause 85 of State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007 due to the proximity of the railway line situated along the northern side of Railway Terrace. A number of conditions are provided to address the following matters:-

·        Noise and acoustics.

·        The need for an electrolysis risk assessment.

·        Use of any crane on site.

·        Protection of Sydney Trains assets.

Appropriate conditions attached to the recommendation are provided addressing such matters should the Panel support the development.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

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

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

Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, it is considered the proposal is generally compliant with the exception of Part 3D-1 - Communal open space, 3F1 (Visual privacy - Building Separation) and Part 4G-1 Storage space as follows.

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from Part 3D-1 Communal Open Space, 3F1 Visual privacy (Building Separation) and Part 4G-1 Storage space. The variations to the above are addressed below.

Part 3D-1 Communal Open Space

As shown in the above table, there is a variation of 1.15 square metres to the common open space area. This is a minor variation and having no impact to the functioning of the development. As such, the variation could be supported.

Part 3F1 Visual Privacy - (Building Separation).

As shown in the above table, there are a number of side setback variations which is a result of the site being 15.24 metres in width. As demonstrated in detail below under the heading “The provisions of any Development Control Plans (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(iii))” and - “Site Isolation principles”, the applicant has attempted to secure an adjoining site on either side of the development without success. As such, the site and building is constrained by the width of the land.

To address the site constraint, the windows of each apartment except for those on the top level are oriented towards the front and rear of the site. The windows of the apartments on the ground level and Levels 1, 2 and 3 are designed to prevent view lines into the adjoining properties.

There are a limited number of windows on the top floor (Level 4) associated with four bedrooms, two wardrobes and two bathrooms. They do not raise significant privacy issues however concern is raised that the occupants have access to a terrace level from the top floor bedrooms which may create internal and external privacy issues.

It is considered appropriate to split the terrace into two via a dividing wall situated between Apartment 3.01 and 3.02. The dividing wall will need to be a minimum of 1.8 metres in height.

The terrace level is accessed via bedrooms which in turn will not receive significant use. It is considered appropriate to ensure that the parapet walls of the terrace are at a minimum level to ensure there is suitable privacy. In this regard, proposed condition 24 attached to the recommendation requires the parapet walls to be constructed to a height of 1.5 metres to ensure satisfactory privacy levels. 

There is a need to provide solid balustrades along the northern and southern side of the balconies for apartments Numbered 1.02, 2.02 and 3.03 on levels 1, 2 and 3. In this regard, proposed condition 24 attached to the recommendation addresses the balustrades of the affected balconies.

Part 4G-1 Storage Space

Each apartment is provided with indoor storage spaces as follows:-

·        2 bedrooms 7 cubic metres.

·        3 bedrooms 8 cubic metres.

As per the Apartment Design Guide, a 2 bedroom apartment is required to be provided with 8 cubic metres of storage space while a three bedroom apartment is required to be provided with 10 cubic metres of storage space.

The plans do not show additional storage space within the basement car park to address the shortfall of storage space.

It is possible to create additional storage space within the basement. Subject to minor modifications to the basement car park, the storage spaces are able to be provided without adverse impact to the development. In this regard, proposed condition 24 attached to the recommendation addresses the matter.

A comprehensive assessment against State Environmental Planning Policy 65 and the Apartment Design Guide is contained in Appendix A.

(c)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing” 2009.

The relevant provisions are assessed below.

Clause 16A - Character of local area:

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

Part A – Identify the local area

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

A railway line lies to the west of Railway Terrace and the Merrylands Town Centre lies to the south and west. The site and adjoining sites is within the zone R4 High Density Residential which allows for apartment buildings to be erected. There are apartment buildings on allotments to the south especially at 30 to 44 Railway Terrace. Most allotments to the rear facing Boomerang Street (Western side of Boomerang Street) have been redeveloped for apartment buildings over recent years.

The remaining allotments of land facing Railway Terrace are capable of being redeveloped for apartment buildings over coming years due to the current and proposed zoning that allows such developments.

 

Part B - Determine the character of the local area.

