14 April 2021

An electronic meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11.30am via Zoom on Wednesday, 14 April 2021.

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

 

 14 April 2021

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

LPP009/21... Modification Application for 26-36 Northumberland Road, Auburn.............. 5

LPP010/21... Development Application for 22-24 Park Road, Auburn............................ 277

LPP011/21... Development Application for 92 Hampden Road, South Wentworthville 449

LPP012/21... Development Application for 6-10 Manchester Street, Merrylands......... 511

 

 14 April 2021

 14 April 2021

 

Item No: LPP009/21

Modification Application for 26-36 Northumberland Road, Auburn

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    MOD2020/0212  

 

 

1.      Modification Application MOD2020/0212 was received on the 1 July 2020 being a Section 4.56 Modification to reconfigure the basement layout, reconfigure and amalgamate apartments, alteration to commercial floor areas and service areas, increase in building height, alteration to communal open spaces and facade treatments of the western building of development consent 2018/62.

2.      The modification application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of fourteen (14) days between the 14 August 2020 and the 28 August 2020. In response, there was one submission received.

3.      Number 26 to 36 Northumberland Road (Western side) is identified as having the Auburn War Memorial on site (Archaeological item A49) although this has been relocated to Auburn Memorial Park in nearby Rawson Street.

4.      The variations are as follows:

 

5.      The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal incorporates a variation to a development standard greater than 10%.

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

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

Number 26 to 36 Northumberland Road

The site known as 26 to 36 Northumberland Road (Western side) comprises 5 allotments. The site is rectangular in shape and has dimensions of 81 metres to Northumberland Road, 51 metres to Hall Street and occupies an area of 4,131 square metres. The site was previously used as a car park servicing the RSL club although the car park has since been closed and construction work recently commenced on the project in early January 2021.

The site is identified as having the Auburn War Memorial on site (Archaeological item A49) although this has been relocated to Auburn Memorial Park in nearby Rawson Street.

Photos of the site are provided below.

 

Number 35 Northumberland Road

The site is known as Lot 33 in DP 829625 or 35 Northumberland Road Auburn (Eastern side). The site has a frontage of approximately 109 metres to Northumberland Road (west) and 87 metres (north) to Hall Street and occupies an area of 7,810 square metres.

The former two storey Auburn RSL club is situated on the site although this has now closed and the building is earmarked for demolition. A car park is situated along the southern side of the building which is still in use for the general public. The modification application proposes no changes to the approved development on the site.

Photos of the site are provided below.

 

The location of the two sites are shown below.

Description of the Modified Development

The modification application is proposing numerous changes to the approved development to facilitate a more appropriate development outcome and to achieve an improved level of residential amenity. The changes only relate to the western portion of the site being Buildings A and B and no changes are proposed to the eastern portion of the development being Buildings C, D, E and F.

The changes are highlighted in the table below.

 

The changes identified above affects the appearance of the development and there are alterations to the streetscape appearance, materials and finishes and position of glazed elements.

The changes result in the following outcomes to the western building known as Building A and Building B.

 

Additional minor changes are requested including:-

·        Roof and doors being added to Building A roof top to enclose the lift lobby.

·        Hot water plant being consolidated within a screened enclosure on the rooftop of building (B).

·        Extend the Building B stair core to allow for maintenance access to the roof and solar panel system.

·        MSB room relocated to basement Level 2.

·        The eastern basement stair is removed from Basement levels B2 to B4 as it is not required for egress.

Landscape plans

It was requested that the landscape plans be updated to identify the retention of Tree 26. The arborist report prepared by Horticultural Management Services has been updated which recommends the retention of tree numbered 26. The landscaping plan has now been updated so that it is consistent with the arborist report and recommendations made.

Conditions of Consent

Should the modification application be supported, the following conditions imposed by the Land and Environment Court would require modification

·        Condition 1 - Approved plans.

·        Conditions 5 and 6 - Developer contributions.

·        Condition 98 - Car parking allocation (Western building).

 

History

The Land and Environment Court granted deferred commencement consent to development application 2018/62 for the demolition of the existing structures, consolidation of allotments to form two Torrens Title allotments and construction of shop top housing / residential flat building development over basement car parking subject to conditions on the 20 September 2019.

The deferred commencement consent was made operational on the 4 December 2020.

Modification application 2020/0157 was approved under delegated authority on the 1 September 2020 for changes to the wording of various engineering conditions including Conditions 10, 62, 63, 64, 67 and 126.

Modification application 2020/0212 for alterations to the western portion of the development was submitted to the Council for determination on the 1 July 2020 which is the subject of this report.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Willow Tree Planning which is dated June 2020 in support of the modification application.

A modified statement of effects was submitted on the 29 January 2021 to clarify the modifications sought and to address errors made in the original statement that was submitted.

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 modification application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the modified development is satisfactory subject to a new condition addressing columns within the shared zone and vehicle circulation.

Environment and Health

The modification application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that the modified development proposal is satisfactory.

Landscape Architect/Officer

The modification application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer who has advised that the changes sought are supported.

 

Waste Management

The modification application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the changes to the waste storage provisions are satisfactory without the need for additional conditions.

External Referrals

No external referrals are required in this instance.

 

PLANNING COMMENTS

Section 4.56 Modification by consent authorities of consents granted by the Court:

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 (State and Regional Development) 2011

Development of a type that is listed in Schedule 7 of SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011 is defined as ‘regional significant development’. Such applications require a referral to a Sydney District Panel for determination as constituted by Part 3 of Schedule 2 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The original development had a capital investment value exceeding $123 million which exceeded the $30 million threshold. However, the applicant lodged an Appeal for deemed refusal prior to the original development application being determined and the Land and Environment Court became the determining authority for the development application.

Whilst the subject modification does not fall within those to be referred to the Regional Panel as per Clause 123BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, the application is however being referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel for determination as Council staff does not have the delegation to determine applications with more than 10% variation to a development standard.

(b)     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 modification application.

 

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

SEPP 65 applies to the modified 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 modified proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, it is considered that the modified proposal is generally compliant with the provisions as well as the Court approval given with the exception of Part 4D-2 - Environmental performance of apartments is maximised as follows.

 

As indicated in the above table, the modified development departs from Part 4D-2 - Environmental performance of apartments is maximised.