The site is within the R4 High Density Residential zone and much of the immediate area has been subjected to redevelopment for apartment buildings over recent years. The area is in a state of transition and there are properties not yet developed in accordance with the density standards. There is an apartment complex at 30 to 44 Railway Terrace however all other properties further north along Railway Terrace are still to be developed as per the zoning and density controls.

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

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

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

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

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

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

a)      Noise impacts are reduced through siting usable communal areas to the side and rear away from Railway Terrace.

b)      Privacy impacts to the adjoining developments especially to the north and south are generally mitigated via the use of solid walls and by having all windows angled to the front or rear.

There are a limited number of windows on the top floor (Level 4) associated with four bedrooms, two wardrobes and two bathrooms. These do not raise significant privacy issues however as discussed earlier on the report, minor modifications to the terrace is required to address privacy concerns.

c)      The proposal will not impact on the development potential of adjoining sites by unduly constraining the sites through site design.

i)                

d)      The subject site has a north west to south east orientation. Submitted shadow diagrams show that the shadows will be acceptable across the immediate locality. There are no adverse shadow impacts being created across any individual allotment to the immediate north, south and east of the site.

 

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

It is identified that the locality is being transformed to higher density living. This is occurring because the area is close enough to the Merrylands Town Centre and associated railway station. It is considered that the development is appropriate for the locality.

To be considered compatible, a development should contain or at least respond to the essential elements that make up the character of the surrounding area. It is identified that newer developments along Railway Terrace are permitted to be 6 storeys in height or 18 metres.

At the rear, residential apartment buildings are also permitted although the floor space ratio and building height limits are reduced to 0.8:1 (FSR) and 11 metres (Building height limit).

The proposed building has a height of 15.8 metres which is less than the maximum height limit of 18 metres imposed for the site.

It is identified that the development is achieving compliance with most provisions of the Apartment Design Guide however the development is being undertaken across a single allotment of land. As such, the development appears as a slender narrow tower that is between 6 and 8 metres in width when viewed from the front and rear. This is not consistent with the local development control planning controls being an apartment building development on a parcel of land that is 24 metres in width.

The applicant has provided evidence to show that attempts have been made to purchase adjoining allotments of land without success which is addressed below within the assessment report.

When viewed from the street and sides, the building is to be constructed of masonry, glazed elements with cladding material. The building is similar to a development recently approved at nearby 26 Railway Terrace by the Land and Environment Court.

It is concluded that the development is considered reasonable and the applicant has addressed the site constraints in a satisfactory manner. It is considered that Part C is complied with.

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

The provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application because the site:-

·        Lies close to powerlines.

·        Is opposite a railway line.

Clause 85 - Development immediately adjacent to rail corridors

The development application was referred to Sydney Trains and an appropriate assessment conducted. No objection is raised to the development proceeding subject to conditions to address the following:-

·        Noise and acoustics.

·        Impact of any stray currents from passing trains (electrolysis risk assessment).

·        Protection of the railway corridor.

·        Safety for the Sydney Trains rail network.  

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

Clause 87 will apply to the development because there will be apartments facing the railway line and there will be an impact from passing trains.

The interim guidelines for ‘Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads” Page 15 provides a guide to the level of assessment required when noise sensitive developments are located in the vicinity of rail lines. Zone A and B are indicative acoustic assessment zones where sensitive land uses are likely to be affected. The railway line is used for transporting freight and passengers. In this regard:-

·        Zone A is 40 metres.

·        Zone B is 80 metres.

The development falls within Zone A and a detailed noise assessment is required.

The matter of railway noise has been considered and an acoustic report has been prepared by Koikas Acoustics Pty Ltd (File Reference - 3797R20190724pd12RailwayTerraceGranville) and dated 29 July 2019. The report identifies that noise requirements are capable of being addressed and a number of recommendations are made to address noise impacts. The acoustic report should be incorporated into any favourable recommendation that is made. Subject to the above, it is considered that Clause 87 of the State Policy is complied with.

Subdivision 2 - Development Likely to Affect an electricity transmission or distribution network

Clause 45

Given that there are works occurring within 5 metres of an overhead power line, the development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for review. Endeavour Energy responded and provided conditions addressing electricity connection and power supply to service the development.

 

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

There are no significant trees situated across the site that requires removal. Additionally, it is considered that no assessment required under the planning instrument on the grounds that no significant vegetation is affected by the development sought.

Notwithstanding this, there is a large eucalyptus tree situated on an adjoining allotment in which the foliage overhangs the south east corner of the site. Development works are to occur no closer than 10 metres from the tree trunk and the plans are showing works to be clear of the foliage of the tree. As such, the tree would not be impacted by the proposed works.

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

A BASIX Certificate (Certificate Number 1024375M and dated 28 February 2020 and prepared by Eco Certificates Pty Ltd) has been submitted with the development application. The certificate is showing that the development achieves a pass mark for water and energy and the certificate is satisfactory for approval.

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 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 is applicable to the development site. It is identified that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential Zone. An assessment is provided at Appendix B.

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a “Residential flat building” under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and such a development is permissible with consent within the R4 High Density Residential zone.

The relevant matters to be considered under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 are summarised below.

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

(a)     Draft Housing Diversity State Environmental Planning Policy (Draft Housing Diversity SEPP)

The proposed Housing Diversity SEPP is a government-led action to address housing diversity and affordability in line with the proposed NSW Housing Strategy and sets a 20 year vision for housing in NSW. Exhibition concluded on the 6 September 2020.

The Draft Housing Diversity SEPP will consolidate three housing-related SEPPs:

·        State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 - Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes).

The Draft Housing Diversity SEPP seeks to undertake the following:

·        introduce new definitions for build-to-rent housing, student housing and co-living;

·        amend some state-level planning provisions, particularly for boarding house and seniors housing development;

·        amend some state-level planning provisions to support social housing developments undertaken by the NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) on government-owned land.

Comment

The proposed development would support the relevant aims and objectives of the draft policy in which there are two affordable housing units situated close to relevant services.

 

(b)     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 local government area, those being:

·    Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013,

·    Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, and

·    Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 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 Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 is relevant to the development application however many provisions are overridden by State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing” 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy 65 “Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development” and the associated Apartment Design Guide.

The variations are outlined in the table below and a detailed assessment is at Appendix D.

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from Part 3.1.3.7 (Site frontage and visual privacy), 3.1.3.7 front setback, 3.1.3.7 - Deep soil zone and Part 3.6 - Parking Provision.

The applicant has addressed the issues of Part 3.1.3.7 “Site frontage” and “Visual privacy” by treating the site as an isolated allotment. An assessment under the lot isolation planning principle has been undertaken.

Site Isolation Principles

The site isolation principles established by the Land and Environment Court have been considered in the assessment of the development application. In the judgement of Brown C being the case of Melissa Grech v Auburn Council [2004] NSWLEC 40, the following Principles have been considered:-

·        Firstly, where a property will be isolated by a proposed development and that property cannot satisfy the minimum lot requirements then negotiations between the owners of the properties should commence at an early stage and prior to the lodgement of the development application.

·        Secondly, and where no satisfactory result is achieved from the negotiations, the development application should include details of the negotiations between the owners of the properties. The details should include offers to the owner of the isolated property. A reasonable offer, for the purposes of determining the development application and addressing the planning implications of an isolated lot, is to be based on at least one recent independent valuation and may include other reasonable expenses likely to be incurred by the owner of the isolated property in the sale of the property.

·        Thirdly, the level of negotiation and any offers made for the isolated site are matters that can be given weight in the consideration of the development application. The amount of weight will depend on the level of negotiation, whether any offers are deemed reasonable or unreasonable, any relevant planning requirements and the provisions of s79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Comments

The following is identified:-

1.      There have been attempts to purchase both the adjoining properties since 2011 to secure a larger site although negotiations have failed.

2.      Details of the offers made to purchase Number 10 and 14 Railway Terrace have been submitted with the development application.

3.      A reasonable offer has been made based on the valuation reports with the offers being in excess of the market valuation. The valuation reports identify that both 10 and 14 Railway Terrace could be redeveloped for a residential apartment building and that the site has an appropriate location. There have been no response to the offers made.

It is determined that the applicant has followed the planning principles outlined above and that the offers made are acceptable.

It should also be stated that the Land and Environment Court in Cornerstone Property Group Pty Ltd Vs Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 189 added another principle to site isolation issues that must be considered. That is:-

Can orderly and economic use and development of the separate site be achieved if amalgamation is not feasible.