The Court approved plans presented 22 apartments which had room depths of greater than 8 metres from a window with the variation ranging from 200 to 600 mm. The modified development presents 23 apartments which have room depths of greater than 8 metres from a window with depths ranging from 200 mm to 600 mm. The increase is 1 apartment. Notwithstanding the variation, all the apartments incorporating the bedrooms and living areas are located on the external face of the building and, as such, adequate amenity is achieved.

This development presents a high degree of compliance with the Apartment Design Guide and the Court approval. It is also identified that residential amenity is retained as per the approval and minor variations such as the one presented will not have any adverse impact to the final outcome of the finished development.

A comprehensive assessment of the changes to the western building against SEPP 65 and the ADG is contained in Appendix A.

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

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the modification application. It is identified that the site lies more than 130 metres from the intersection of Rawson Street with Northumberland Road and Rawson Street is identified as being a Classified Regional Road. The modification application is not required to be referred to Transport for New South Wales (Roads and Maritime Services) under Schedule 4 of the State Policy on the grounds that there is no increase in car parking occurring on site.

Generally, the following clauses will not apply to the modification application and no formal assessment is required:-

·        Clause 45 - Determination of development applications other development (Development close to powerlines).

·        Clause 101 - Frontage to a Classified Road.

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

·        Clause 104 - Traffic generation developments.

Division 4 “Electricity Generating Works or Solar Energy Systems

The modification plans is showing a large solar panel array situated on the roof of the southern tower building encompassing 162 panels. The applicant has sought consent as the matter is not exempt or complying development under Division 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007.

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

Approval has already been given for the removal of most trees on site and a site inspection has identified that several trees have already been removed as part of site preparation works.

The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable.

It is identified that Tree numbered 26 identified in the arborist report prepared by Horticultural Management Services will now be retained and the revised landscape plans have been updated to reflect the change sought.

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

BASIX certificate, Certificate Number 903923M-08 which is dated 21 May 2020 has been submitted with the modification application. The modified certificate achieves a pass mark for both water and energy use and is determined as being 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 modified 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 modified development).

Local Environmental Plans

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010

The provision of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 is applicable to the modified development. It is identified that the modified development achieves compliance with most of the key statutory requirements of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the objectives of the B4 zone except for Clause 4.3 ‘Height of Buildings”.

(a)     Permissibility:-

The approved and modified development is defined as a mixed use commercial/retail/apartment building. The development comprises the following as per the definitions contained within the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010:-

a)      Commercial Premises

Defined as “any of the following-

(a) business premises,

(b) office premises,

(c)  retail premises”.

b)      Office Premises

Defined as “a building or place used for the purpose of administrative, clerical, technical, professional or similar activities that do not include dealing with members of the public at the building or place on a direct and regular basis, except where such dealing is a minor activity (by appointment) that is ancillary to the main purpose for which the building or place is used.

Note-

Office premises are a type of commercial premises - See the definition of that term in this Dictionary”.

c)      Residential flat building

Defined as “a building containing 3 or more dwellings but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing.

Note-

Residential flat buildings are a type of residential accommodation— see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

d)      Retail Premises

Defined as “a building or place used for the purpose of selling items by retail, or hiring or displaying items for the purpose of selling them or hiring them out, whether the items are goods or materials (or whether also sold by wholesale), and includes any of the following;

(a)     (Repealed)

(b)     cellar door premises,

(c)     food and drink premises,

(d)     garden centres,

(e)     hardware and building supplies,

(f)      kiosks,

(g)     landscaping material supplies,

(h)     markets,

(i)      plant nurseries,

(j)      roadside stalls,

(k)     rural supplies,

(l)      shops,

(m)    specialised retail premises,

(n)     timber yards,

(o)     vehicle sales or hire premises, but does not include highway service centres, service stations, industrial retail outlets or restricted premises.

Note-

Retail premises are a type of commercial premises—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary”.

Comment

The stated land uses being commercial premises, offices premises, residential flat buildings and retail premises are permissible land uses with consent within the B4 Mixed Use zone.

The relevant matters to be considered under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the applicable clauses are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix B attached to the report.

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 Compliance Table

 

(b)     Clause 4.6 - Variation to Building height limit

The clause will not be applicable to this application. In accordance with case law, as outlined in the Land Environment Court Case of Gann & Anor v Sutherland Shire Council [2008] that there is power to modify a development application where the modification would result in the breach of development standards. The court took the view that development standards within an LEP did not operate to prohibit the grant of consent if they were not complied with (and no objection pursuant to SEPP No. 1 (now cl 4.6) had been lodged). Notwithstanding, the court held that despite a SEPP No. 1 Objection not being required, Section 96(3) (now known as cl 4.55(3)) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (The Act) still requires the consent authority to take into consideration those matters referred to in Section 79C (now Cl4.15) of the Act. This case law has been applied to Clause 4.6 of the Standard instrument (on which the ALEP 2010 is derived).

Variation to Building Height

The maximum building height permitted on the site is 32 metres. The original development application was approved at 34.84 metres (RL 51.51 Metres AHD) which was a variation of 8.875%. The Court supported a Clause 4.6 variation request as part of its original proceedings and approval of the development application which is outlined in the Judgement dated 20 September 2019.

Under the S4.56 modification application, the number of storeys within the building remains the same however there is a minor increase in height of the building. There is an increase in the floor to ceiling heights of apartments on floors 7, 8 and 9 to allow for adequate room for insulation. This in turn lifts the overall height of the building from 34.84 metres to 36.12 metres which is an increase of 1.28 metres maximum. This results in a variation to Clause 4.3 of 12.8%.

It is identified that the bulk of the variation is concentrated within the lift over runs, the rooftop plant, parapets and stair access to the rooftop areas and common open space.

The applicant has addressed the two objectives of Clause 4.3 as follows:

Applicant comment

Objective (a) and (b):

The element exhibiting the noncompliance will continue to be a negligible contribution to the building bulk.

·        The proposal as modified will not result in unreasonable impacts on the local amenity.

·        There will not be unreasonable impacts to the local amenity and the development will not result in adverse impacts upon views, solar access and privacy.

The proposed variation will not impact on the attainment of the objectives of the development standard as the design outcome will continue to achieve a density and character that is compatible with the existing and desired character of the surrounding locality. The proposed modification and further exceedance in the height of the building development standard continues to satisfy the objectives of both the B4 zone and Clause 4.3. 

Planner comment

The discussion provided by the applicant is supported. In this regard, the development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard and the increase is not excessive. It is identified that the draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan is providing for an increase in the height of buildings to 38 metres for the site and as such, the modified height would be compliant with the provisions of the draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan in terms of height.