Future redevelopment sites

Both Number 10 and 14 Railway Terrace adjoins allotments that could be redeveloped for apartment buildings in accordance with the planning controls. As such, no sites are being isolated except for Number 12 Railway Terrace, the site the subject of the development application.

The development departs from Part 3.1.3.7 - Deep soil zone and Part 3.6 - Parking provision. In this regard, the development requires the following:-

·        30% deep soil zone.

·        13 car parking spaces.

It is identified that both provisions are over ridden by the Apartment Design Guide which requires the following:-

·        7% deep soil zone.

·        10 car parking spaces.

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from Part 3.1.3.7 front setback. In relation to this provision:-

Front setback - A front setback of 9.8 metres is shown because there is a requirement for a vehicle passing bay at the front of the site. Should the building be brought closer to the street which is possible, the passing bay would be lost or reduced creating adverse vehicle manoeuvrability issues. The front setback of 9.8 metres is required to ensure a vehicle passing bay is provided on site. Council engineers have required the passing bay to be incorporated into the architectural plans.

An assessment is provided at Appendix C.

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 Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, the development was notified for a period of twenty one (21) days between Wednesday 20 May 2020 and Wednesday 10 June 2020. In response, there were eleven (11) submission received and of those, four (4) are considered to be unique. The submissions are outlined below.

A - Streetscape appearance

B - Car parking and traffic issues

C - Shadow and privacy

D - Social impacts

E - Stormwater and building

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 (Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan)

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 7.11 Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan. The contribution has been calculated at $114,801. The figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The draft determination attached includes a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

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

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

·        State Environmental Planning Policy 65 “Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development” and the Associated “Apartment Design Guide”.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy 55 "Remediation of Land".

·        State Environmental Planning Policy "Infrastructure" 2007.

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

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

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

·        Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020.

·        Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R4 High Density Residential zone under the provisions of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011. The proposal is generally consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. Minor non-compliances with Council’s controls have been discussed in the body of this report. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

Having regard to the relevant matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable for the reasons as outlined within the report. It is recommended that the development be given approval subject to conditions.

 

Report Recommendation: 1.   That Development Application Number 2020/0196 for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a 5 storey residential apartment building over a basement car parking level pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 on land at 12 Railway Terrace Granville be approved subject to conditions as listed in the attached schedule. 2.   Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Appendix A - Apartment Design Guide (ADG) Compliance Table  

3.      Appendix B - 2 - Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011  

4.      Appendix C - Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011  

5.      Redacted Submissions  

6.      Architectural Plans  

7.      Stormwater/ Engineering Plans  

8.      Landscape Plan   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 11 November 2020

Attachment 2

Appendix A - Apartment Design Guide (ADG) Compliance Table

 11 November 2020

Attachment 3

Appendix B - 2 - Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011

 11 November 2020

Attachment 4

Appendix C - Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011

 11 November 2020

Attachment 5

Redacted Submissions

 11 November 2020

Attachment 6

Architectural Plans

 11 November 2020

Placeholder for Attachment 6

Development Application for 12 Railway Terrace, Granville

Architectural Plans

0 Pages

Attachment 7

Stormwater/ Engineering Plans

 11 November 2020

Placeholder for Attachment 7

Development Application for 12 Railway Terrace, Granville

Stormwater/ Engineering Plans

0 Pages

Attachment 8

Landscape Plan

 11 November 2020

Placeholder for Attachment 8

Development Application for 12 Railway Terrace, Granville

Landscape Plan

0 Pages

 11 November 2020

 

Item No: LPP055/20

Modification Application for 75-77 Merrylands Road, Merrylands

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    MOD2019/5269  

 

 

1.      Modification Application No. MOD2019/5269 was received on 16 December 2019 for the Section 4.55(2) modification to alter the configuration of the approved development, the provision of an additional one bedroom unit and including a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the dedication of land to Council.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 28 days between 20 February 2020 and 19 March 2020. In response, 2 submissions were received.

3.      The variations are as follows:

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

5.      The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal contravenes a development standard by more than 10%.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site proposed for redevelopment comprises of two allotments and is legally described as Lot 1 & 2 in DP 7374 and is known as number 75-77 Merrylands Road, MERRYLANDS NSW 2160.

The site is zoned R4 high density residential and sits on the boundary of an adjacent B4 mixed use zone to the west. The site is situated on the northern side of Merrylands Road between Montrose Avenue to the east and Railway Terrace to the west.

The land is regular in shape with a combined frontage width of 24.38m and depth of 53.34m, creating a total combined land area of 1290m2. The land has a slight slope with a fall across the site of approximately 1m towards the western side of the property.

To the west of the site there is by an existing single storey detached dwelling house with ancillary structures including detached garages/outbuildings, metal shed and awning. To the west of the site is a newly constructed six storey mixed use building.

Surrounding developments in the immediate vicinity is currently characterised by a mix low to high density residential developments of various size and scale. It is evident that once the area completes transition, the area will be characterised predominantly by high density residential developments and mixed use developments further to the western end of Railway Terrace.

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site

Figure 2: Street view of subject site

Description of the Proposed Development

The modification application includes alteration to the footprint of most units, internal reconfiguration of the basement carpark, the addition of a 1 bedroom unit and a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement to cover the construction, dedication and maintenance of the laneway.

History

DA-335/2016 was approved by Cumberland Council on 23 November 2017 for the demolition of existing structures, the construction of a four storey residential flat building consisting of 18 units with 1 level basement parking.

The developer offered to enter into a Planning Agreement with Council to formalise a number of conditions in the consent relating to the laneway.

The development approved under DA-335/2016 did involve an uplift of 80sqm additional FSR (50% of that dedicated to Council being 160sqm). At the time this was dealt with as conditions of consent. The site has a maximum FSR of 1.1:1 while DA-335/2016 was approved with an FSR of 1.16:1 – which included the additional 80sqm of gross floor area.

The applicant lodged a modification application DA335/2016/1 on 1 May 2019 to remove the requirement of construction and maintenance of the laneway. This modification was not supported by Council and was subsequently withdrawn on 15 July 2019.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Nour Yousef, dated December 2019 and was received by Council on 16 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

The application was not required to be referred to any internal teams for comment.

External Referrals

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

PLANNING COMMENTS

Section 4.55(2):

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

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

SEPP 65 applies to the development as the building is 3 storeys or more, and contains more than 4 dwellings. An amended design verification 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, the proposal is generally considered compliant as none of the changes proposed have created any non-compliances.

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

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application. The changes proposed to not impact the previous assessment completed under ISEPP.

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

An amended BASIX Certificate 1061428M dated issued on 6 December 2019 prepared by Yousef Services has been submitted with Council and is considered to be satisfactory.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

 

Local Environmental Plans

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011

The provision of the PLEP2011 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the PLEP2011 and the objectives of the R4 – High Density Residential zoning.

(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 PLEP2011 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.

Figure 3: Parramatta LEP 2011 Compliance Table

(b)     Variation to Floor Space Ratio

Clause 4.6 allows the consent authority to vary development standards in certain circumstances and provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to achieve better design outcomes. This is a modification application and therefore Clause 4.6 does not apply a similar test is used to assess the variation.

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?

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

o   The proposed development provides housing needs of the community.

(b)     To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

o   The proposal maintains the apartment mix as previously supported and furthermore introduces an additional one bedroom unit

(c)     To provide opportunity for high density residential development close to major transport nodes, services and employment opportunities.

o   The site is 150m walking distance to Merrylands Train Station.

ii)     

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

Objective (a): The proposed design confirms an appropriate degree of flexibility can be applied based on the following assessment:

o   The proposed form and scale of the building is consistent with the massing and scale of the approved development to west of the site at 79 and 81 – 83 Merrylands Roads being within the visual catchment.

o   The development has been designed to ‘fit’ with the height control being 14m and present a suitable transition from the B4 zoned land adjoining the western boundary and the R4 land to the east

Objective (b): The proposed variation to the FSR control achieves a better outcome for and from the development in the application of flexibility based on the following:

o   The proposed development is consistent with the planning controls noting the development presents as a 4 storey form with a 3m setback to western boundary and nil setback to proposed laneway and complies with the 6m setback to eastern boundary specified by ADG separation provisions.

o   The additional floor area is internal to the built form does not lead to additional bulk and scale of the development noting the development complies with height and recommended setbacks.

o   The additional floor area achieves good residential amenity for the units

o   The additional floor area is confined internally to the built form and will not create additional amenity impacts to adjoining development.

iii)   

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

Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as the additional FSR is distributed in the existing footprint of the building and does not have an additional impact on the adjoining properties.