The variation is limited to the lift over runs, the rooftop plant, parapets and stair access to the rooftop areas and common open space. Furthermore:-

·        There is no appreciable increase in shadowing to the south.

·        The development generally retains the footprint of the development already approved and, hence, there are no increases in bulk and scale of the development.

·        The degree of privacy is satisfactory to all boundaries.

·        The floor space ratio of the development is reduced which has occurred as a result of a reduction of seven apartments within the development.

·        The modified development is determined as being consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 and no unreasonable amenity impact is identified.

When considering the above, the variation sought is considered as being acceptable to the site.

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 (Draft CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan (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 land use zoning and floor space ratio provisions are expected to remain the same as those at the present time; however, the building height limit is expected to increase from 32 metres to 38 metres. The modified development is consistent with the relevant provisions of the draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan.

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

The Auburn Development Control Plan provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. The Auburn Development Control Plan (Residential Flat Buildings Chapter) is relevant to the modification application and the modification has been assessed against the provisions of the Residential Flat Buildings Chapter. The following variations are identified. A comprehensive assessment is contained in Appendix C attached to the report.

 

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from Part 2.2 (Subpart D1) relating to dwelling size. The variation is determined as being satisfactory for the following reasons:-

·        The Apartment Design Guide generally overrides Council's controls in relation to the abovementioned variation.

·        The development is providing satisfactory amenity for residents and the proposed intensity of use is considered satisfactory for residents.

Irrespective of the variations, it is considered that the proposal performs adequately from an environmental planning viewpoint and may be supported.

The Auburn Development Control Plan (Local Centres Chapter) is relevant to the modification application and the modification has been assessed against the provisions of the Local Centres Chapter. The following variations are identified. A comprehensive assessment is contained in Appendix D attached to the report.

 

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from Part 6.1 (Subpart D1) relating to the number of car parking spaces required to support the commercial floor area of the building. The variation is determined as being satisfactory.

The variation is 0.3 of 1 car parking space or 1 space if the car parking is rounded upwards to 1 space.

A reallocation of 1 residential car space has been considered to address the issue.

It would be difficult to address the commercial car parking shortfall because all the commercial and visitor car parking spaces are situated on Basement Level 1 while the residential car parking spaces are situated on Basement Levels, 2, 3 and 4. If one additional residential car parking space is reallocated to commercial spaces, then this would alter the security measures proposed or provided for the basement car park levels 2, 3 and 4.

An additional car space cannot be incorporated on Basement Level 1 to address the shortfall due to inadequate space on this level.

Council engineers have noted the variation and consider the matter to be minor in extent. As such, the variation of 0.3 of 1 space or 1 space if rounded upwards is not excessive to warrant refusal of the modification application and can be supported.

Furthermore, the development falls under the following chapters of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010.

·        Parking and Loading.

·        Stormwater Drainage.

·        Access and Mobility.

·        Waste.

In relation to the above, the matter concerning car parking is addressed at Part 6.1 of the Local Centres Chapter of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 and no further discussion is required.

The assessment demonstrates that the modification application achieves full compliance with the remaining provisions and chapters of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010.

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 are no 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 Auburn Development Control Plan 2010, the modification was notified for a period of fourteen (14) days between the 14 August 2020 and the 28 August 2020. There was one submission generated as follows:-

 

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

 

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the modified 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

 

Condition 6 of the Court approved development consent requires payment of $2,262,242.01 to be made. As a result of the changes being made, the contribution amount will increase to $2,404,620.65. Condition 6 of the development consent will need to be modified to reflect the changes made.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

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

·        State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

·        State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

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

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

·        Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan.

·        Auburn Development Control Plan 2010.

The development as modified is appropriately located within the B4 Mixed Use zone under the provisions of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010, however, a variation to Clause 4.3 of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Height of Buildings), Part 2.2 (Size of Dwellings) and Part 6.1 (Access, loading and car parking requirements) of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (Residential Flat Buildings and Local Centres) chapters is sought.

Having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, the Panel may be satisfied that the modified development has been responsibly designed and provides for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents. It is considered that the modified development including a reduction of apartments will achieve improved amenity for the future occupants and the proposal successfully minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Hence the modified 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 modified proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 and 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the modified development may be approved subject to conditions.

 

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Modified Landscape Plans  

4.      Approved Architectural Plans  

5.      Court Approval Notice of Determination  

6.      Redacted Submission  

7.      Appendix A - Apartment Design Guide Assessment  

8.      Appendix B - Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 Compliance Table  

9.      Appendix C - Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (Residential Flat Buildings)  

10.    Appendix D - Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 - Local Centres   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 14 April 2021

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 14 April 2021

Attachment 3

Modified Landscape Plans

 14 April 2021

Attachment 4

Approved Architectural Plans

 14 April 2021

Attachment 5

Court Approval Notice of Determination

 14 April 2021

Attachment 6

Redacted Submission

 14 April 2021

Attachment 7

Appendix A - Apartment Design Guide Assessment

 14 April 2021

Attachment 8

Appendix B - Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 Compliance Table

 14 April 2021

Attachment 9

Appendix C - Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (Residential Flat Buildings)

 14 April 2021

Attachment 10

Appendix D - Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 - Local Centres

 14 April 2021

 14 April 2021

 

Item No: LPP010/21

Development Application for 22-24 Park Road, Auburn

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0336  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2020/0336 was received on 17 June 2020 for the Demolition of existing structures and construction of an 11-storey mixed use development comprising of residential apartment units, ground floor retail/commercial tenancies and ground floor & basement car parking.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 13 August 2020 and 27 August 2020. In response, two (2) unique submissions were received.

3.      The subject site is not listed as a heritage item and is not located within a heritage conservation area under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

4.      The application has been referred to the Cumberland Design Excellence Review Panel for consideration and conditions have been provided in respect of the proposed development.

5.      Variations to the ADG and ADCP 2010 are as follows:

 

6.      The application is referred to the Panel as it relates to a development to which SEPP 65 applies.

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

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site is known as 22 to 24 Park Road, Auburn and is legally described as Lot 17 and 18 in DP 982836. The site comprises of two regular shaped allotments with a frontage of 24.38m and an average side depth of 50.29m resulting in a total site area of 1226m2.

The site is located within the Auburn Town Centre on land zoned B4 Mixed Use. The site currently accommodates two single storey residential buildings and other ancillary structures at the rear. The site is also significantly landscaped containing a number of trees within the site including two street trees.