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

There are sufficient environmental planning ground to justify contravening the development standard. Furthermore, having regard to the discussions above, Council staff is satisfied that the proposed variation has been appropriately justified and can be supported in this instance.

Conclusion:

Council is satisfied that the variation proposed is worthy of support.  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. The proposed variation to the 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, and

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, 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 Parramatta DCP 2011 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Parramatta LEP 2011.

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

The proposed development complies with the provisions of Council’s PDCP 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))

The development approved under DA-335/2016 included an uplift of 80sqm of additional FSR (50% of that dedicated to Council being 160sqm). At the time, this was dealt with as conditions of consent.  The site has a maximum FSR of 1.1:1 while DA-335/2016 was approved with an FSR of 1.16:1 – which included the additional 80sqm of gross floor area.

Modification application MOD2019/5269 proposes an FSR of 1.34:1 which includes reducing size of balconies whilst increasing the internal size of units and the addition of a one bedroom unit being 52sqm in size. As part of the modification application, the developer will enter into the Planning Agreement which includes the construction of the laneway, subdivision, dedication to council and ongoing maintenance of the laneway.  This is shown graphically in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Location of Laneway

Public Benefit

The laneway is consistent with the Cumberland Planning Agreements Policy as it would provide a public benefit through the construction of local infrastructure that is identified in local planning controls. Council resolved to support in-principle this public benefit offer at the Council meeting of 21 October 2020.

The laneway is identified in Section 4.1.8 of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, and shown graphically in Figure 5, which states that:

 

Pedestrian Connections and Laneways

P.1 New pedestrian connections and laneways should be provided in accordance with Figure 4.1.8.1. Where a development provides for public access connections, a variation to Council’s floor space ratio control can be sought in accordance with Principle 1 in Section 4.1 of this DCP.

Figure 5: Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 Extract

The laneway is also partially constructed and the acceptance of the offer would progress the delivery of the laneway in accordance with Council’s strategic planning work.  The status of the laneway is shown in Figure 6 and described as follows:

·        The site immediately adjoining the subject site has been built and dedicated 3m of the laneway (light blue).

·        The property to the rear has dedicated 3m of the laneway (light orange) and

·        The property adjacent to the rear will be required to dedicate the laneway once a development is proposed for the site (light green). This 6m wide laneway will connect Merrylands Road and Smythe Street.

 

iv) 

 

Figure 6: Existing and Proposed Laneways

 

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 Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Parramatta DCP 2011, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 28 days between 20 February 2020 and 19 March 2020. The notification generated 2 submissions in respect of the proposal with nil disclosing a political donation or gift. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

 

Figure 7: Submissions summary table

 

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

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

Section 7.12 (Formerly S94A) Fixed Development Consent Levies 

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

Comments:

The development would require the payment of contributions in accordance with Parramatta Section 94A Development Contributions Plan. The original imposed S7.12 contribution including the additional cost associated with the modification application and the CPI means that a total of $57,593.89 is payable.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The development as modified is appropriately located within the R4 zone under the relevant provisions of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, however variations in relation to the Floor Space Ratio under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 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 departures noted above, is consistent with the intentions of Council’s planning controls and represents a form of development contemplated by the relevant statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the land.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 and 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the modified development may be approved subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation:   1.      That Modification Application No. MOD2019/5269 for Section 4.55(2) modification to alter the configuration of the approved development, the provision of an additional one bedroom unit and including a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the dedication of land to Council on land at 75 Merrylands Road MERRYLANDS  NSW  2160 be approved subject to attached conditions listed in the attached schedule.   2.      Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Approved Architectural Plans  

4.      Submissions Received  

5.      Locality Map  

6.      Appendix A – SEPP 65 Assessment  

7.      Appendix B – DCP Assessment