The locality is dominated by a mixture of land uses including:

·        Single detached dwelling houses as well as a recently constructed 12 storey mixed use development to the south, at 15 Mary Street;

·        Three storey residential flat building with basement parking at 16 to 20 Park Road to the north,

·        Two and three storey residential flat buildings at 7 to 9 and 11 Harrow Road to the east, and

·        A catholic school known as Trinity Catholic College is located directly opposite of Park Road to the west.

The site is also located in proximity to a heritage item (I17) nearby known as 24 Mary Street being the former Lea’s Temperance Hall.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

Number 22 and 24 Park Road Auburn

The Residential Flat Building at 16 to 20 Park Road to the Immediate North

Lots to the Immediate South Facing Mary Street

The Trinity Catholic College on the Western Side of Park Road, Directly Opposite Subject Site.

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of an 11-storey mixed use development comprising 10 levels of residential apartment units, ground floor retail/commercial tenancies and ground floor & basement car parking.

A detailed breakdown of the development is as follows:

·        Construction of 80 (to be revised down to 79) residential apartments at levels 1 to 10 comprising of the following unit mix:

-        1 x studio

-        9 x 1 bedroom units

-        59 x 2 bedroom units and

-        10 x 3 bedroom units

·        Construction of 105 square metres of commercial floor space at ground level

·        Construction of 3 basement level parking including parking at grade, comprising of:

-        A total of 108 car parking spaces including disabled, visitor and commercial,

-        16 bicycle parking spaces within basement level 1 and on ground floor,

-        Associated lift services, stairs wells, residential storage space, plant rooms and garbage rooms for residential and commercial provided at grade.

·        Provision of a Communal Open Space Areas at level 1.

·        Demolition, site and infrastructure works, stormwater drainage and associated landscaping works.

History

DA340/2015 was determined by the Cumberland Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel on the 17 June 2016 by way of a deferred commencement approval for the demolition of the existing structures, tree removal and construction of an 11 storey mixed use development comprising ground floor commercial/retail tenancies and 80 residential apartments above with a three level basement car park for 106 vehicles.

It was noted that the applicant had failed to satisfy the terms of the deferred commencement conditions for compliance under Schedule A which consequently led to the expiry and lapsing of the consent DA340/2015.

Subsequent to a series of meetings held with Council officers, the current application is lodged with Council seeking approval for a similar development comprising of the demolition and construction of a mixed-use development, initially comprising of 80 residential apartments and ground floor commercial tenancies over 3 levels of basement parking.

The subject application and development proposal was referred to the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel for consideration on the 16 September 2020. The advice and recommendation provided by the Panel on the 6 October 2020 raised the following concerns:

1.      Although the proposal, generally, complies with height and floor space controls the building form compromises the amenity of the units and their occupants leading to our conclusion that, under the circumstances of the site, the property is an overdevelopment;

2.      The proposal does not meet the minimum requirements for solar access and cross ventilation required in the ADG of SEPP65. This, largely, due to the intrusive impact of the units bridging between the east and west towers;

3.      The presentation to Park Road, at street level, is compromised by the dominance of the driveway, open passageway to a concealed entry lobby, substation and booster valves. The effect is that the extent of activated frontage has been reduced to a minimum;

4.      There is no clear address or point of arrival for the residential lobby. The concealed entry will have a detrimental impact on the security of residents and visitors to the apartments; and

5.      The quality of the Communal Open Spaces is compromised by their convoluted access, location, lack of amenity and utility and conflict with the amenity of the Private Open Space of adjacent units.

Additional information was requested from the applicant on the 13 October 2020 to address the concerns raised by the panel including other planning issues raised by Council officers relating to provision of a waste garbage chute at all levels and demonstrated compliance with visual privacy, apartment sizes, balconies and storage requirements. The requested information was submitted to Council on 14 December 2020 which was then subsequently referred back to the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel for review on the 16 February 2021.

Consequently, recommended conditions were provided by the Panel on the 18 February 2021 indicating that the proposal could be made satisfactory, subject to design changes which is recommended to form part of the conditions of consent. Notable design changes recommended by the panel include:

Condition 1:    Due to the visible prominence of the ramp and driveway to the carpark, they are to be detailed and finished to a higher standard than, generally, found in commercial or residential developments and are to include planting at either side of the entry to mitigate the proportional width relative to the overall width of the property and its proximity to the main point of pedestrian entry to the building lobby;

Condition 2:     The entry doors to the building lobby are to be brought forward to within 3m of the property boundary, toward the footpath, to mitigate the length of ramp and potential risk to the ‘passive safety’ of residents and visitors to the property;

Condition 3:    The frontage of the commercial space is to be setback 2m to allow a ‘street activated’ space parallel to the footpath that can be used for commercial purposes related to the commercial tenancy such as outdoor dining or display;

Condition 4:    The pergola in front of Unit A1.06 is to be relocated to ensure the aural privacy of the occupants;

Condition 5:     Unit A1.05 is to be deleted to allow an open under croft space at Level 1 to: -

a.    allow expansion of Communal Open Space to eliminate the shortfall currently provided;

b.    enable unfettered reticulation of air through both north and south light wells;

c.    improve visual connection between the hallway containing the Lift Lobby area and the eastern Communal Open Space;

d.    provide continuous open space from north to south at Level 1.

Condition 6:    Provide details of the prefinished concrete panels proposed for the walls on the north and south boundaries of the property.

Comment:        In relation to condition 1, it is noted that whilst the Panel recommends planting to be provided at either side of the entry ramp/driveway, Council is concerned that any proposed planting adjacent to the entry ramp/driveway would result in a non-complying ramp width. As such, Council recommends that the latter part of the condition requesting for planting, be deleted and amended to read “… ramp and driveway to the carpark are to be detailed and finished to a higher standard than generally found in commercial or residential developments.”

Additionally, as a result of condition 5, it is noted that the total number of apartments for the development will be revised from 80 to 79 apartments.

Having regard to the above recommendations from the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel, the proposal is therefore considered to be satisfactory.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd dated 20 July and was received by Council on 17 June 2020 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

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

Building Surveyor

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

Environment and Health

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

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

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment. The advice provided indicated that subject to the provision of a waste garbage chute system, the development proposal could be made acceptable. Consequently, the additional information submitted on the 14 December 2020 provided a redesign of the internal residential levels which incorporated a garbage waste disposal chute at every residential level demonstrating compliance. The development proposal is now considered satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

External Referrals

·        NSW Police

The development application was referred to Flemington Police Command mainly for review of the ground floor area to ensure that it is appropriately designed to reduce the incidence of crime. Officers from Flemington Police Command responded on 19 August 2020 who have provided comments in relation to business identification, lighting, closed circuit television cameras, signage, landscaping, external design features, fire safety, renovations and overcrowding. A number of conditions are provided where appropriate to address the recommendations made by Flemington Police Command.

 

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 Policies:

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

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

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

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

The proposal is generally compliant with the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, with the exception of communal open space, building separation distances and deep soil zone. These variations are discussed below:

Parking requirements (3J – ADG)

Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, the proposal is generally considered compliant and therefore performs satisfactorily with respect to the provisions of the NCC, landscape amenity and external and internal visual privacy.

A comprehensive assessment against SEPP 65 and the ADG is contained in Attachment 8.

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application and no significant issues or inconsistencies are noted regarding the proposed development. Appropriate conditions are to be included as part of consent in relation to appropriate approvals and clearance to be obtained from the relevant service authority regarding the specific design requirements for the provision of a substation.

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

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

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

A BASIX Report has been submitted with the application which demonstrates that the development has been designed to achieve the required water, thermal comfort and energy scores.

(f)      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).

 

(g)     Auburn Local Environmental Plan

The provision of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves full compliance with the key statutory requirements of the ALEP 2010 and the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use land use zone.

Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a ‘shop top housing’ which is permissible in the B4 land use zone with consent.

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

The relevant matters to be considered under ALEP 2010 for the proposed development are detailed below. A comprehensive ALEP 2010 assessment and compliance table is contained in Attachment 9.

 

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 (Draft CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan (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 Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP, except for the building height limit which is expected to increase from 38m to 60m. The proposed development is consistent with the relevant provisions of the draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan.

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

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

A comprehensive ADCP 2010 assessment and compliance table is contained in Attachment 9.

Local Centres & Residential Flat Buildings chapter

The proposed development is considered to perform satisfactory with respect to the Local centres section of the ADCP 2010. In relation to the Residential Flat Buildings section of the ADCP 2010, whilst some non-compliances are noted specifically with regard to the required building setbacks and separation distances, a variation is considered acceptable as a result of the prevailing requirements established by the ADG and SEPP 65.

The development also relates to a mixed use component with commercial/retail at ground level and residential above. As such, the desired landscaping controls with respect to deep soil areas, site coverage and landscaped communal open spaces are onerous to achieve in a commercial/urban context given the need for basement levels to accommodate parking demand on site. Notwithstanding, the development provides for a satisfactory level of residential amenity in terms of solar access and ventilation, apartment sizes, communal and private open space areas.

In this regard, the development proposed is therefore acceptable. The variations sought which relate primarily to site coverage and deep soil requirements under the Residential Flat Buildings section of the ADCP 2010 are considered satisfactory on merit in this instance:

Parking and Loading chapter

The Parking and Loading section of the ADCP 2010 under Table 6A of section 5.1.5, provides the following parking rates that apply to areas zoned B4 for the residential and commercial components:

Based on the residential parking rates provided in Table 6A above, the development requires the following minimum and maximum car spaces to be accommodated within the site:

 

Minimum car spaces:

10 x Studio/1 Bedroom @ rate of 1.0 = 10

59 x 2 Bedroom @ rate of 1.2 =          70.8 (rounded up 71)

10 x 3 Bedroom @ rate of 1.5 =          15

Visitors @ rate of 51 – 100 units = 8

Total minimum required for development = 104 spaces

 

Maximum car spaces:

10 x Studio/1 Bedroom @ rate of 1.0 = 10

59 x 2 Bedroom @ rate of 3.0 =          177

10 x 3 Bedroom @ rate of 4.0 =          40

Visitors @ rate of 51 – 100 units = 25

Total minimum required for development = 252 spaces

It should also be noted that the development proposal is consistent with the prevailing parking rates established by the RMS sub-metro parking controls which requires only a minimum of 90 car spaces; inclusive of visitor spaces. In this instance, the proposed development which provides a total of 105 car spaces for the residential component (in excess of the required prevailing parking rates established by RMS) achieves the minimum required number of parking under the ADCP 2010 and is therefore satisfactory.

In relation to the commercial component where a minimum of 1 space/60sqm and a maximum 4 spaces/40sqm is required for the development, the proposed area of commercial floor space at 105m2/60m2 = 1.75 requires a minimum of 2 commercial car spaces whilst at 105m2/40m2 = 2.625 x 4 = 10.5 requires a maximum of 11 commercial car spaces. The proposed development provides a total of 3 commercial car spaces at grade towards the rear of the site, albeit one space is in the form of a tandem/stacked space which satisfies the minimum parking required for the commercial component.

In this regard, given that the development provides a total of 108 car spaces within the ground and basement levels, the proposal satisfies the numerical parking requirements of Table 6A of the Parking and Loading section of the ADCP 2010.

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 Auburn DCP 2010, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 13 August 2020 and 27 August 2020. The notification generated two (2) submissions in respect of the proposal with nil submissions disclosing a political donation or gift. 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

This part of the Act relates to the collection of monetary contributions from applicants for use in developing key local infrastructure. The Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2020 (the Contributions Plan) is applicable to the development.

In accordance with Section 4.4 of the Contributions Plan, Council can only apply either a Section 7.11 (calculated on dwelling yield) or Section 7.12 (calculated on cost of works) to a mixed development application, not both. The applicable contribution is whichever generates the greater amount.

Council’s Contributions Officer has calculated that the applicable contribution is Section 7.11, which is calculated based on the residential dwelling yield:

·        1 bedroom/studio  10 dwellings

·        2 bedroom              59 dwellings

·        3 bedroom              10 dwellings

As at 16 March 2021, the total contribution fee payable is $1,235,454.00. This figure is subject to indexation as per the Contributions Plan.

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 55, SEPP65, ISEPP, BASIX SEPP, SREP 2005, ALEP 2010, Draft CLEP and ADCP 2010.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the B4 Mixed Use land use zone pursuant to the ALEP 2010. Variations are sought from the provisions of the ADG as they relate to communal open space, building separation distances, and deep soil zone. Variations are also sought under the ADCP 2010, in relation to site coverage and provision of deep soil zones.

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 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the development may be approved subject to deferred commencement conditions.

 

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans including Shadow Diagrams  

3.      Previous Approved (Lapsed Plans)  

4.      Landscape Plans  

5.      Stormwater and Engineering Plans  

6.      Cumberland Design Excellence Panel Minutes  

7.      Submissions Received  

8.      ADG Compliance Table  

9.      ALEP 2010 and DCP 2010 Compliance Table   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 14 April 2021

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans including Shadow Diagrams

 14 April 2021

Attachment 3

Previous Approved (Lapsed Plans)

 14 April 2021

Attachment 4

Landscape Plans

 14 April 2021

Attachment 5

Stormwater and Engineering Plans

 14 April 2021

Attachment 6

Cumberland Design Excellence Panel Minutes

 14 April 2021

Attachment 7

Submissions Received

 14 April 2021

Attachment 8

ADG Compliance Table

 14 April 2021

Attachment 9

ALEP 2010 and DCP 2010 Compliance Table

 14 April 2021

 14 April 2021

 

Item No: LPP011/21

Development Application for 92 Hampden Road, South Wentworthville

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2021/0064  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2021/0064 was received on 8 February 2021 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey detached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision into two (2) lots.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 19 February 2021 and 5 March 2021. In response, no submission were received.

3.      The variation is as follows:

 

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

5.      The application has been referred to the Panel for determination as the proposal development has been identified as a being a ‘conflict of interest’ as identified within Schedule 2, Condition 1 of the Local Planning Panels Direction.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site forms Lot 12 Sec 3 DP 1237763 and is known as 92 Hampden Road SOUTH WENTWORTHVILLE NSW 2145. The site is a corner allotment and has an area of 602.4m2 and a frontage to Hampden Road of 15.04m and side frontage to Northcott Street of 30.49m. The site has a fall of approximately 01.32m from southern boundary to northern boundary.

A site inspection of the premises carried out on 5 March 2021, which confirmed that the site contains a single storey clad dwelling with three (3) trees located within the front setback of the allotment and one (1) street tree. The proposal also seeks approval for removal of a street tree and two (2) trees within the allotment, one (1) tree is to be retained.

The existing developments adjoining the site include various single and two storey developments. The site is located on the eastern side of Hampden Road and northern side of Northcott Street and is bounded by Chelmsford Road to the east.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site 92 Hampden Road, South Wentworthville, 2145

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site 92 Hampden Road, South Wentworthville, 2145

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

Description of the Proposed Development

Council is in receipt of a Development Application seeking consent for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a detached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision into two (2) lots. The proposed works are specifically outlined below:

Note: For the purpose of this report, Unit/Dwelling 1 is the dwelling located adjacent to the side western boundary and Unit/Dwelling 2 is the dwelling located adjacent to the side eastern boundary.

Demolition

·        Demolition of an existing single storey clad dwelling, detached freestanding fibro garage, ancillary structures and the removal of three (3) trees.

Construction of a detached Dual Occupancy

Unit/Dwelling 1

Ground Floor:

·        Porch attached to front facade, garage, entry, access stairs, kitchen, living/dining, study, terrace attached to side and rear facade, bathroom and a laundry.

First Floor:

·        Four (4) bedrooms (master bedroom with walk in robe and ensuite), bathroom, toilet, access stairs, balcony attached to the front façade with access from the master bedroom and balcony attached to the front façade with access from bedroom 3 and 4.

 

Unit/Dwelling 2

Ground Floor:

·        Porch attached to front facade, garage, entry, access stairs, kitchen, living/dining, terrace attached to rear facade, bathroom and a laundry.

First Floor:

·        Four (4) bedrooms (master bedroom with walk in robe and ensuite), bathroom, access stairs, balcony attached to the front façade with access from the master bedroom and balcony attached to the front façade with access from bedroom 2.

History

N/A – Council’s database and internal mapping system identified that the site has been predominately used as a dwelling house for a significant period.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Dvyne Design dated January 2021 and was received by Council on 15 February 2021 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 referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment. The application was deemed satisfactory and supported with conditions on consent.

External Referrals

 

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

PLANNING COMMENTS

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

 

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

 

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

N/A – No bushland zoned or reserved for public open space is affected.

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

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

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

The trigger for BASIX Certification is when the estimated cost of works for residential development (new dwelling(s)/alterations and additions) is equal to or above $50,000. BASIX Certification is also triggered when proposing a swimming pool with a volume of 40,000 litres.

The estimated cost of development proposed is $908,200, and two (2) individual BASIX Certificates have been prepared by Dvyne Design, dated 27/11/2020, certificate numbers 1159143S (Dwelling 1) and 1159191S (Dwelling 2), has been submitted with the Development Application satisfying the minimum requirements of SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

Yes - The site is located within the area within the Sydney Harbour Catchment and SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 is applicable to the development application. The development application raises no issues as it is consistent with the requirements and objectives of the associated controls.

(f)      Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

N/A All stormwater from the proposed development can be treated in accordance existing provisions of the existing dwelling. 

Local Environmental Plans

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

The provision of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the objectives of the R2- Low Density Residential zone.

(a)     Permissibility: -

The proposed development is defined as a ‘residential’ and is permissible in the R2 land zone with consent. The proposed development is seeking approval for a ‘dual occupancy (detached)’. The definition has been identified below;

Dual occupancy (detached) means two (2) means 2 detached dwellings on one lot of land, but does not include a secondary dwelling.

The relevant matters to be considered under Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.

Figure 4 –Holroyd LEP 2013 Compliance Table

 

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 (Draft CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan (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 proposed development is not affected by any relevant Draft Environmental Planning Instruments.

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

The Holroyd DCP provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives for the desired future character of the area.

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

The following table highlights the non-compliance with the DCP, which relate primarily to articulation and the variation sought is considered satisfactory on merit in this instance:

Figure 5 – Holroyd DCP 2013 Compliance Table

 

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from the articulation provisions of the Holroyd DCP.

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

3.8 Building Appearance

The maximum length of walls along the first-floor side boundaries shall be 10m without any indentations, offsets or other articulation features.

The site is identified to be irregular in shape and bounded by narrow frontage and splayed side setbacks. The proposed building provides a two (2) storey unarticulated wall length on both the northern and southern sides, being 12m, being a variation of 20%.

The proposed first floor of the new dwelling, although not numerically compliant, are not visible from the street. The impact of the non-articulated walls is considered to be of minimal environmental impact and has been articulated with windows/openings, materials, colours and finishes. In addition, the proposed works are considered to satisfy the objectives by proposing works that are in scale with the allotment size and the immediate surrounding dwellings, provides opportunities for modulation, which are not inconsistent with dwellings in the immediate surrounding environment.

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 are 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 Holroyd DCP, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 19 February 2021 and 5 March 2021. No submissions were received in respect of the proposed development.

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

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

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 Contributions Plan, a contribution is payable, pursuant to Section 7.11 of the EP&A Act, calculated on the cost of works. A total contribution of $20,000.00 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, State Environmental Planning Policies, Holroyd LEP and Holroyd DCP and is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R2 – Low Density Residential under the relevant provisions of the Holroyd LEP. The proposal is consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development.

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

 

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Landscape Plan  

4.      Appendix A - DCP Compliance Table   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 14 April 2021

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 14 April 2021

Attachment 3

Landscape Plan

 14 April 2021

Attachment 4

Appendix A - DCP Compliance Table

 14 April 2021

 14 April 2021

 

Item No: LPP012/21

Development Application for 6-10 Manchester Street, Merrylands

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0594  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2020/0594 was received on 9 October 2020 for the construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building comprising 33 units over basement car parking 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 21 days between 11 November 2020 and 2 December 2020. In response, 2 unique submissions were received.

3.      The assessment of the application identified issues including building separation, height of building, gross floor area, remedial action plan, stormwater, traffic and parking and as such the application was deferred seeking additional information on 23 December 2020.  Amended plans and documentation were received on 27 January 2021 and 18 March 2021. The design refinements resulted in the reduction of overall building height. The amended plans did not warrant re-notification as they are submitted to address issues raised by Council.

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

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

 

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

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

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 6, 8 and 10 Manchester Street, Merrylands, and is legally described as Lots 82, 83 and 84, Sec 1 in DP 5714. The site is located on the southern side of Manchester Street within the R4 High Density Residential zone.

The site comprises of three (3) lots comprising a combined frontage of 45.72 metres to Manchester Street with a total site area of 1839m². The site is currently a vacant land and being used for truck storage. The site has a gentle slope of approximately 1.69m from western boundary to the eastern boundary.

Existing developments adjoining the site are three to four storey older-style walk-up flats. The adjoining development to the east at 2 – 4 Manchester Street and 1 Sheffield Street was approved under DA 2017/380/1 for consolidation of 3 lots into 1 lot; demolition of existing structures and construction of 1 x 4 storey (Block B) and 1 x 5 storey (Block A) residential flat buildings with rooftop terrace (Block A) comprising 29 units over 1 level of basement parking accommodating 33 car parking spaces pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing).  No construction works have yet commenced. Further to the north east, a vacant lot at 153 Pitt Street situated on the corner of Manchester Street has been approved with a deferred commencement consent by Cumberland Local Planning Panel on 11 July 2018 for a 4 storey residential flat building with basement parking and rooftop common terrace (DA 2017/191). The adjoining development to the south (7-9 Sheffield Street) comprises of 3 storey older- style residential flat building.

The subject site is also located within close proximity of the Merrylands Centre. Merrylands Railway Station and Stockland Merrylands Shopping Centre are located further south within 400 metres radius of the site. Holroyd Gardens Park is situated to the eastern side of the site along Pitt Street.

Figure 1 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 2 – Locality Plan of subject site

 

Figure 3, 4 & 5 – Subject Site

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building comprising 33 units over basement car parking pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

The dwelling mix of the proposal is as follows:

-     5 x 1 Bed Unit (15.2%);

-     18 x 2 Bed Unit (54.5%);

-     10 x 3 Bed Unit (30.3%).

The following units are subject to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009:

o 18 units made of the following:

-     G.F = Units 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 = 573.75m².

-     F.F = Units 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 and 207 = 613.63m².

-     Second Floor = Units 302 and 303 = 174.31m².

-     Third Floor = Units 402 and 403 = 174.31m².

o Total ARH GFA = 1536m².

Figure 6- Photomontage

History

DA 2005/686 for demolition of existing structures and erection of a three storey residential flat building above basement parking containing 18 units was approved on 13 March 2006. Demolition works were completed; however, no construction works have commenced on site. Accordingly, a condition regarding voluntary surrender of this consent shall be imposed.

Applicants Supporting Statement

 

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects dated 19 July 2019 and Clause 4.6 Variation (amended) dated 18 March 2021, both prepared by Think Planners; and Design Verification Statement, Reference 08601, dated June 2019 prepared by a registered architect Ian Conry – Zhinar Architects in support of the application. 

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory having regard to stormwater management and parking provision, and the proposal can therefore be supported, subject to the recommended conditions included in the draft notice of determination. 

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory in terms of the proposed waste collection, and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent, which have been included in the draft notice of determination. 

Tree Management Officer

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

Environmental Health Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regard to acoustic assessment, noise attenuation measure, soil assessment, and site contamination, subject to conditions, should consent be granted.

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

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

Transgrid

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

PLANNING COMMENTS

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

Following is an assessment of the development against the provisions of Clause 16A (Character of the local area).

16A Character of local area

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

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

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

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

·        Step 1 – Identify the ‘local area’.

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

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

An assessment against each step is provided below:

Step 1 – Identify the local area

This assessment identifies the local area as primarily the visual catchment of the site (outlined in black) as viewed from within the site and directly adjacent to the site on the street which is defined by the thick black line in the figure below:

Figure 7 – Local Area catchment

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

The zoning of the broader locality and immediate area comprises R4 High Density Residential, B4 Mixed Use and RE1 Public Recreation under the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013.

Present Character of the area

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

1.      Holroyd Gardens along the eastern side of Pitt Street;

2.      Existing 2 – 3 storey walk up flats facing Pitt Street bounded by Sheffield Street to the south and Manchester Street to the north;

3.      Single storey commercial premises with large expanse of concrete area for at grade parking in the corner of Pitt Street and Sheffield Street;

4.      Even numbered lots on the southern side of Manchester Street comprising a mixture of 3 – 4 storey walk up flats, vacant lot on the subject site and existing single storey dwelling houses on the adjoining eastern site 2 – 4 Manchester Street and 1 Sheffield Street that has been approved for consolidation of 3 lots into 1 lot; demolition of existing structures and construction of 1 x 4 storey (Block B) and 1 x 5 storey (Block A) residential flat buildings with rooftop terrace (Block A) comprising 29 units over 1 level of basement parking accommodating 33 car parking spaces;

5.      Odd numbered lots on the northern side of Manchester Street comprising a mixture of 2 storey townhouses, 2 - 3 storey walk up flats, a single storey dwelling house and a vacant lot on the corner of Pitt Street that has been approved recently for a 4 storey residential flat building with basement parking and rooftop common terrace.

Figure 8: Existing Streetscape

 

Future character of the area

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

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

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

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

The height, FSR and landscaping of the proposed development are designed to maintain the harmony within the streetscape, whilst contributing to the site context and constraint. The height of building breaches the 15m height limit requirement for the lift core as discussed later in the report.  However, the development does not pose any unreasonable overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties.  The proposal being a permissible land use, meets the FSR requirement (in accordance with ARH SEPP, subject to the imposition of conditions) and contributes to the provision of affordable housing within the close proximity of a public transport hub and major commercial centre. Appropriate setbacks for the rooftop communal open spaces and privacy treatments are provided to minimise any adverse impacts to the adjoining properties. Nonetheless, the proposed development is similar to the newer residential flat buildings being approved on the adjoining eastern property 2-4 Manchester Street and 1 Sheffield Street and other developments in the vicinity. The provision of rooftop communal open space will allow better enjoyment of area with direct solar access at the northerly orientation. Whilst the development will result in some overshadowing to the adjoining 3 storey residential flat development on the southern side (9 Sheffield Street), the impacts are not considered unreasonable given this is a function of the allotment orientation and R4 context. The overall design represents the form of development that is envisaged under the planning controls. Refer to further discussion under DCP section of the report.

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

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

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

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

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

A comprehensive assessment against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls is provided at Attachment 3.

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

 

(c)     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.

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

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

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

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment, who raised no objections, subject to conditions, which have included within the draft notice of determination.

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

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

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

The proposal includes removal of some existing trees within the subject site. However, this does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable. Please refer to the HDCP 2013 compliance table at Attachment 5 for further comment regarding the proposed tree removal.

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

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

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

BASIX certificate 989372M_02 dated 21 January 2021 was submitted with the application. The certificate achieves target scores and is consistent with the architectural plans.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

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

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

“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 are a type of residential accommodation—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.”

The relevant matters to be considered under Holroyd LEP 2013 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Attachment 4.

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 compliance table

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

Height of Buildings

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

The proposed building has an overall height of 18.67m to the roof of the lift core, 17.12m to top of rooftop toilet, 17.38m to top of pergola roof canopy and 17.28m to top of stairs.

Figure 8 & 9- Elevation and 3D height plane showing the extent of height variation

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

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

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

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

Applicant’s justification:

-        The proposal provides for housing needs of the community and contributes to a variety of housing forms within a high-density urban centre context.

-        The development site is in close proximity to public transport and existing facilities. The design concept recognises the key site attributes and provides for an attractive built form that relates to the existing and future site context.

Planner’s comment:

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

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

Applicant’s justification:

-        The proposal will provide a high quality urban form that relates well to the context of the site in terms of the natural topography and adjoining developments;

-        It is noted that there is a minor variation to the building height control with a portion of the building encroaches the prescribed height control. The non-compliance stems from the provision of 18 affordable dwellings that allows the development to exceed the FSR of 1.2:1 for the site contained in HLEP 2013.

-        Council’s building envelope controls of height, FSR and setbacks are designed to accommodate a residential flat building with an FSR of 1.2:1. This development has an allowable FSR of 1.69:1 under the ARH SEPP and the additional floor space can only be appropriately accommodated by breaching the building envelope controls.

-        The overall height of the development presents as a compatible form of development with the fifth storey recessed to downplay visual dominance as viewed from the public domain and adjoining properties.

-        The proposal has been designed to comply with the maximum permitted FSR on the site and also complies with key controls pertaining to, open space, and car parking which indicates an appropriate scale of development on the site;

-        The extent of overshadowing is satisfactory as shown on the shadow diagrams and the privacy impacts arising from the additional height control are negligible when having regard to the design of the built form which focuses the 5th storey living rooms and balconies over the street frontages.

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

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

Planner’s comment:

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

The departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. The additional height does not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape and would not impinge on the changing streetscape that is anticipated for the immediate area. Given that the proposed development responds to the site and does so without compromising relationships with adjoining development, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of height requirements and development within the R4 zone.

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

Applicant’s justification:

Strict compliance with the prescriptive height requirement is unreasonable and unnecessary in the context of the proposal and its particular circumstances. The proposed development meets the underlying intent of the control and is a compatible form of development that does not result in unreasonable environmental amenity impacts.

Planner’s comment:

Council officers are satisfied that the proposed variation has been appropriately justified and can be supported in this instance. The height breach is limited to an overall building height of 18.67m (RL 39.450) for the top of the lift core. The additional height of the lift core will not be visible from the adjacent streets and properties. The proposed variation to the development standard is necessary for the structure containing the lift core and the site being subject to flooding which requires an elevated ground floor plate. The departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. The additional height does not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape, would not impinge on the changing streetscape that is anticipated for the immediate area and does not result in additional overshadowing to the adjoining properties. It is considered, therefore, that the non-compliance with the Development Standard is not unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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 (Draft CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan (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 relevant planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the Holroyd Local Environment Plan, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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

The Holroyd DCP 2013 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the DCP. A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Attachment 5. 

The proposed development generally complies with the provisions of Holroyd DCP 2013 with the exception of the following matters which are outlined in the table 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))

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 Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days between 11 November 2020 and 2 December 2020. The notification generated 2 unique submissions in respect of the proposal. 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 as follows:

In accordance with the Contributions Plan a contribution is payable, pursuant to Section 7.11 of the EP&A Act, calculated on the cost of works. A total contribution of $531,689.00 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 Application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory. However, variation in relation to the building height 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 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory subject to deferred commencement conditions.

 

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 Compliance Table  

3.      Apartment Design Guide Compliance Table  

4.      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan Compliance Table  

5.      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

6.      Architectural Plans  

7.      Landscape Plan  

8.      Clause 4.6 Variation Height  

9.      Locality Map  

10.    Submissions x 2   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 14 April 2021

Attachment 2

State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 Compliance Table

 14 April 2021

Attachment 3

Apartment Design Guide Compliance Table

 14 April 2021

Attachment 4

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan Compliance Table

 14 April 2021

Attachment 5

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 14 April 2021

Attachment 6

Architectural Plans

 14 April 2021

Attachment 7

Landscape Plan

 14 April 2021

Attachment 8

Clause 4.6 Variation Height

 14 April 2021

Attachment 9

Locality Map

 14 April 2021

Attachment 10

Submissions x 2

 14 April 2021